• This case addresses whether a court in one province has the authority to order the cancellation of a birth certificate registered in another province as part of a case to correct a different birth certificate. It also clarifies if new laws allowing administrative corrections remove the court's power to handle these cases. The Supreme Court confirmed the court's authority and ruled that judicial remedies remain available.

• Two Birth Certificates: Charlie Mintas Felix had two birth certificates. The first (from Itogon, Benguet) had errors in his name, gender, and father's surname. The second (from Carranglan, Nueva Ecija) had the correct information.
• The Problem: When requesting an official copy, the National Statistics Office (NSO) issued the incorrect one from Itogon.
• The Lawsuit: He filed a case in the Benguet Regional Trial Court (RTC) to correct the Itogon certificate and cancel the second one from Nueva Ecija to avoid future confusion.

• Government's Objection: The government argued that the Benguet court lacked jurisdiction to order the Civil Registrar in Nueva Ecija to perform an action.
• Trial Court & Court of Appeals Rulings: Both lower courts ruled in favor of Felix, stating the cancellation was a necessary consequence of the main action to correct the primary birth certificate.
• Appeal to the Supreme Court: The Republic of the Philippines brought the case to the Supreme Court, raising the same jurisdictional issue.

• Did the Benguet court have the authority to order the Civil Registrar in Nueva Ecija to cancel the second birth certificate?
• Did recent laws (RA 9048 and RA 10172), which allow for administrative correction of clerical errors, take away the trial courts' authority to handle such petitions?

The Supreme Court dismissed the government's petition and affirmed the lower courts' decisions.

• On Jurisdiction: The Court Had Authority. The court applied the "doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction." This means a court's power to decide a case includes the power to resolve all related, incidental issues. The cancellation was incidental to the main issue of correcting the first certificate.
• On Administrative Remedies: Courts Retain Power. While laws created an administrative process for correcting errors, they did not remove the courts' original jurisdiction. The administrative route is an alternative, not a replacement. A person can still go to court, even without first trying the administrative path.

• Ancillary Jurisdiction: A court has the power to rule on incidental matters that are necessary to resolve the main case before it.
• Multiplicity of Suits: The legal system discourages filing separate cases for issues that can be resolved in a single proceeding.
• Concurrent Jurisdiction: The existence of an administrative remedy does not automatically remove a court's power to hear a case. Both paths can exist simultaneously.