Sie sind auf Seite 1von 21

REPUBLIC VS CA AND WONG

FACTS:

Maximo Wong petitioned for the change of his name to Maximo Alcala,
Jr. which was his name prior to his adoption by Hoong Wong and
Concepcion Ty Wong. Maximo Wong is the legitimate son of Maximo
Alcala, Sr. and Segundina Y.Alcala. Siblings Maximo Alcala, Jr. and
Margaret Alcala were adopted by Hoong Wong and Concepcion Ty
Wong (naturalized Filipino citizens) with the consent of their parents.

They decided to adopt the children as they remained childless after
fifteen years of marriage. Maximo Wong ,22 years old, then married and
a junior Engineering student at Notre Dame University, Cotabato City,
filed a petition to change his name to Maximo Alcala, Jr. It was averred
that his use of the surname Wong embarrassed and isolated him from
his relatives and friends, as the same suggests a Chinese ancestry when
in truth and in fact he is a Muslim Filipino residing in a Muslim
community, he wants to erase any implication whatsoever of alien
nationality; that he is being ridiculed for carrying a Chinese surname,
thus hampering his business and social life; and that his adoptive mother
does not oppose his desire to revert to his former surname.

Lower court ruled in favor of Wong. CA affirmed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Maximo Wong may legally change his name to
MaximoAlcala, Jr.

RULING:

YES. Maximo Wong may legally change his name to Maximo Alcala, Jr.

The Court stated that the State has an interest in the names borne by individuals
and entities for the purpose of identification and a change of name is not a matter
of right but of sound judicial discretion, to be exercised in the light of reasons
adduced and the consequences that will likely follow;
it is a privilege which may be granted only upon a showing of a proper or
reasonable cause or compelling reason therefor.

It bears stressing at this point that to justify a request for change of
name, petitioner must show not only some proper or compelling reason
therefor but also that he will be prejudiced by the use of his true and
official name. Among the grounds for change of name which have been
held valid are: (a) When the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or
extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (b) When the change results
as a legal consequence, as in legitimation; (c) When the change will
avoid confusion; (d) Having continuously used and been known since
childhood by a Filipino name, unaware of her alien parentage; (e) A
sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of former alienage,
all in good faith and without prejudicing anybody; and (f) When the
surname causes embarrassment and there is no showing that the
desired change of name was for a fraudulent purpose or that the change
of name would prejudice public interest.

From the testimony of petitioner-appellee and of his adopter mother
Concepcion Ty-Wong, We discern that said appellee was prompted to
file the petition for change of name because of the embarrassment and
ridicule his family name "Wong" brings in his dealings with his relatives
and friends, he being a Muslim Filipino and living in a Muslim
community. Another cause is his desire to improve his social and
business life. It has been held that in the absence of prejudice to the
state or any individual, a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase
signs of a former alien nationality which only hampers social and
business life, is a proper and reasonable cause for change of name.
Justice dictates that a person should be allowed to improve his social
standing as long as in doing so, he does not cause prejudice or injury to
the interest of the State or other persons. Nothing whatsoever is shown
in the record of this case that such prejudice or injury to the interest of
the state or of other persons would result in the change of petitioner's
name.

AM No. 06-7-414-RTC

FACTS:

A judicial audit and physical inventory of cases was conducted on June
20-24 2005 at the RTC, Paniqui, Tarlac, Branch 67, then presided by
Judge Cesar M. Sotero who compulsorily retired on Feb 2006. The audit
noticed that there were no special proceedings case records presented.
Upon inquiry, the Clerk of of Court Paulino Saguyod asserted that most
of these cases are for Petitions for Corrections of Entries in the Civil
Registry and gave the audit team copies of the decisions. The audit team
observed that almost all of the petitions have no hearings conducted
and that the date of filing indicated in the docket books and date of the
decision was so near that it will be improbable to comply with the
publication requirement under the Rules of Court. In view of these
observations, Judge Sotero and Clerk of Court Saguyod were made to
explain why these pettions for change of name and/or correction of
entries in the civil registry were granted without the required hearing. In
their answer, they explained that these petitions may be covered by RA
9048 which authorized city or municipal registrar to correct clerical or
typographical errors in the civil registry without need for a judicial order.


ISSUE:

Whether trial court still have jurisdiction over petitions on change of
name and correction of entries.

Whether the summary procedure prescribed in RA 9048 should be
adopted in cases filed before the courts, or should the proceeding under
Rule 108 be followed.

RULING:

During the deliberation, it was clear that the clear that the local civil
registrar is given the authority to act on petitions for corrections of
entries and change of first name or nicknames, yet there was no
mention that such petition can no longer be filed with the regular
courts. There was no intent on the part of the lawmakers to remove the
authority of the trial courts to make judicial corrections of entries in the
civil registry. It can thus be concluded that the local civil registry has
primary, not exclusive jurisdiction over such petitons for correction of
clerical errors and change of first name or nickname.

There should be recourse to the procedure prescribed for the courts as if
RA were not enacted at all. In other words, the procedure provided in
the Revised Rules of Court of such petitions remains binding and should
be followed by the courts. The procedural requirements laid down in
Rules 103 and 108 still have to be complied with.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. CAPOTE


FACTS:

In 1998, respondent Trinidad R. A. Capote (guardian ad litem) filed a
petition forchange of name of her ward from Giovanni Nadores
Gallamaso to Giovanni Nadores. The petition alleged that: Giovanni
is the illegitimate natural child of Corazon P. Nadores and Diosdado
Gallamaso; he was born on July 9, 1982, prior to the effectivity of the
New Family Code; his mother made him use the surname of the natural
father despite the absence of marriage between them;from the time
Giovanni was born and up to the present, his father failed to take up his
responsibilities [to him] on matters of financial, physical, emotional and
spiritual concerns; Giovanni is now fully aware of how he stands with his
father and he desires to have his surname changed to that of his
mothers surname; Giovannis mother might eventually petition him to
join her in the United States and his continued use of the surname
Gallamaso, the surname of his natural father, may complicate his status
as natural child; and the change of name will be for the benefit of the
minor.

