CORAZON LEGAMIA y RIVERA vs. IAC and People G.R. No.

L-63817 August 28, 1984; ABAD SANTOS, J.: NILO ACTION: This is an appeal by certiorari to review 1. Corazon Legamia lived with Emilio N. Reyes. Corazon was known as Corazon L. Reyes; she styled herself as Mrs. Reyes; and Emilio introduced her to friends as Mrs. Reyes. 2. Shortly after Emilio's death, Corazon filed a letter in behalf of Michael with the Agricultural Credit Administration for death benefits. The letter was signed "Corazon L. Reyes." The voucher evidencing payment of Michael's claim in the amount of P2,648.76 was also signed "Corazon L. Reyes." 3. For using the name Reyes although she was not married to Emilio, Felicisima Reyes who was married to Emilio filed a complaint which led to Corazon's prosecution. 4. Corazon Legamia was accused of using an alias in violation of Commonwealth Act No. 142. 5. She was convicted by the trial court which sentenced her to an indeterminate prison term of only (1) year and fine but recommended executive clemency. Issue: Did the petitioner violate the law? RULING: NO. It is not uncommon in Philippine society for a woman to represent herself as the wife and use the name of the man she is living with despite the fact that the man is married to another woman. The practice, to be sure, is not encouraged but neither is it unduly frowned upon. A number of women can be Identified who are living with men prominent in political, business and social circles. The woman publicly holds herself out as the man's wife and uses his family name blithely ignoring the fact that he is not her husband. And yet none of the women has been charged of violating the C.A. No. 142 because ours is not a bigoted but a tolerant and understanding society. It is in the light of our cultural environment that the law must be construed. In the case at bar, Corazon had been living with Emilio for almost 20 years. He introduced her to the public as his wife and she assumed that role and his name without any sinister purpose or personal material gain in mind. She applied for benefits upon his death not for herself but for Michael who as a boy of tender years was under her guardianship. Surely, the lawmakers could not have meant to criminalize what Corazon had done especially because some of them probably had their own Corazons. WHEREFORE, the decision under review is hereby set aside; the petitioner is acquitted of the charge. No costs.

RE: PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF ABSENCE OF ROBERTO L. REYES. ERLINDA REYNOSO REYES vs. HON, JOSE P. ALEJANDRO PATAJO, J.: G.R. No. L-32026 January 16, 1986 ACTION: This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Cavite dismissing the petition filed by petitioner-appellant Erlinda Reynoso Reyes to have her husband Roberto Reyes declared an absentee. FACTS:

1. On October 25, 1969 Erlinda Reynoso prayed for the declaration of the absence of her husband Roberto L. Reyes alleging that her husband had been absent from their conjugal dwelling since April 1962 and since then had not been heard from and his whereabouts unknown. The petition further alleged that her husband left no will nor any property in his name nor any debts. 2. Had some misunderstanding over personal matters; that since then petitioner has not received any news about the whereabouts of her husband; that they have not acquired any properties during their marriage and that they have no outstanding obligation in favor of anyone; that her only purpose in filing the petition is to establish the absence of her husband, invoking the provisions of Rule 107 of the New Rules of Court and Article 384 of the Civil Code. CFI dismissed the petition on the ground that since Roberto L. Reyes left no properties there was no necessity to declare him judicially an absentee. Issue: WON Roberto must be judicially declared absent. Held: No. The purpose of the declaration is to provide an administrator of the property. Rule 107 of the Rules of Court is based on the provisions of Title XIV of the New Civil Code on absence. The provision is concerned with the interest or property of the absentee. The purpose of the declaration is to provide an administrator of the property. The reason and purpose of the provisions of the New Civil Code on absence (Arts. 381 to 396) are: 1. The interest of the person himself who has disappeared; 2. The rights of third parties against the absentee, especially those who have rights which would depend upon the death of the absentee; and 3. The general interest of society which may require that property does not remain abandoned without someone representing it and without an owner (Civil Code by Francisco, Vol. 2, pp. 930931, 1953 Ed.). When to declare for absence: 1. when he has properties which have to be taken cared of or administered by a representative appointed by the Court (Article 384, Civil Code); 2. the spouse of the absentee is asking for separation of property (Article 191, Civil Code) or 3. his wife is asking the Court that the administration of all classes of property in the marriage be transferred to her (Article. 196, Civil Code). For civil marriage law - Necessary to judicially declare spouse an absentee only when (1) there are properties which have to be taken cared of or administered by a representative appointed by the Court (2) the spouse of the absentee is asking for separation of property (3) wife is asking the Court that the administration of property in the marriage be transferred to her - Otherwise law only requires that the former spouse has been absent for seven consecutive years at the time of the second marriage, that the spouse present does not know his or her former spouse to he living, that such former spouse is generally reputed to be dead and the spouse present so believes at the time of the celebration of the marriage RESULT: in this case, since there were no properties to speak of, it was right for the TC to dismiss the case.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered AFFIRMING the order of the lower Court dismissing the petition to declare Roberto L. Reyes an absentee.

EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC., vs. JOSEPHINE LUCERO G.R. No. L-60101 August 31, 1983; ESCOLIN, J.: ACTION: Petition for review filed by the Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. to set aside the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission, which affirmed the judgment rendered by the National Seamen Board. FACTS: 1. On October 31, 1979, Capt. Julio J. Lucero, Jr. was appointed by petitioner Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc., Company for short, as master/captain to its vessel M/V Eastern Minicon plying the HongkongManila route, with the salary of P5,560.00 exclusive of ship board allowances and other benefits. Under the contract, his employment was good for one (1) round trip only, i.e., the contract would automatically terminate upon arrival of the vessel at the Port of Manila, unless renewed. It was further agreed that part of the captain's salary, while abroad, should be paid to Mrs. Josephine Lucero, his wife, in Manila. 2. On February 16, 1980, while the vessel was enroute from Hongkong to Manila where it was expected to arrive on February 18, 1980, Capt. Lucero sent three (3) distress messages to the Company's Manila office: - Dated: February l6,1980 0700; February l6/80 1530; - On the third message he stated that seawater was entering the vessel and they were preparing to abandon ship - The company notified the coast guard. Search results were negative. 3. The insurers of the company confirmed the loss of the vessel. Thereafter, the Company paid the corresponding death benefits to the heirs of the crew members, except respondent Josephine Lucero, who refused to accept 4. On July 16, 1980, Mrs. Lucerofiled a complaint with -the National Seamen Board, for payment of her accrued monthly allotment of P3,183.00, which the Company had stopped since March 1980 and for continued payment of said allotments until the M/V Minicon shall have returned to the port of Manila. 5. She contended that the contract of employment entered into by her husband with the Company was on a voyage-to-voyage basis, and that the same was to terminate only upon the vessel's arrival in Manila. 6. The company refused to pay. The National seamen board upheld the complaint and the decision was affirmed by the NLRC - The NLRC based its judgment on Art 391 regarding the presumption of death at sea. They argue that it was too early to presume that Mr. Lucero has died because under the law, four (4) years have not yet passed. - Art. 391. The following shall be presumed dead for all purposes, including the division of the estate among the heirs: (1) A person on board a vessel lost during a sea voyage, or an aeroplane which is missing, who has not been heard of for four years since the loss of the vessel or aeroplane;... Issue: WON Mrs Lucero was entitled to the accrued salary

Held: It is undisputed that on February 16, 1980, the Company received three (3) radio messages from Capt. Lucero. There is thus enough evidence to show the circumstances attending the loss and disappearance of the M/V Eastern Minicon and its crew. The foregoing facts, quite logically. are sufficient to lead Us to a moral certainty that the vessel had sunk and that the persons aboard had perished with it. upon this premise, the rule on presumption of death under Article 391 (1) of the Civil Code must yield to the rule of preponderance of evidence. As this Court said in Joaquin vs. Navarro "Where there are facts, known or knowable, from which a rational conclusion can be made, the presumption does not step in, and the rule of preponderance of evidence controls." Indeed, We cannot permit Article 391 to override, or be substituted for, the facts established in this case which logically indicate to a moral certainty that Capt. Lucero died shortly after he had sent his last radio message at 9:50 p.m. on February 16, 1980.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the NLRC subject of this petition is hereby set aside, and the complaint of respondent Josephine Lucero dismissed. However, Mrs. Lucero is entitled to death benefits.

