G.R. No. 234251 , June 30, 2020
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, v. Salome C. Timario, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Salome C. Timario filed a petition for correction of entries in her birth record under Rule 108. She sought to correct her birth certificate registered under Registry No. 92-03432, which indicated her birth date as November 17, 1949 and her father’s name as “Pedro Langam.” She claimed her correct birth date is November 17, 1950 and her real father is “Antonio Casera,” as reflected in another birth certificate (Registry No. 2013-7336) and other documents like her Voter Certification, Baptismal Certificate, and Marriage Contract. She alleged she only discovered the erroneous certificate when securing documents for GSIS survivorship benefits. The petition was published, and after an ex parte presentation of evidence, the trial court granted the petition. The Republic, through the OSG, opposed, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction because respondent failed to implead indispensable parties—her purported fathers “Pedro Langam” and “Antonio Casera,” her mother “Rosenda B. Acasio,” and her siblings—as required by Section 3, Rule 108. The Republic also contended the evidence was insufficient. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, ruling that publication cured the failure to implead and that the Republic was duly represented by a deputized prosecutor.

ISSUE

Did the trial court acquire jurisdiction over the petition for correction of entries despite respondent’s failure to implead all indispensable parties as required by Section 3, Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court?

RULING

No. The trial court did not acquire jurisdiction. The petition is granted, and the Court of Appeals’ decision and resolution are reversed and set aside.
The Supreme Court held that the correction sought—changing the father’s name and the date of birth—is substantial, requiring an adversarial proceeding under Rule 108. Section 3, Rule 108 mandates that all persons who have or claim any interest affected by the correction must be made parties. Respondent failed to implead her two purported fathers, her mother, and her siblings, violating this mandatory requirement. This failure rendered all subsequent proceedings, including the judgment, void.
The Court of Appeals erred in ruling that publication cured the jurisdictional defect based on Barco v. Court of Appeals. The exceptions where publication may cure non-inclusion—such as earnest efforts to include parties, parties initiating the proceeding, lack of awareness of interested parties, or inadvertent omission—are absent here. Respondent knew the identities of the indispensable parties from the start but offered no explanation for not impleading them. There was no proof these parties were aware of the petition. Since the conflicting entries were based on information respondent herself provided, the indispensable parties must be afforded the chance to be heard as the corrections affect their filiation and successional rights. Consequently, the petition for correction should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.