Oliver and Roselyn were born before their parents got married.

A few years later, their parents married and executed affidavits stating that the children had been legitimated by their subsequent marriage. Their birth certificates were annotated accordingly, and the siblings began using their father’s surname.

Years later, they discovered that their father had already been married to another woman long before marrying their mother.

That meant their parents’ later marriage was allegedly bigamous, and because their father was legally disqualified from marrying their mother when they were conceived, the law did not allow them to be legitimated by that subsequent marriage.

The siblings then filed a petition asking the court to correct their birth certificates. They wanted the annotation stating that they had been legitimated removed.

Instead, they asked that their father’s later acknowledgment of paternity be recorded so they could continue using his surname as acknowledged illegitimate children. Could the correction be made?

No, it cannot be made. The Court explained that the petition was not merely asking the court to correct clerical entries. To remove the annotation of legitimation, the court would first have to determine that the parents’ marriage was void and that the children’s legitimation was ineffective.

Those are substantial issues involving the validity of a marriage and the status of children. According to the Court, they cannot be resolved indirectly through a petition for correction of entries under Rule 108.

The Court emphasized that a Rule 108 petition is not a substitute for a direct action questioning the validity of a marriage or the legitimacy or legitimation of children. Allowing otherwise would permit parties to circumvent the safeguards established by the Family Code for resolving such issues.

The Supreme Court likewise held that the siblings themselves were not the proper parties to challenge their own legitimation. Under Article 182 of the Family Code, legitimation may be impugned only by persons whose rights are prejudiced by it, such as heirs whose inheritance rights may be adversely affected.

The children themselves could not claim to be prejudiced by acquiring the rights of legitimate children. On the contrary, legitimation improved their legal status and expanded their rights.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court ruled that the siblings could not use a Rule 108 proceeding to remove the annotation of legitimation from their birth certificates. Questions involving the validity of their parents’ marriage and the legality of their legitimation must first be resolved in the proper direct proceeding before any corresponding corrections may be made in the civil registry.

Republic v. Boquiren. G.R. No. 250199, February 13, 2023.