G.R. No. 181174 – December 04, 2009 Braza (petitioner) Vs. Civil Registrar (respondent) Topic: Collateral Attack on void marriage “Validity of marriage as well as legitimacy and filiation can be questioned only in a direct action seasonably filed by the proper party and not through collateral attacks. Facts: The deceased Pablo Baza Jr. was married to Maria Cristina Torres (petitioner) on January 4, 1978. On his wake, Lucille Titular (respondent) and Patrick Alvin Braza (respondent) showed up and claimed to be the wife and son, respectively of Pablo. Based on the birth certificate obtained by the petitioner, respondent and Pablo were married on April 22, 1998 and Patrick was legitimated by the virtue of the marriage of Pablo and the respondent. The petitioner filed before the RTC of Himalayan City, Negros a petition to correct the entries in the birth certificate since Patrick could not be a legitimate son of Pablo due to the bigamous marriage of the respondent and Pablo to the marriage of the Petitioner and Pablo. The trial court dismissed the petition due to lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner filed for the reconsideration but still was dismissed. Issue: Can the court nullify the marriage of the respondent and Pablo after correcting the legitimacy status of Patrick Baza? Held: No, the court not acting as family court has no jurisdiction on the case –under the Rule 108 Rules of Court, It states that the correction may only cover typographical and innocuous errors. The petitioner should also file a direct action and not just a collateral attack to question the validity of marriage, legitimacy and filiation.