Republic v. Olaybar

When Merlinda L. Olaybar requested a Certificate of No Marriage from the NSO before her wedding, she discovered that she was recorded as married to a Korean national, Ye Son Sune, on June 24, 2002, at the MTCC in Cebu City. She denied contracting the marriage, knowing the man, or appearing before the solemnizing officer, and said the signature was not hers. She petitioned the RTC under Rule 108 to cancel the entries in the wife portion of the marriage contract, impleading the Local Civil Registrar and the alleged husband. At trial she testified that she was working in Makati at the time and believed her identity was used by a travel agency owner to whom she had given her details for a passport. An MTCC employee confirmed that a wedding took place but that the bride was not Olaybar, and a document examiner testified that the signature was forged. The RTC granted the petition. The OSG moved for reconsideration, arguing that Rule 108 covers only clerical errors and that cancelling the wife entries in effect declared the marriage void. The motion was denied, and the Republic appealed on a pure question of law.

1. 1Whether Rule 108 may be used to cancel entries in a marriage certificate that are not clerical errors.
2. 2Whether cancelling all the entries in the wife portion of the marriage certificate amounts to a declaration that the marriage is void ab initio.

The petition was denied. Rule 108 proceedings may be summary or adversary: clerical corrections are summary, while changes affecting civil status, citizenship or nationality are substantial and require an adversary proceeding. Since Republic v. Valencia, "even substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected through a petition filed under Rule 108," with the true facts established in an appropriate adversary proceeding. Rule 108 is not summary per se, since it requires publication, the inclusion of all interested parties, an opportunity to oppose and a hearing; when these are followed, it is the appropriate adversary proceeding for substantial corrections. Here the Local Civil Registrar and the alleged husband were impleaded, the OSG was notified and authorized the city prosecutor to participate, and a full trial was held. The Court reiterated Fujiki v. Marinay that a Rule 108 petition "cannot substitute for an action to invalidate a marriage." But respondent did not seek to nullify a marriage: overwhelming evidence showed that the marriage certificate, the only evidence of the marriage, was a forgery and that she never married Ye Son Sune. In cancelling the wife portion, the trial court "did not, in any way, declare the marriage void as there was no marriage to speak of." It merely corrected the record to reflect the truth, and the RTC decision and order were affirmed.