Leah alleged in her petition for correction of entries in the civil registry four erroneous items appearing in her record of birth which she testified to during the hearing, thus:
First, her surname "Uy", which she had been using in all her school records and in her marriage certificate, was misspelled as "OY". To show consistency in her use of the surname Uy, she presented an NBI Clearance.
Second, her father’s name in her birth record was written as "Oy Dee Tiu" when it should have been "Uy Dee Tiu".
Third, her nationality was entered as Chinese when it should have been Filipino considering that her father and mother never got married. She said that since she was 18 years old she was already registered as a voter in her province and had exercised her right of suffrage by participating in every election.
Finally, her birth certificate erroneously indicates that she was a legitimate child when she should have been described as illegitimate considering that her parents were never married. This was confirmed by her mother who likewise testified and declared that she and her daughter’s father were never married because the latter had a prior existing marriage contracted in China.
After the due publication and notice and after the hearing of the petition during which the Republic of the Philippines (RP), through the local city Prosecutor actively participated examining Leah and her witnesses, the lower court granted Leah’s petition, by correcting her surname and the name of her father, changing her status from legitimate to illegitimate and her citizenship from Chinese to Filipino.
The RP questioned this ruling particularly the correction of Leah’s citizenship from Chinese to Filipino and the use of her father’s surname. RP contended that Leah did not comply with the Constitutional requirement of electing Filipino citizenship when she reached the age of majority which provides that the citizenship of a legitimate child born of a Filipino mother and an alien father follows the citizenship of the father, unless, upon reaching the age of majority, the child elected Philippine citizenship. Likewise, RP contended that under CA 625 legitimate children of Filipino mothers may elect Philippine citizenship by expressing such intention in a statement under oath and filed with the nearest civil registry. RP also argued that Leah cannot use her father’s surname because she is illegitimate. Was RP correct?
No. Plainly the constitutional and statutory requirements of electing Filipino citizenship apply only to legitimate children. These do not apply in the case of Leah who is concededly an illegitimate child, considering that her Chinese father and Filipina mother were never married. As such she is not required to comply with said constitutional and statutory requirements to become a Filipino citizen. By being an illegitimate child of a Filipino mother, Leah automatically became a Filipino citizen upon birth. Stated differently, she is a Filipino since birth without having to elect Filipino citizenship when she reached the age of majority. No other act would be necessary to confer on her all the rights and privileges attached to Philippine citizenship. Neither could any act be taken on the erroneous belief that she is non-Filipino divest her of the citizenship privileges to which she is rightfully entitled. Besides, Leah actually elected Filipino citizenship when she reached the age of majority by registering as a voter and exercising the right of suffrage through participation in the election exercise. This is a positive act of electing Philippine citizenship.
The court did not actually allow Leah to use her father’s surname. It only allowed the correction of her father’s misspelled name which she has been using ever since she can remember. She is now 47 years old. To bar her at this time to use her father’s surname would only sow confusion. Under CA 142, a person is allowed to use a name by which she has been known since childhood precisely to avoid confusion. Even legitimate children cannot enjoin the illegitimate children of their father from using his surname. While judicial authority is required for a change of name or surname, there is no such requirement for the continued use of a surname which a person has already been using since childhood (Republic vs. Lim, G.R. 153883, January 13, 2004 419 SCRA 123).