The Supreme Court (SC) has reminded parents to state the true and accurate information required in the registration of the birth certificates of their children to avoid prolonged and expensive court litigations in the correction of entries and change of name that may be sought later by their grown-up children.

A legitimate child, who is born to legally married parents, is entitled to use the surname of the father by operation of Article 174 of the Family Code which grants legitimate children the right to bear their father's surname as a matter of course, the SC said.

Thus, the SC pointed out that the mother or the father cannot make declarations against the legitimacy of their children in the registration of their birth certificates because such declarations cannot defeat the presumption of legitimacy.

The ruling was contained in a decision made public last July 24 and written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao.

It granted the petition filed by Pat (whose real name was not identified by Manila Bulletin to protect her privacy) and reversed the 2023 decision issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the 2021 ruling of the regional trial court (RTC).

Case records show that Pat was born in January 1996 to spouses Tony and Tes (also not their real names) who were legally married in 1994.

Pat was registered by her mother under her (the mother’s) maiden’s surname and not under the surname of the father. The mother also indicated Pat’s middle name as her middle name when she was still single.

Since the mother and the father were not in cordial terms at the time Pat’s birth certificate was registered, the mother did not state in the registration their marriage and the date it was solemnized, and the name of the father. Later, the parents reconciled.

Pat grew up using the surname of her father in school and work records, including her identification card from the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC).

In 2017, Pat discovered that the surname in her birth certificate was the surname of her mother and her middle name was the middle name of her mother when she was still unmarried.

In 2018, Pat filed a petition for correction of entries in the birth certificate and change of name under Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court.

She impleaded the local civil registrar, the Philippine Statistics Authority, the Civil Registrar General, and her parents in the petition filed before the RTC.

There was no opposition to the petition when it was published and when notices were sent to those impleaded in the case.

Pat presented before the RTC the certificate of live birth, marriage certificate of her parents Tony and Tes, certification by the civil registrar of the marriage, records of the school, community tax certificate, barangay clearance, and PRC identification card.

However, in March 2021 the RTC dismissed Pat’s petition for insufficiency of evidence. The trial court ruled that the fact that a marriage was solemnized between Pat's parents did not, by itself, suffice to establish her legitimacy as Tony’s child since neither her birth certificate nor any other supporting document identified Tony as her father.

Pat appealed before the CA which dismissed her appeal in April 2023. The CA ruled that Pat sought substantial changes in her birth certificate which, if granted, would result in her becoming a legitimate child of her supposed father, Tony.

Thus, the CA ruled that the totality of the evidence Patricia presented was insufficient to cause the changes requested, as she failed to overcome the presumption of truth contained in her birth certificate.

Pat elevated the case before the SC.

In granting Pat’s petition and reversing the CA’s ruling, the SC declared that the pieces of evidence she presented “collectively demonstrate her identity and the factual accuracy of the corrections sought.”

The SC said: “It bears to emphasize that the corrections sought do not create a new civil status but merely cause the civil register to reflect the true and legally presumed status of Pat as a legitimate child born during her parents' marriage. Simply stated, the changes will not create legitimacy but merely reflect a legitimacy that already exists under the law.”

Thus, the SC ruled that Pat is entitled to use the surname of her father and “is entitled to have her birth certificate corrected to reflect her real surname and the fact of her parents' marriage.”

The local civil registrar was ordered to correct Pat’s birth certificate to indicate her correct surname (the surname of her father), her middle name (the surname of her mother prior to the marriage), and the place and date of the parents’ marriage.