2010 / Nov
G.R. No. 186053 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. NISAIDA SUMERA NISHINA, REPRESENTED BY ZENAIDA SUMERA WATANABE, RESPONDENT. November 15, 2010
THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. No. 186053, November 15, 2010 ]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. NISAIDA SUMERA NISHINA, REPRESENTED BY ZENAIDA SUMERA WATANABE, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Nisaida Sumera Nishina (respondent), represented by her mother Zenaida Sumera Watanabe (Zenaida), filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan a verified petition for cancellation of birth record and change of surname in the civil registry of Malolos, Bulacan, docketed as Special Proceedings No. 106-M-2007.[1]
In her petition, respondent alleged the following:
She was born on October 31, 1987[2]in Malolos, Bulacan to her Filipino mother Zenaida and Japanese father Koichi Nishina who were married on February 18, 1987.[3]Her father later died.[4]On July 19, 1989, her mother married another Japanese, Kenichi Hakamada.[5]
As they could not find any record of her birth at the Malolos civil registry, respondent's mother caused the late registration of her birth in 1993 under the surname of her mother's second husband,"Hakamada."[6]Her mother and Hakamada eventually divorced.[7]
On May 29, 1996, her mother married another Japanese, Takayuki Watanabe,[8]who later adopted her by a decree[9]issued by the Tokyo Family Court of Japan on January 25, 2001. The adoption decree was filed and recorded in the civil registry ofManilain 2006.[10]
In 2007, it surfaced that her birth was in fact originally registered at the Malolos Civil Registry under the name "Nisaida SumeraNishina,"[11]hence, her filing before the RTC of her petition praying that hersecondbirth certificate bearing the surname"Hakamada,"issued through late registration in 1993, be cancelled; and that in light of the decree of adoption, her surname "Nishina" in theoriginalbirth certificate be changed to "Watanabe."[12]
After hearing the petition, Branch 83 of the RTC, by Order[13]of October 8, 2007,grantedrespondent's petition and directed the Local Civil Registry ofMalolos"to cancel thesecondbirth record of Nisaida Sumera Hakamada issued in 1993 [bearing] Registry No. 93-06684 and to change it [in its stead] Registry No. 87-04983, particularly the surname of [respondent] from NISAIDA SUMERANISHINAto NISAIDA SUMERAWATANABE."[14]
A copy of the October 8, 2007 Order was received on December 13, 2007 by the OSG which filed, on behalf of petitioner, a notice of appeal.[15]
Before the Court of Appeals, respondent filed a motion to dismiss[16]the appeal, alleging that petitioner adopted a wrong mode of appeal since it did not file arecord on appealas required under Sections 2 and 3, Rule 41 (appeal from the RTCs) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure reading:
Opposing the motion, petitioner countered that a record on appeal is required only in proceedings wheremultipleappeals may arise, a situation not obtaining in the present case.[17]
By Resolution[18]of September 2, 2008, the appellate courtdismissedpetitioner's appeal, holding that since respondent's petition before the RTC "is classified as a special proceeding," petitioner should have filedbothnotice of appeal and a record on appeal within 30 days from receipt of the October 8, 2007 Order granting respondent's petition, and by not filing a record on appeal, petitioner "never perfected" its appeal.[19]
Its motion for reconsideration having been denied by Resolution[20]of December 22, 2008, petitioner filed the present petition for review on certiorari.
The petition is meritorious.
Section 1, Rule 109 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure specifies the orders or judgments in special proceedings which may be the subject of an appeal,viz:
The above-quoted rule contemplatesmultipleappealsduring the pendency of special proceedings. A record on appeal - in addition to the notice of appeal - is thus required to be filedas the original records of the case should remain with the trial court[21]to enable the rest of the case to proceed in the event that a separate and distinct issue is resolved by said court and held to be final.[22]
In the present case, the filing of a record on appeal wasnotnecessary since no other matter remained to be heard and determined by the trial courtafterit issued the appealed order granting respondent's petition for cancellation of birth record and change of surname in the civil registry.
The appellate court's reliance onZayco v. Hinlo, Jr.[23]in denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration is misplaced. InZaycowhich was apetition for letters of administration of a deceased person's estate, the decedent's children appealed the trial court'sorder appointing the grandson of the decedent as administrator of the estate. Their notice of appeal and record on appeal were denied due course by the trial court on the ground that the appealed order isinterlocutoryand not subject to appeal. But even if the appeal were proper, it was belatedly filed. On certiorari by the decedent's children, the appellate court sustained the trial court. On petition for review, this Court reversed the appellate court, holding that "[a]n order appointing an administrator of a deceased person's estate is afinaldetermination of the rights of the parties in connection with the administration, management and settlement of the decedent's estate," hence, the order is "final" and "appealable."[24]The Court also held that the appeal was filed on time.
InZayco, unlike in the present case, a record on appeal was obviously necessary as the proceedings before the trial court involved the administration, management and settlement of the decedent's estate- matters covered by Section 1 of Rule 109 whereinmultipleappeals could, and did in that case, call for them.
