Case Digest: BABIERA v. CATOTAL

Babiera v.Catotal
G.R. No. 138493, June 15, 2000

FACTS:

Presentacion B. Catotal filed a petition for the cancellation of the entry of birth of Teofista Babiera. From the petition filed, Presentacion asserted the following:

1. that she was the only surviving child of the late spouses Eugenio Babiera and Hermogena Cariñosa, who died on May 26, 1996 and July 6, 1990 respectively;
2. that on September 20, 1996 a baby girl was delivered by “hilot” in the house of spouses Eugenio and Hermogena Babiera and without the knowledge of said spouses, Flora Guinto, the mother of the child and a housemaid of spouses Eugenio and Hermogena Babiera, caused the registration/recording of the facts of birth of her child, by simulating that she was the child of the spouses Eugenio, then 65 years old and Hermogena, then 54 years old, and made Hermogena Babiera appear as the mother by forging her signature that petitioner, then 15 years old, saw with her own eyes and personally
3. witnessed Flora Guinto give birth to Teofista Guinto, in their house, assisted by “hilot”;
4. that the birth certificate of Teofista Guinto is void ab initio, as it was totally a simulated birth, signature of informant forged, and it contained false

Teofista filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that “the petition states no cause of action, it being an attack on the legitimacy of the respondent as the child of the spouses Eugenio Babiera and HermogenaCariñosaBabiera; that plaintiff has no legal capacity to file the instant petition pursuant to Article 171 of the Family Code; and finally that the instant petition is barred by prescription in accordance with Article 170 of the Family Code.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a certificate of live birth is sufficient to establish the legitimacy of a child regardless of the fact that the same is obtained by fraud or that it contained some irregularities

RULING:

No. The present case alleged and showed that Hermogena did not give birth to petitioner. The prayer was not to declare that petitioner was an illegitimate child of Hermogena, but to establish that the former was not the latter’s child at all. The action did not impugn petitioner’s filiation to Spouses Eugenio and Hermogena Babiera, because there was no blood relation to impugn in the first place.

While it is true that an official document such as petitioner’s Birth Certificate enjoys the presumption of regularity, the specific facts attendant in the case, as well as the totality of the evidence presented during trial, sufficiently negate such presumption. First, there were already irregularities regarding the Birth Certificate itself. It was not signed by the local civil registrar. More important, the Court of Appeals observed that the mother’s signature therein was different from her signatures in other documents presented during the trial.

The circumstances surrounding the birth of petitioner show that Hermogena was not the former’s real mother. There was no evidence of Hermogena’s pregnancy, such as medical records and doctor’s prescriptions, other than the Birth Certificate itself. Moreover, at the time of her supposed birth, Hermogena was already 54 years old. Even if it were possible for her to have given birth at such a late age, it was highly suspicious that she did so in her own home, when her advanced age necessitated proper medical care normally available only in a hospital. The most significant piece of evidence, however, was the deposition of Hermogena Babiera which stated that she did not give birth to petitioner, and that the latter was neither hers nor her husband Eugenio’s.