The Supreme Court recently ruled on the case of Republic vs. Nishina, addressing the legal requirements for appeals in special proceedings related to birth record cancellation and name change in the civil registry. This case involved Nisaida Sumera Nishina, who sought to cancel her second birth record and change her surname to reflect her adoptive father’s name, Watanabe.
Background of the Case
Nisaida Sumera Nishina was born on October 31, 1987, in Malolos, Bulacan, to a Filipino mother, Zenaida, and a Japanese father, Koichi Nishina, who later passed away. Following her father’s death, Zenaida remarried twice: first to Kenichi Hakamada in 1989 and later to Takayuki Watanabe in 1996. Due to the absence of Nisaida’s birth record, her mother registered her in 1993 under Hakamada’s surname. After Zenaida’s divorce from Hakamada and subsequent marriage to Watanabe, Watanabe adopted Nisaida in 2001, with the adoption being officially recorded in 2006.
In 2007, her original birth record under the name “Nisaida Sumera Nishina” was discovered. This led Nisaida to file a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to cancel her second birth certificate (issued in 1993) and officially change her surname from “Nishina” to “Watanabe” to reflect her adoptive father’s name.
RTC Decision and Appeal
After hearing the petition, Branch 83 of the RTC granted Nisaida’s request. The court directed the Local Civil Registry of Malolos to cancel the 1993 birth record under the name “Nisaida Sumera Hakamada” (Registry No. 93-06684) and retain the original 1987 record (Registry No. 87-04983), amending the surname from “Nishina” to “Watanabe.”
The Republic appealed the RTC’s decision, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal. The appellate court held that since Nisaida’s petition before the RTC was classified as a special proceeding, the Republic was required to file both a notice of appeal and a record on appeal within 30 days of receiving the RTC’s order. The Republic’s failure to file a record on appeal led the appellate court to conclude that it “never perfected” its appeal.
Issue: Is a Record on Appeal Required in Special Proceedings?
The central issue in this case was whether a record on appeal is mandatory only in cases where multiple appeals may arise from the proceedings.
Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Republic, declaring the appeal meritorious. The Court referenced Section 1, Rule 109 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which outlines the orders or judgments in special proceedings that are appealable. This rule anticipates that multiple appeals may be filed during the pendency of special proceedings, and thus requires the filing of a record on appeal along with the notice of appeal. The record on appeal serves to ensure that the original case records remain with the trial court, allowing other aspects of the case to proceed if a separate issue is appealed.
However, in this particular case, the Supreme Court noted that filing a record on appeal was unnecessary. The trial court had already issued a final order granting the respondent’s petition to cancel the birth record and change the surname, and there were no additional matters to be resolved in the trial court. As no further issues were pending in the trial court, the Supreme Court found that the appellate court erred in requiring a record on appeal for the Republic’s appeal to proceed.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies that a record on appeal is not required in special proceedings where no further issues remain to be addressed by the trial court. This ruling simplifies the appeals process in cases involving specific and conclusive judgments, ensuring that procedural requirements do not obstruct parties from seeking justice. In Republic vs. Nishina, the Court ultimately emphasized the importance of a straightforward and equitable approach to procedural rules, particularly in cases impacting personal and civil records.
Link of the case: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/34513
Real LexEcon 