G.R. No. 186053.November 15, 2010.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.

NISAIDA SUMERA NISHINA, represented by ZENAIDA
SUMERA WATANABE, respondent.

Actions; Special Proceedings; Appeals; Multiple Appeals; Record

on Appeal; The filing of a record on appeal is not necessary where no
other matter remains to be heard and determined by the trial court
after it issued the appealed order granting the petition for
cancellation of birth record and change of surname in the civil
registry.Section 1, Rule 109 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
specifies the orders or judgments in special proceedings which may
be the subject of an appeal, viz.: x x x The above-quoted rule
contemplates multiple appeals during the pendency of special
proceedings. A record on appealin addition to the notice of appeal
is thus required to be filed as the original records of the case
should remain with the trial court to enable the rest of the case to
proceed in the event that a separate and distinct issue is resolved
by said court and held to be final. In the present case, the filing of a
record on appeal was not necessary since no other matter remained
to be heard and determined by the trial court after it issued the
appealed order granting respondents petition for cancellation of
birth record and change of surname in the civil registry.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Office of the Solicitor General for petitioner.
Reyes, Cruz, Mauleon Law Office for respondent.

CARPIO-MORALES,J.:
Nisaida Sumera Nishina (respondent), represented by
her mother Zenaida Sumera Watanabe (Zenaida), filed
before the

_______________
 * THIRD DIVISION.

717

VOL. 634, NOVEMBER 15, 2010 717

Republic vs. Nishina

Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan a verified

petition for cancellation of birth record and change of
surname in the civil registry of Malolos, Bulacan, docketed
as Special Proceedings No. 106-M-2007.1
In her petition, respondent alleged the following:
She was born on October 31, 19872 in Malolos, Bulacan
to her Filipino mother Zenaida and Japanese father Koichi
Nishina who were married on February 18, 1987.3 Her
father later died.4 On July 19, 1989, her mother married
another Japanese, Kenichi Hakamada.5
As they could not find any record of her birth at the
Malolos civil registry, respondents mother caused the late
registration of her birth in 1993 under the surname of her
mothers second husband, Hakamada.6 Her mother and
Hakamada eventually divorced.7
On May 29, 1996, her mother married another
Japanese, Takayuki Watanabe,8 who later adopted her by a
decree9 issued by the Tokyo Family Court of Japan on
January 25, 2001. The adoption decree was filed and
recorded in the civil registry of Manila in 2006.10

_______________

1 Records, pp. 4-20.

2 Annex A (Certificate of Live Birth) of Petition in Sp. Proc. No. 106-
M-2007, id., at p. 8.
3 Annex B (Certificate of Marriage), id., at p. 9.
4 Respondents petition did not indicate the date Koichi Nishina died.
5 Annex C (Certificate of Marriage), records, p. 10.
6 Annex D, id., at p. 11.
7 Annex E (Family Registry of Kenichi Hakamada), id., at p. 12.
8 Annex F, id., at p. 13.
9 Annexes G and H, id., at pp. 14-20.
10 Exhibits N and O, TSN, September 26, 2007, p. 6; id., at p. 61.

718

718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 Republic vs. Nishina

In 2007, it surfaced that her birth was in fact originally

registered at the Malolos Civil Registry under the name
Nisaida Sumera Nishina,11 hence, her filing before the
RTC of her petition praying that her second birth
certificate bearing the surname Hakamada, issued
through late registration in 1993, be cancelled; and that in
light of the decree of adoption, her surname Nishina in
the original birth certificate be changed to Watanabe.12
After hearing the petition, Branch 83 of the RTC, by
Order13 of October 8, 2007, granted respondents petition
and directed the Local Civil Registry of Malolos to cancel
the second birth record of Nisaida Sumera Hakamada
issued in 1993 [bearing] Registry No. 93-06684 and to
change it [in its stead] Registry No. 87-04983, particularly
the surname of [respondent] from NISAIDA SUMERA
NISHINA to NISAIDA SUMERA WATANABE.14
A copy of the October 8, 2007 Order was received on
December 13, 2007 by the OSG which filed, on behalf of
petitioner, a notice of appeal.15
Before the Court of Appeals, respondent filed a motion
to dismiss16 the appeal, alleging that petitioner adopted a
wrong mode of appeal since it did not file a record on
appeal as required under Sections 2 and 3, Rule 41 (appeal
from the RTCs) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
reading:

SEC.2.Modes of appeal.
(a) Ordinary appeal.The appeal to the Court of Appeals in
cases decided by the Regional Trial Court in the exercise of its
original jurisdiction shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with
the court which rendered the judgment or final order appealed from
and

_______________

11 TSN, id., at pp. 7-8; pp. 62-63 (emphasis supplied).

12 Ibid.
13 Records, pp. 53-55.
14 Id., at p. 55.
15 Id., at p. 69.
16 CA Rollo, pp. 13-19.

719
 VOL. 634, NOVEMBER 15, 2010 719
Republic vs. Nishina

serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party. No record on

appeal shall be required except in special proceedings and
other cases of multiple or separate appeals where the law or
these Rules so require. In such cases, the record on appeal
shall be filed and served in like manner.
xxxx
SEC.3.Period of ordinary appeal.The appeal shall be taken
within fifteen (15) days from notice of the judgment or final order
appealed from. Where a record on appeal is required, the
appellant shall file a notice of appeal and a record on appeal
within thirty (30) days from notice of the judgment or final
order. However, an appeal in habeas corpus cases shall be taken
within forty-eight (48) hours from notice of the judgment or final
order appealed from. (A.M. No. 01-1-03- SC, June 19, 2001)
The period of appeal shall be interrupted by a timely motion for
new trial or reconsideration. No motion for extension of time to file
a motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be allowed.
(emphasis, underscoring and italics supplied)
xxxx
SEC.9.Perfection of appeal; effect thereof.x x x.
A partys appeal by record on appeal is deemed perfected as to
him with respect to the subject matter thereof upon the approval of
the record on appeal filed in due time.
x x x x