DAYA MARIA TOL-NOQUERA vs. HON. ADRIANO R. VILLAMOR, Presiding Judge G.R. No. 84250 July 20, 1992; CRUZ, J.: ACTION: Questioned in this action is the dismissal of a petition filed by Daya Maria Tol-Noquera for appointment as administratrix of the property of the absentee Remigio Tol. FACTS: 1. December 1986, Daya Maria Tol (seeking admistration of the estate) alleged that she was the acknowledged natural child of Remigio Tol, who had been missing since 1984 and a certain Diosdado Tol had fraudulently obtained a title of Remigios property 2. Diosdado countered that Daya maria was not an acknowledged natural child of the absentee and the title was originally in his name 3. Trial court - dismissed the petition on the ground that it was a collateral attack on a Torrens title and it was useless to appoint an administrator in view of the claim of a third person that he was the owner of the absentee's property. Issue: WON DAYA MARIA TOL can be appointed administratrix when Remigio was not yet declared presumptively dead RULING: 1. The private respondent's arguments that the petitioner cannot inherit ab intestato from the legitimate parents of the absentee is immaterial to this case. Her disqualification as an heir to her supposed grandparents does not inhibit her from petitioning for a declaration of absence or to be appointed as an administratrix of the absentee's estate. The relevant laws on the matter are found in the following provisions of the Civil Code: Art. 381. When a person disappears from his domicile his whereabouts being unknown, and without leaving an agent to administer his property the judge, at the instance of an interested party, a relative, or a friend, may appoint a person to represent him in all that may be necessary.

This same rule shall be observed when under similar circumstances the power conferred by the absentee has expired. Art. 382. The appointment referred to in the preceding article having been made, the judge shall take the necessary measures to safeguard the rights and interest of the absentee and shall specify the powers, obligations and remuneration of his representatives, regulating them according to the circumstances, by the rules concerning guardians. Art. 383. In the appointment of a representative, the spouse present shall be preferred when there is no legal separation. If the absentee left no spouse, or if the spouse present is a minor, any competent person may be appointed by the court. Art. 384. Two years having elapsed without any news about the absentee or since the receipt of the last news, and five years in case the absentee has left a person in charge of the administration of his property, his absence may be declared. Art. 385. The following may ask for the declaration of absence: (1) The spouse present; (2) The heirs instituted in a will, who may present an authentic copy of the same; (3) The relatives who may succeed by the law of intestacy; (4) Those who may have over the property of the absentee some right subordinated to the condition of his death. Art. 386. The judicial declaration of absence shall not take effect until six months after its publication in a newspaper of general circulation. It is not necessary that a declaration of absence be made in a proceeding separate from and prior to a petition for administration. In the other cases, the court declared that the petition to declare the husband an absentee and the petition to place the management of the conjugal properties in the hands of the wife could be combined and adjudicated in the same proceeding. The purpose of the cited rules is the protection of the interests and property of the absentee, not of the administrator. Thus, the question of whether the administrator may inherit the property to be administered is not controlling. What is material is whether she is one of those allowed by law to seek the declaration of absence of Remigio Tol and whether she is competent to be appointed as administratrix of his estate. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. This case is hereby REMANDED to the court of origin for determination of the legal personality of Daya Maria Tol to petition the declaration of Remigio Tol's absence and of her competence to be appointed as administratrix of his estate.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HON. SOFRONIO SAYO, Presiding Judge of the CFI of Nueva Vizcaya, Branch I, and RAMON TAN BIANA JR., respondents. G.R. No. L-61565 August 20, 1990; FELICIANO, J.: FACTS: (1) Private respondent Ramon Tan Biana, Jr. was born on 9 January 1952 in Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, as the fifth legitimate child of the spouses Ramon Tan Biana and Tiu Muy. His birth was

