]Adversarial proceeding

This case is about the correction of entries in a person’s record of birth. The main issue here is about the jurisdiction of the court. When is jurisdiction acquired by the court? What must be done in order that a court may acquire jurisdiction for correcting or cancelling entries in the civil registry?

This case is about the birth certificate of Alicia registered with the Local Civil Registrar of the city where she was born. Said record shows that Alicia was born on Nov. 12, 1939 as the eldest daughter of the spouses Rosita Reyes and Artemio Acosta. When she was securing official documents for obtaining her benefits from the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), she was surprised to discover that she had another birth certificate registered with same Local Civil Registrar under another Registry Number wherein it was erroneously indicated that she was born on Nov. 12, 1938 and her father’s name was Pedro Santos.

So Alicia filed a petition to correct the entries in the second Registry No. 72641 regarding her date of birth and her father’s name. After due publication of the date of hearing, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) entered its appearance and deputized the local Private Prosecutor to appear and litigate the case. But it was filed only after the date of the hearing. So the trial court allowed Alicia to present her evidence ex parte, wherein she presented her voter certificate, baptismal certificate and marriage contract showing her true name and date of birth.

After the proceedings the trial court rendered its decision directing the Local Civil Registrar General to effect the correction of the birth certificate of Alicia changing the name of her father from Pedro Santos to Armenio Acosta and her date of birth from Nov. 12, 1938 to Nov. 12, 1939.

While the OSG still filed its “Comment Opposition” to the petition, they were deemed mooted by the decision of the trial court granting the petition. So the OSG appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), reiterating its opposition, more specifically the fact that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the petition for failure of Alicia to implead the indispensable parties, particularly Artemio