Can a petition under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court (cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry) be considered as a direct action to impugn one’s legitimated status? Who can impugn one’s legitimated status?

The Supreme Court addressed these issues in Republic v. Boquiren (G.R. 250199, 13 February 2023). The case involved two children born out of wedlock whose birth certificates were later annotated as “legitimated” after their parents’ marriage.

However, the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) later informed their mother that their father had a prior existing marriage, rendering their legitimation invalid. Seeking to correct their birth records, the children filed a Rule 108 petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to cancel the annotation of legitimation and instead recognize their status as illegitimate children with the right to use their father’s surname through the annotation of the Affidavits of Acknowledgment executed by their father on their respective birth certificates.

The Supreme Court stressed that Rule 108 petitions cannot be used to collaterally attack the validity of marriage, legitimacy and filiation. Legitimacy and filiation can only be questioned in a direct action, not through a petition for correction of entries.

The Court acknowledged the various jurisprudence where the Regional Trial Court was allowed to pass upon the validity of a marriage in an action filed for other purposes, such as but not limited to the determination of heirship, legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child, settlement of estate, dissolution of property regime, or a criminal case for that matter.

For instance, in Cariño, the Court had sufficient authority to pass upon the validity of two marriages contracted by the decedent who was a policeman, as the same was essential to the determination of who was rightfully entitled to the “death benefits” of the deceased.

Meanwhile, in De Castro, it was held that the trial court had jurisdiction to determine the validity of the marriage in an action for support, because the right to support hinges on the existence of a valid marriage. However, it clarified that such cases did not involve Rule 108 petitions.

Additionally, the Court ruled that the children were not proper parties to impugn their own legitimation. Under Article 182 of the Family Code, only those prejudiced by legitimation — such as heirs whose inheritance rights are affected — may challenge it within five years from when the cause of action arises.

Since legitimation enhances, rather than diminishes, the children’s rights, they had no standing to challenge it. In the instant case, the children cannot claim to be prejudiced parties of their own legitimation consequent to the subsequent marriage of their parents, considering that the legal effect of legitimation is to improve their rights — from those accorded to illegitimate children to those accorded to the legitimate children of their parents.

In view of the foregoing, the High Court ordered the Local Civil Registry to reflect the PSA’s certification that the children’s father had a prior existing marriage, instead of cancelling the annotation of legitimation. This decision reinforces that legitimated status can be impugned only by the proper parties under Article 182 of the Family Code in a direct proceeding filed for the purpose.

In that forum, the trial court can then pass upon the validity of the marriage of the children’s parents with the end of determining the legal status of the children. Any judgment rendered in the action can later serve as basis thereafter for the filing of a special proceeding for correction of entries in the civil registry under Rule 108 to record the fact of nullity of the marriage of the children’s parents and/or to establish their status as illegitimate children.

For more of Dean Nilo Divina’s legal tidbits, please visit www.divinalaw.com. For comments and questions, please send an email to cad@divinalaw.com.