Republic of the Philippines Vs. Charlie Mintas Felix a.k.a. Shirley Mintas Felix G.R. No. 203371. June 30, 2020

Republic of the Philippines Vs. Charlie Mintas Felix a.k.a. Shirley Mintas Felix G.R. No. 203371. June 30, 2020

Lazaro-Javier

https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/13783/

Separate Opinion: Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa

Separate Concurring Opinion: Justice Mario V. Lopez

Issues
First. Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error when it rejected the Republic's challenge against the trial court's jurisdiction to direct the LCR-Carranglan, Nueva Ecija to cancel respondent's second birth certificate as a consequence of its order to correct respondent's first birth certificate?

Second. Did Republic Act No. 9048 (RA 9048) as amended by Republic Act No. 10172 (RA 10172) divest the regional trial courts of jurisdiction over petitions for correction of entries in the civil registry?

To file two (2) separate petitions, one for correction of entries in his first birth certificate with the LCR-Itogon, Benguet and two, for cancellation of his second birth certificate with LCR-Carranglan, Nueva Ecija --- will certainly violate the rule against multiplicity of suits.

More important, a petition for correction is an action in rem. A decision therein binds not only the parties themselves but the whole world, as well. An in rem proceeding entails publication as a jurisdictional requirement--- to give notice to and bring the whole world as a party into the case

RA 9048, as amended does not divest the regional trial courts of jurisdiction over petitions for correction of entries in the civil registry.

Had RA 10172 taken effect on or before he initiated his petition, he could have resorted to the administrative process under these twin laws just for the purpose of correcting all at once the three (3) entries in his birth certificate.

He could have then saved a substantial amount of time and expense which precisely what RA Nos. 9048 and 10172 seek to accomplish, among others.

But then again, respondent's petition came before RA 10172 took effect, this time allowing correction of erroneous entries pertaining to one's biological sex.

Thus, a person may now change his or her first name or correct clerical errors in his or her name through administrative proceedings. Rules 103 and 108 only apply if the administrative petition has been filed and later denied.

Failure to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not affect the jurisdiction of the court.

The only effect of non-compliance with this rule is that it will deprive the complainant of a cause of action, which is a ground for a motion to dismiss. If not invoked at the proper time, this ground is deemed waived and the court can then take cognizance of the case and try it.

Decisions
Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED. The Decision dated April 23, 2012 and Resolution dated August 30, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 94253 are AFFIRMED.