registered on the same day in the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Solano, Nueva Vizcaya, by the nurse who attended the parturition of Ramon's mother. (2) Private respondent claims that, in the process, the attending nurse erroneously reported to the Local Civil Registrar that Ramon's citizenship, and the citizenship of his parents, as "Chinese" instead of "Filipino". Private respondent claims that his "true and real citizenship", and that of his parents, is Philippine citizenship. (3) Copies were furnished to the Office of the Provincial Fiscal, the Office of the SolGen, and the Local Civil Registrar. Copy of the notice of hearing was posted and it was also published in a newspaper of general circulation published once a week for three consecutive weeks. (4) The TC then proceeded to receive evidence for the petitioner with the Office of the Provincial Fiscal representing the Government. (5) In the instant Petition for Review, petitioner alleges that the trial court should not have ordered the correction of the relevant entries in the Local Civil Registry since they involved substantial matters which should not have been decided in "a merely summary proceeding" but rather in "an appropriate action wherein all parties who may be affected by the entries are notified or represented." Issue: WON the procedure followed satisfied the requirements of appropriate adversary proceedings? RULING: YES It is undoubtedly true that if the subject matter of a petition is not for the correction of clerical errors of a harmless and innocuous nature, but one involving nationality or citizenship, which is indisputably substantial as well as controverted, affirmative relief cannot be granted in a proceeding summary in nature. However, it is also true that a right in law may be enforced and a, wrong may be remedied as long as the appropriate remedy is used. This Court adheres to the principle that even substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected and the true facts established provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding. PROCEDURES: 1. Thus, the persons who must be made parties to a proceeding concerning the cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register are: (1) the civil registrar, and (2) all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby. 2. Upon the filing of the petition, it becomes the duty of the court to issue an order fixing the time and place for the hearing of the petition, and (2) cause the order for hearing to be published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province. 3. The following are likewise entitled to oppose the petition the civil registrar, and (2) any person having or claiming any interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought. IN THE CASE AT BAR ALL THE REQUIREMENTS/PROCEDURES HAD BEEN COMPLIED. Biana, Jr. submitted the following: a voters ID of his father, a decision of the Bureau of Immigration showing that his father is a natural son of a Filipino citizen and that his mother, being a legal wife was also a Philippine citizen, a certification issued by a the Bureau of Immigration stating that the father is a Filipino citizen, the birth certificate of his brother stating that he is the son of Philippine citizens and his Voter's ID.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court Resolved to DENY the Petition for lack of merit. The Decision of the trial court dated 13 June 1982 is hereby AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.
Issue: WON the proceedings that took place could be regarded as proper suit or appropriate action for cancellation and/or correction of entries in the civil register. Held: Yes.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LEONOR VALENCIA, as Natural mother and guardian of her minor children G.R. No. L-32181 March 5, 1986; GUTIERREZ, JR., J. ACTION: This is a petition to review the decision of CFI Cebu who ordered the Local Civil Registrar to make the necessary cancellation and/or correction in the entries of birth of Bernardo Go and Jessica Go in the Civil Registry of the City of Cebu. FACTS: 1. Leonor Valencia in behalf of her minor children Bernardo and Jessica Go filed a petition for the cancellation and/or correction of entries of their birth in the Civil Registry in the City of Cebu. 2. The TC issued an order directing the publication of the petition and the date of hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and province of Cebu once a week for three consecutive weeks and notice was duly served on the SolGen, the Local Civil Registrar and Go Eng. 3. The petition seeks to change the nationality or citizenship of Bernardo and Jessica from Chinese to Filipino and their status from Legitimate to Illegitimate and changing also the status of the mother from married to single. 4. The Local Civil Registrar avers that the corrections sought are not merely clerical but substantial, involving as they do the citizenship and status of the minors and the status of the mother. Issue: WON the proceedings that took place could be regarded as proper suit or appropriate action for cancellation and/or correction of entries in the civil register. RULING: YES Thus, the persons who must be made parties to a proceeding concerning the cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register are-(1) the civil registrar, and (2) all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby. Upon the filing of the petition, it becomes the duty of the court to-(l) issue an order fixing the time and place for the hearing of the petition, and (2) cause the order for hearing to be published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province. The following are likewise entitled to oppose the petition: (I) the civil registrar, and (2) any person having or claiming any interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought. If all these procedural requirements have been followed, a petition for correction and/or cancellation of entries in the record of birth even if filed and conducted under Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court can no longer be described as "summary". There can be no doubt that when an opposition to the petition is filed either by the Civil Registrar or any person having or claiming any interest in the entries sought to be cancelled and/or corrected and the opposition is actively prosecuted, the proceedings thereon become adversary proceedings.