Opposing the motion, petitioner countered that a record

on appeal is required only in proceedings where multiple
appeals may arise, a situation not obtaining in the present
case.17
By Resolution18 of September 2, 2008, the appellate
court dismissed petitioners appeal, holding that since
respondents petition before the RTC is classified as a
special proceeding, petitioner should have filed both notice
of appeal and a record

_______________

17 Id., at pp. 50-54.

18 Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and
concurred in by Associate Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Rosmari
D. Carandang; id., at pp. 60-63.

720
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Republic vs. Nishina

on appeal within 30 days from receipt of the October 8,

2007 Order granting respondents petition, and by not
filing a record on appeal, petitioner never perfected its
appeal.19
Its motion for reconsideration having been denied by
Resolution20 of December 22, 2008, petitioner filed the
present petition for review on certiorari.
The petition is meritorious.
Section 1, Rule 109 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
specifies the orders or judgments in special proceedings
which may be the subject of an appeal, viz.:

SECTION1.Orders or judgments from which appeals may be

taken.An interested person may appeal in special proceedings
from an order or judgment rendered by a Court of First Instance or
a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, where such order or
judgment:
(a)Allows or disallows a will;
(b) Determines who are the lawful heirs of a deceased person, or
the distributive share of the estate to which such person is entitled;
(c) Allows or disallows, in whole or in part, any claim against the
estate of a deceased person, or any claim presented on behalf of the
estate in offset to a claim against it;
(d)Settles the account of an executor, administrator, trustee or
guardian;
(e) Constitutes, in proceedings relating to the settlement of the
estate of a deceased person, or the administration of a trustee or
guardian, a final determination in the lower court of the rights of
the party appealing, except that no appeal shall be allowed from the
appointment of a special administrator; and
(f) Is the final order or judgment rendered in the case, and
affects the substantial rights of the person appealing unless it be an

_______________

19 Id., at p. 63.
20 Id., at pp. 74-76.

721

VOL. 634, NOVEMBER 15, 2010 721

Republic vs. Nishina
order granting or denying a motion for a new trial or for
reconsideration.

The above-quoted rule contemplates multiple appeals

during the pendency of special proceedings. A record on
appealin addition to the notice of appealis thus
required to be filed as the original records of the case
should remain with the trial court21 to enable the rest of
the case to proceed in the event that a separate and
distinct issue is resolved by said court and held to be
final.22
In the present case, the filing of a record on appeal was
not necessary since no other matter remained to be heard
and determined by the trial court after it issued the
appealed order granting respondents petition for
cancellation of birth record and change of surname in the
civil registry.
The appellate courts reliance on Zayco v. Hinlo, Jr.23 in
denying petitioners motion for reconsideration is
misplaced. In Zayco which was a petition for letters of
administration of a deceased persons estate, the decedents
children appealed the trial courts order appointing the
grandson of the decedent as administrator of the estate.
Their notice of appeal and record on appeal were denied
due course by the trial court on the ground that the
appealed order is interlocutory and not subject to appeal.
But even if the appeal were proper, it was belatedly filed.
On certiorari by the decedents children, the appellate court
sustained the trial court. On petition for review, this Court
reversed the appellate court, holding that [a]n order
appointing an administrator of a deceased persons estate
is a final determination of the rights of the parties in
connection with the administration, management and
settle-

_______________

21 FLORENZ D. REGALADO, REMEDIAL LAW COMPENDIUM, Vol. II, Eighth

Revised Edition (2000), p. 195.
22 Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
111324, July 5, 1996, 327 Phil. 810, 819; 258 SCRA 186, 194.
23 G.R. No. 170243, April 16, 2008, 551 SCRA 613.

722

722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 Republic vs. Nishina

ment of the decedents estate, hence, the order is final

and appealable.24 The Court also held that the appeal
was filed on time.
In Zayco, unlike in the present case, a record on appeal
was obviously necessary as the proceedings before the trial
court involved the administration, management and
settlement of the decedents estatematters covered by
Section 1 of Rule 109 wherein multiple appeals could, and
did in that case, call for them.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Court of
Appeals Resolutions of September 2, 2008 and December
22, 2008 in CA-G.R. CV No. 90346 are REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. The appeal of petitioners before the appellate
court is REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.

Brion, Bersamin, Villarama, Jr. and Sereno, JJ.,

concur.

Petition granted, resolutions reversed and set aside.

Note.The reason for multiple appeals in the same case

is to enable the rest of the case to proceed in the event that
a separate and distinct issue is resolved by the trial court
and held to be finalin such a case, the filing of a record on
appeal becomes indispensable since only a particular
incident of the case is brought to the appellate court for
resolution with the rest of the proceedings remaining
within the jurisdiction of the trial court. (Marinduque
Mining and Industrial Corporation vs. Court of Appeals,
567 SCRA 483 [2008])
o0o

_______________

24 Id., at pp. 616-617.

Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.