WHEREFORE, the petition isGRANTED.The Court of Appeals Resolutions of September 2, 2008 and December 22, 2008 in CA G.R. CV No. 90346 areREVERSED and SET ASIDE. The appeal of petitioners before the appellate court isREINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
Brion, Bersamin, Villarama, Jr., andSereno, JJ., concur.
[1]Records, pp. 4-20.
[2]Annex "A" (Certificate of Live Birth) of Petition in Sp. Proc. No. 106-M-2007, id. at 8.
[3]Annex "B" (Certificate of Marriage), id. at 9.
[4]Respondent's petition did not indicate the date Koichi Nishina died.
[5]Annex "C" (Certificate of Marriage), records, p. 10.
[6]Annex "D," id. at 11.
[7]Annex "E" ("Family Registry" of Kenichi Hakamada), id. at 12.
[8]Annex "F," id. at 13.
[9]Annexes "G" and "H," id. at 14-20.
[10]Exhibits "N" and "O," TSN, September 26, 2007, p. 6; id. at 61.
[11]TSN, id. at 7-8; pp. 62-63 (emphasis supplied).
[12]Ibid.
[13]Records, pp. 53-55.
[14]Id. at 55.
[15]Id. at 69.
[16]CArollo, pp. 13-19.
[17]Id. at 50-54.
[18]Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and concurred in by Associate Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Rosmari D. Carandang; id. at 60-63.
[19]Id. at 63.
[20]Id. at 74-76.
[21]FLORENZ D. REGALADO, REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM, VOL. II, Eighth Revised Edition (2000), p. 195.
[22]Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. CA, G.R. No. 111324, July 5, 1996, 327 Phil. 810, 819.
[23]G.R. No. 170243, April 16, 2008, 551 SCRA 613.
[24]Id. at 616-617.
In her petition, respondent alleged the following:
She was born on October 31, 1987[2]in Malolos, Bulacan to her Filipino mother Zenaida and Japanese father Koichi Nishina who were married on February 18, 1987.[3]Her father later died.[4]On July 19, 1989, her mother married another Japanese, Kenichi Hakamada.[5]
As they could not find any record of her birth at the Malolos civil registry, respondent's mother caused the late registration of her birth in 1993 under the surname of her mother's second husband,"Hakamada."[6]Her mother and Hakamada eventually divorced.[7]
On May 29, 1996, her mother married another Japanese, Takayuki Watanabe,[8]who later adopted her by a decree[9]issued by the Tokyo Family Court of Japan on January 25, 2001. The adoption decree was filed and recorded in the civil registry ofManilain 2006.[10]
In 2007, it surfaced that her birth was in fact originally registered at the Malolos Civil Registry under the name "Nisaida SumeraNishina,"[11]hence, her filing before the RTC of her petition praying that hersecondbirth certificate bearing the surname"Hakamada,"issued through late registration in 1993, be cancelled; and that in light of the decree of adoption, her surname "Nishina" in theoriginalbirth certificate be changed to "Watanabe."[12]
After hearing the petition, Branch 83 of the RTC, by Order[13]of October 8, 2007,grantedrespondent's petition and directed the Local Civil Registry ofMalolos"to cancel thesecondbirth record of Nisaida Sumera Hakamada issued in 1993 [bearing] Registry No. 93-06684 and to change it [in its stead] Registry No. 87-04983, particularly the surname of [respondent] from NISAIDA SUMERANISHINAto NISAIDA SUMERAWATANABE."[14]
A copy of the October 8, 2007 Order was received on December 13, 2007 by the OSG which filed, on behalf of petitioner, a notice of appeal.[15]
Before the Court of Appeals, respondent filed a motion to dismiss[16]the appeal, alleging that petitioner adopted a wrong mode of appeal since it did not file arecord on appealas required under Sections 2 and 3, Rule 41 (appeal from the RTCs) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure reading:
SEC. 2.Modes of appeal. -
(a)Ordinary appeal. - The appeal to the Court of Appeals in cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from and serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party.No record on appeal shall be requiredexcept in special proceedings and other cases ofmultiple or separateappeals where the law or these Rules so require.In such cases, the record on appeal shall be filed and served in like manner.
x x x x
SEC. 3.Period of ordinary appeal. - The appeal shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from.Where a record on appeal is required, the appellant shall file anotice of appeal and a record on appealwithin thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment or final order.However, an appeal inhabeas corpuscases shall be taken within forty-eight (48) hours from notice of the judgment or final order appealed from. (A.M. No. 01-1-03- SC, June 19, 2001)
The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a timely motion for new trial or reconsideration. No motion for extension of time to file a motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be allowed. (emphasis, underscoring and italics supplied)
x x x x
SEC. 9.Perfection of appeal; effect thereof. - x x x.
A party's appeal by record on appeal is deemed perfected as to him with respect to the subject matter thereof upon the approval of the record on appeal filed in due time.
x x x x
Opposing the motion, petitioner countered that a record on appeal is required only in proceedings wheremultipleappeals may arise, a situation not obtaining in the present case.[17]
By Resolution[18]of September 2, 2008, the appellate courtdismissedpetitioner's appeal, holding that since respondent's petition before the RTC "is classified as a special proceeding," petitioner should have filedbothnotice of appeal and a record on appeal within 30 days from receipt of the October 8, 2007 Order granting respondent's petition, and by not filing a record on appeal, petitioner "never perfected" its appeal.[19]
Its motion for reconsideration having been denied by Resolution[20]of December 22, 2008, petitioner filed the present petition for review on certiorari.
The petition is meritorious.
Section 1, Rule 109 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure specifies the orders or judgments in special proceedings which may be the subject of an appeal,viz:
SECTION 1.Orders or judgments from which appeals may be taken. - An interested person may appeal in special proceedings from an order or judgment rendered by a Court of First Instance or a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, where such order or judgment:
(a) Allows or disallows a will;
(b) Determines who are the lawful heirs of a deceased person, or the distributive share of the estate to which such person is entitled;
(c) Allows or disallows, in whole or in part, any claim against the estate of a deceased person, or any claim presented on behalf of the estate in offset to a claim against it;
(d) Settles the account of an executor, administrator, trustee or guardian;
(e) Constitutes, in proceedings relating to the settlement of the estate of a deceased person, or the administration of a trustee or guardian, a final determination in the lower court of the rights of the party appealing, except that no appeal shall be allowed from the appointment of a special administrator; and
(f) Is the final order or judgment rendered in the case, and affects the substantial rights of the person appealing unless it be an order granting or denying a motion for a new trial or for reconsideration.
The above-quoted rule contemplatesmultipleappealsduring the pendency of special proceedings. A record on appeal - in addition to the notice of appeal - is thus required to be filedas the original records of the case should remain with the trial court[21]to enable the rest of the case to proceed in the event that a separate and distinct issue is resolved by said court and held to be final.[22]
In the present case, the filing of a record on appeal wasnotnecessary since no other matter remained to be heard and determined by the trial courtafterit issued the appealed order granting respondent's petition for cancellation of birth record and change of surname in the civil registry.
The appellate court's reliance onZayco v. Hinlo, Jr.[23]in denying petitioner's motion for reconsideration is misplaced. InZaycowhich was apetition for letters of administration of a deceased person's estate, the decedent's children appealed the trial court'sorder appointing the grandson of the decedent as administrator of the estate. Their notice of appeal and record on appeal were denied due course by the trial court on the ground that the appealed order isinterlocutoryand not subject to appeal. But even if the appeal were proper, it was belatedly filed. On certiorari by the decedent's children, the appellate court sustained the trial court. On petition for review, this Court reversed the appellate court, holding that "[a]n order appointing an administrator of a deceased person's estate is afinaldetermination of the rights of the parties in connection with the administration, management and settlement of the decedent's estate," hence, the order is "final" and "appealable."[24]The Court also held that the appeal was filed on time.
InZayco, unlike in the present case, a record on appeal was obviously necessary as the proceedings before the trial court involved the administration, management and settlement of the decedent's estate- matters covered by Section 1 of Rule 109 whereinmultipleappeals could, and did in that case, call for them.
WHEREFORE, the petition isGRANTED.The Court of Appeals Resolutions of September 2, 2008 and December 22, 2008 in CA G.R. CV No. 90346 areREVERSED and SET ASIDE. The appeal of petitioners before the appellate court isREINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
Brion, Bersamin, Villarama, Jr., andSereno, JJ., concur.
[1]Records, pp. 4-20.
[2]Annex "A" (Certificate of Live Birth) of Petition in Sp. Proc. No. 106-M-2007, id. at 8.
[3]Annex "B" (Certificate of Marriage), id. at 9.
[4]Respondent's petition did not indicate the date Koichi Nishina died.
[5]Annex "C" (Certificate of Marriage), records, p. 10.
[6]Annex "D," id. at 11.
[7]Annex "E" ("Family Registry" of Kenichi Hakamada), id. at 12.
[8]Annex "F," id. at 13.
[9]Annexes "G" and "H," id. at 14-20.
[10]Exhibits "N" and "O," TSN, September 26, 2007, p. 6; id. at 61.
[11]TSN, id. at 7-8; pp. 62-63 (emphasis supplied).
[12]Ibid.
[13]Records, pp. 53-55.
[14]Id. at 55.
[15]Id. at 69.
[16]CArollo, pp. 13-19.
[17]Id. at 50-54.
[18]Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and concurred in by Associate Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Rosmari D. Carandang; id. at 60-63.
[19]Id. at 63.
[20]Id. at 74-76.
[21]FLORENZ D. REGALADO, REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM, VOL. II, Eighth Revised Edition (2000), p. 195.
[22]Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. CA, G.R. No. 111324, July 5, 1996, 327 Phil. 810, 819.
[23]G.R. No. 170243, April 16, 2008, 551 SCRA 613.
[24]Id. at 616-617.