IN THE INSTANT CASE: A petition for cancellation and/or correction of entries of birth of Bernardo Go and Jessica Go in the Civil Registry of the City of Cebu was filed by respondent Leonor Valencia on January 27, 1970, and pursuant to the order of the trial court dated February 4, 1970, the said petition was published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in the, Cebu Advocate, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Cebu. Notice thereof was duly served on the Solicitor General. the Local Civil Registrar and Go Eng. The order likewise set the case for hearing and directed the local civil registrar and the other respondents or any person claiming any interest under the entries whose corrections were sought, to file their opposition to the said petition. An opposition to the petition was consequently filed by the Republic on February 26, 1970. Thereafter a full blown trial followed with respondent Leonor Valencia testifying and presenting her documentary evidence in support of her petition. The Republic on the other hand crossexamined respondent Leonor Valencia. We are of the opinion that the petition filed by the respondent in the lower court by way of a special proceeding for cancellation and/or correction of entries in the civil register with the requisite notice and publication and the recorded proceedings that actually took place thereafter could very well be regarded as that proper suit or appropriate action. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The decision of the lower court is AFFIRMED. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HON. PIO R. MARCOS G.R. No. L-31065 February 15, 1990; GRIO-AQUINO, J.: ACTION: CHANGE OF NAME FACTS: 1) Pang Cha Quen, a Chinese national married Alfredo De la Cruz, a Filipino citizen. She had a previous marriage to a Chinese citizen Sia Bian who fathered her child, May Sia alias Manman Huang. She registered her daughter as an alien under the name Mary Pang, which is her maternal surname because the childs father has abandoned them. Now Pang Cha Quen prays that her daughters name be changed to Mary Pang De la Cruz since Alfredo has grown to love her as his own daughter. Judge Marcos granted such petition. ISSUE: (1) whether or not respondent Judge had acquired jurisdiction over the case; and (2) whether respondent Judge erred in granting the petition although private respondent Pang Cha Quen failed to adduce proper and reasonable cause for changing the name of the minor "May Sia" alias Manman Huang." FIRST RULING: On the first issue, the Government pointed out that the captions of the petition and of the published order of the court did not include the name "Mary Pang" as one of the names that the minor has allegedly been using, hence, the petition and the published order contain a fatal jurisdictional defect. The Government's contention is well-taken. The omission of her other alias-- "Mary Pang"-- in the captions of the court's order and of the petition defeats the purpose of the publication. In view of that defect, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the subject of the

proceedings, i.e., the various names and aliases of the petitioner which she wished to change to "Mary Pang De la Cruz." We held that all aliases of the applicant must be set forth in the title of the published petition, for the omission of any of such aliases, would be fatal to the petition even if such other aliases are mentioned in the body of the petition. SECOND RULING: The following have been considered valid grounds for a change of name: (1) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable, or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (2) when the change results as a legal consequence, as in legitimation; (3) when the change will avoid confusion (4) having continuously used and been known since childhood by a Filipino name, unaware of his alien parentage (5) a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of former alienage all in good faith and not to prejudice anybody. As may be gleaned from the petition filed in the lower court, the reasons offered for changing the name of petitioner's daughter are: (1) that "her daughter grew up with, and learned to love and recognize Alfredo de la Cruz as her own father" (2) to afford her daughter a feeling of security and (3) that "Alfredo de la Cruz agrees to this petition, and has signified his conformity at the foot of this pleading". Clearly, these are not valid reasons for a change of name. The general rule is that a change of name should not be permitted if it will give a false impression of family relationship to another where none actually exists. In Padilla vs. Republic, 113 SCRA 789, we specifically held that our laws do not authorize legitimate children to adopt the surname of a person not their father, for to allow them to adopt the surname of their mother's husband, who is not their father, can result in confusion of their paternity. Another reason for disallowing the petition for change of name is that it was not filed by the proper party. Clearly, the petition for change of name must be filed by the person desiring to change his/her name, even if it may be signed and verified by some other person in his behalf. In this case, however, the petition was filed by Pang Cha Quen not by May Sia. Hence, only May Sia herself, alias Manman Huang, alias Mary Pang, when she shall have reached the age of majority, may file the petition to change her name. The decision to change her name, the reason for the change, and the choice of a new name and surname shall be hers alone to make. It must be her personal decision. No one else may make it for her. o The reason is obvious. When she grows up to adulthood, she may not want to use her stepfather's surname, nor any of the aliases chosen for her by her mother. In WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is granted, and the order appealed from is hereby reversed and set aside. EMPERATRIZ LABAYO-ROWE vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

