Baldos vs. CA
Baldos vs. CA
Baldos vs. CA
NIEVESESTARESBALDOS,substitutedbyFRANCISCO
BALDOS and MARTIN BALDOS, petitioners, vs. COURT
OF APPEALS and REYNALDO PILLAZAR a.k.a.
REYNALDOESTARESBALDOS,respondents.
Civil Register; Registration of Birth; Under National Census
and Statistics Office (NCSO) Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 183,
the birth of a child shall be registered in the office of the local civil
registrar within 30 days from the time of birth; Any report of birth
made beyond the reglementary period is considered delayed.
UnderNCSOA.O.No.183,thebirthofachildshallberegistered
intheofficeofthelocalcivilregistrarwithin30daysfromthetime
ofbirth.Anyreportofbirthmadebeyondthereglementaryperiodis
considered delayed. The local civil registrar, upon receiving an
application for delayed registration of birth, is required to publicly
post for at least ten days a notice of the pending application for
delayed registration. If after ten days no one opposes the
registration and the local civil registrar is convinced beyond doubt
thatthebirthshouldberegistered,heshouldregisterthesame.
Same; Same; The books making up the civil register are
considered public documents and are prima facie evidence of the
truth of the facts stated there; As a public document, a registered
certificate of live birth enjoys the presumption of validity.
Applicationsfordelayedregistrationofbirthgothrougharigorous
process.Thebooksmakingupthecivilregisterareconsideredpublic
documents and are prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts
stated there. As a public document, a registered certificate of live
birth enjoys the presumption of validity. It is not for Reynaldo to
prove the facts stated in his certificate of live birth, but for
petitioners who are assailing the certificate to prove its alleged
falsity. Petitioners miserably failed to do so. Thus, the trial court
and the Court of Appeals correctly denied for lack of merit the
petitiontocancelthelateregistrationofReynaldosbirth.
_______________
*SECONDDIVISION.
616
616
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Baldos vs. Court of Appeals
RESOLUTION
CARPIO,J.:
The Case
This is a petition for review1 of the 8 August 2005
Decision2 and the 22 November 2005 Resolution3 of the
CourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CVNo.65693.The8August
2005 Decision affirmed the 16 August 1999 Order4 of the
RegionalTrialCourt(Branch74)ofOlongapoCityinCivil
CaseNo.79095.The22November2005Resolutiondenied
petitionersmotionforreconsideration.
The Antecedent Facts
Reynaldo Pillazar, alias Reynaldo Baldos, was born on
30 October 1948. However, his birth was not registered in
the office of the local civil registrar until roughly 36 years
later or on 11 February 1985. His certificate of live birth5
indicated Nieves Baldos as his mother and Bartolome
Baldosashis
_______________
1UnderRule45oftheRulesofCourt.
2Rollo,pp.2838.PennedbyAssociateJusticeJoseCatralMendoza,
with Presiding Justice Romeo A. Brawner and Associate Justice
EdgardoP.Cruz,concurring.
3 Id.,atpp.3940.PennedbyAssociateJusticeJoseCatralMendoza,
with Associate Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Edgardo P. Cruz,
concurring.
4Records,pp.106109.
5Id.,atp.4.
617
VOL.SECOND,JULY9,2010
617
Noonewaspresentedbyplaintifftocorroborateherstand.
Intherealmoftheevidenceonrecord,thereisnodoubtthatthe
oppositor is petitioners son. Petitioners reason for disowning the
oppositorisobvious;hedidnotliveuptoherexpectation;hiswifeis
ungrateful to everything she did for her and the oppositor. Bad
bloodrunsintheveinsoftheparties.Butwhileoppositormayhave
doneanactthatcausedplaintifftorueshegavehimlife,suchacts
however,arenotjustificationsofwhatshepraysfromthisCourt.
An ungrateful act is not a ground to cancel a validly executed
document,norareasontostripapersonofonesfiliation.Itmaybe
a ground for disinheritance though. The documents adduced on
recordarethebestevidenceofthepartiesrelationship.8
_______________
6Id.,atpp.13.
7Id.,atpp.106109.
8Id.,atpp.108109.
618
618
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Baldos vs. Court of Appeals
_______________
9Rollo,pp.2838.
10CARollo,p.61.
11Id.,atpp.7172.
619
VOL.SECOND,JULY9,2010
619
620
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Baldos vs. Court of Appeals
orclinicadministratoror,indefaultofthesame,byeitherparentor
VOL.SECOND,JULY9,2010
621
622
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Baldos vs. Court of Appeals
certificateoflivebirth,butforpetitionerswhoareassailing
the certificate to prove its alleged falsity. Petitioners
miserablyfailedtodoso.Thus,thetrialcourtandtheCourt
ofAppealscorrectlydeniedforlackofmeritthepetitionto
cancelthelateregistrationofReynaldosbirth.
WHEREFORE,weDENYthepetition.WeAFFIRMthe
8 August 2005 Decision and the 22 November 2005
ResolutionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CVNo.65693
affirming the 16 August 1999 Order of the Regional Trial
Court(Branch74)ofOlongapoCityinCivilCaseNo.790
95.
Costsagainstpetitioners.
SOORDERED.
Brion,** Abad, Villarama, Jr.*** and Perez,**** JJ.,
concur.
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.
Note.Certificatesissuedbythelocalcivilregistrarand
baptismalcertificatesareper seinadmissibleinevidenceas
proofoffiliationandtheycannotbeadmittedindirectlyas
circumstantial evidence to prove the same. (Cabatania vs.
Court of Appeals,441SCRA96[2004])
o0o
_______________
**DesignatedadditionalmemberperRaffledated5July2010.
***DesignatedadditionalmemberperSpecialOrderNo.858.
****DesignatedadditionalmemberperSpecialOrderNo.863.
Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.
Alternative Proxies: