On birth certificates

THE legal issues concerning birth certificates and their corrections and cancellation have spawned several controversies.

Take this story as not uncommon in the Philippines. Presentacion filed a petition for cancellation of the entry of birth of Teofista Babiera alleging that she is the only surviving child of Eugenio and Hermogena Babiera, her parents. Eugenio died on May 26, 1996 while Hermogena died on July 6, 1990.

She claimed that on September 20, 1959 a baby girl named Teofista was born in the house of the spouses Babiera with their housemaid named Flora as the biological mother. Flora allegedly registered the birth of Teofista with Eugenio as the father and Hermogena as the mother. Presentacion claims that at the time of the birth of Teofista, Hermogena was already 54 years old while Eugenio was already 65 years old, and that Flora even forged the supposed signature of Hermogena.

The Regional Trial Court granted the petition and on appeal was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Teofista appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled that while it is true that an official document like a Birth Certificate enjoys the presumption of regularity, it can be overcome by evidence of its falsity. In this case, the High Court observed that the totality of evidence sufficiently negates that presumption. The signature of the mother appears as forged, there was no evidence of Hermogena’s pregnancy such as medical records and doctor’s prescriptions, no witness was presented to attest to the pregnancy of Hermogena who was already 54 years old at the supposed time of birth, and even if it were possible for her to have given birth at such late age, it was highly suspicious that she gave birth in her own home, when her advance age necessitated proper normal care normally available only in a hospital.

And most significant in this case is the testimony of Hermogena that she did not give birth to Teofista and that even during the birth of Teofista and several years thereafter, the housemaid Flora never claimed that Teofista had Eugenio as her father.

Further, the Supreme Court defined that a court action to nullify a birth certificate does not prescribe, because it was allegedly void ab initio and that Article 170 of the Family Code stating that an action to impugn the legitimacy of a child should be brought within one year from knowledge of the birth or its recording in the civil register, does not apply.

The real problem in this case is that Teofista will be an heir together with Presentacion, of the estate of Eugenio and Hermogena, if her birth certificate will not be cancelled. This was the ruling in Teofista Babiera versus Presentacion Catotal (G.R. No. 138493, June 15, 2000).

In the end, the scheming Flora failed in her devious plan.

E-mail: joepallugna@yahoo.com