GANCAYCO, J.: G.R. No. L-53417 December 8, 1988 FACTS: 1. Emperatriz Labayo-Rowe filed a petition for the correction of entries in the civil registry with the then Court of First Instance of Pampanga. She asked the court to order the Local Civil Registrar of San Fernando, Pampanga to correct the entries in the birth certificates of her children Vicente L. Miclat, Jr. and Victoria Miclat especially with regard to petitioner's name which appears in both certificates as "Beatriz Labayo-Labayu and as regards her civil status and date of marriage which appears in the birth certificate of Victoria Miclat as "married" with the year appearing "1953 Bulan." 2. She claimed that she was never married to Vicente Miclat and that she was now married to an American citizen, William Rowe. Her petition was granted changing her civil status from married to single in the birth certificate of Victoria. ISSUES: WON Emperatriz can change her civil status from married to single in Victorias birth certificate; What is the nature of the proceedings required in order to effect correction of entries in the civil registry involving the correct spelling of the surname as well as the civil status of the mother at the time of the birth of her child. Held: No. As earlier noted, the petition for correction of entries in the civil registry which is now before Us on appeal by the Republic does not only involve the correction of petitioner Labayo's name and surname registered as "Beatriz Labayo/Beatriz Labayo in the birth certificates of her children. The petition also seeks the change of her status from "married" to "not married" at the time of her daughter's birth, thereby changing the status of her child Victoria Miclat from "legitimate" to "illegitimate." The change of petitioner's name from Beatriz Labayo/Beatriz Labayo to Emperatriz Labayo is a mere innocuous alteration wherein a summary proceeding is appropriate. The Republic, however, is appealing the part of the questioned Order which directed as well the change of the petitioner's status from "married" to "not married" and Victoria Miclat's filiation from "legitimate" to "illegitimate." Where the petition for correction of entries in the civil registry, if granted, will have the effect of changing not only the civil status of the petitioner but as well as her child's filiation from "legitimate" to "illegitimate," the same cannot be granted except in an adversary proceeding. The matter should be threshed out in an appropriate action as the corrections involve substantial alterations, and not mere clerical errors. An appropriate proceeding is required wherein all the indispensable parties should be made parties to the case as required under Section 3, Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court. In the case before Us, since only the Office of the Solicitor General was notified through the Office of the Provincial Fiscal, representing the Republic of the Philippines as the only respondent, the proceedings taken, which is summary in nature, is short of what is required in cases where substantial alterations are sought. Aside from the Office of the Solicitor General, all other indispensable parties should have been made respondents. They include not only the declared father of the child but the child as well, together with the paternal grandparents, if any, as their hereditary rights would be adversely affected thereby 25 All other persons who may be affected by the change should be notified or represented. The right of the child Victoria to inherit from her parents would be substantially impaired if her status would be changed from "legitimate" to "illegitimate." Moreover, she would be exposed to

humiliation and embarassment resulting from the stigma of an illegitimate filiation that she will bear thereafter. The fact that the notice of hearing of the petition was published in a newspaper of general circulation and notice thereof was served upon the State will not change the nature of the proceedings taken WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Order appealed from is hereby MODIFIED by nullifying the portion which directs the change of petitioner's civil status as well as the filiation of the child Victoria Miclat. Let a copy of this decision be served upon the Local Civil Registrar of San Fernando, Pampanga for proper implementation. No costs. This decision is immediately executory.