Having found respondents petition sufficient in form and substance, the
trial court gave due course to the petition. Publication of the petition
was ordered and the local civil registrar and the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) was notified. Since there was no opposition to the
petition, respondent moved for leave of court to present her evidence
ex parte before a court-appointed commissioner. The OSG, acting
through the Provincial Prosecutor, did not object; hence, the lower court
granted the motion. After the reception of evidence, the trial court
rendered a decision ordering the change of name from Giovanni N.
Gallamaso to Giovanni Nadores.

Petitioner Republic of the Philippines, through the OSG, filed an appeal
with a lone assignment of error: the court a quo erred in granting the
petition in a summary proceeding. Ruling that the proceedings were
sufficiently adversarial in nature as required, the CA affirmed the RTC
decision ordering the change of name.

Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court contending that the CA erred
in affirming the trial courts decision which granted the petition for
change of name despite the non-joinder of indispensable parties.
The purported parents and all other persons who may be adversely
affected by the childs change of name should have been made
respondents to make the proceeding adversarial.

ISSUES:

WON the petition for change of name should be granted.

Is a proceeding for change of name adversarial?

WON Capote complied with the requirement for an adversarial
proceeding

4. When is a proceeding considered adversarial?

RULING:

Yes. The law and facts obtaining here favor Giovannis petition. Giovanni
availed of the proper remedy, a petition for change of name under Rule
103 of the Rules of Court, and complied with all the procedural
requirements. After hearing, the trial court found that the evidence
presented during the hearing of Giovannis petition sufficiently
established that, under Art. 176 of the Civil Code, Giovanni is entitled to
change his name as he was never recognized by his father while his
mother has always recognized him as her child. A change of name will
erase the impression that he was ever recognized by his father. It is
also to his best interest as it will facilitate his mothers intended petition
to have him join her in the United States. This Court will not stand in the
way of the reunification of mother and son.

The OSG is correct in stating that a petition for change of name must be
heard in an adversarial proceeding. Unlike petitions for the cancellation
or correction of clerical errors in entries in the civil registry under Rule
108 of the Rules of Court, a petition for change of name under Rule 103
cannot be decided through a summary proceeding. There is no doubt
that this petition does not fall under Rule 108 for it is not alleged that
the entry in the civil registry suffers from clerical or typographical errors.
The relief sought clearly goes beyond correcting erroneous entries in the
civil registry, although by granting the petition, the result is the same in
that a corresponding change in the entry is also required to reflect the
change in name.

Capote complied with the requirement for an adversarial proceeding by
posting in a newspaper of general circulation notice of the filing of the
petition. The lower court also furnished the OSG a copy thereof. Despite
the notice, no one came forward to oppose the petition including the
OSG. The fact that no one opposed the petition did not deprive the court
of its jurisdiction to hear the same nor does it make the proceeding less
adversarial in nature. The lower court is still expected to exercise its
judgment to determine whether the petition is meritorious or not and
not merely accept as true the arguments propounded. Considering that
the OSG neither opposed the petition nor the motion to present its
evidence ex parte when it had the opportunity to do so, it cannot now
complain that the proceedings in the lower court were not adversarial
enough.

A proceeding is adversarial where the party seeking relief has given legal
warning to the other party and afforded the latter an opportunity to
contest it. Respondent gave notice of the petition through publication as
required by the rules. With this, all interested parties were deemed
notified and the whole world considered bound by the judgment
therein. In addition, the trial court gave due notice to the OSG by serving
a copy of the petition on it. Thus, all the requirements to make a
proceeding adversarial were satisfied when all interested parties,
including petitioner as represented by the OSG, were afforded the
opportunity to contest the petition.


IN RE: PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME AND/OR
CORRECTION/CANCELLATION OF ENTRY IN CIVIL REGISTRY OF JULIAN
LIN CARULASAN WANG

FACTS:

Petitioner, a minor, represented by his mother Anna Lisa Wang, filed a
petition dated Sept 19 2002 for change of name and/or
correction/cancellation of entry in the Civil Registry of Julian Lin
Carulasan Wang. Petitioner sought to drop his middle name and have his
registered name changed from Julian Carulasan Wang to Juan Lin Wang.
Petitioner theorizes that it would be for his best interest to drop his
middle name as this would name as this would help him to adjust more
easily to and integrate himself into Singaporean society.

ISSUE:

WON the law allows one to drop the middle name from his registered
name on the cause mentioned.

RULING:

The touchstone for the grant of a change of name is that there be
proper and reasonable cause for which the change is sought. To justify a
request for change of name, petitioner must show not only some proper
or compelling reason therefor but also that he will be prejudiced by the
use of his true and official name. Among the grounds for change of
name which have been held valid are: (a) When the name is ridiculous,
dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (b) When the
change results as a legal consequence, as in legitimation; (c) When the
change will avoid confusion; (d) Having continuously used and been
known since childhood by a Filipino name, unaware of her alien
parentage; (e) A sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of
former alienage, all in good faith and without prejudicing anybody; and
(f) When the surname causes embarrassment and there is no showing
that the desired change of name was for a fraudulent purpose or that
the change of name would prejudice public interest.
In the case at bar, the only reason advanced by petitioner for the
dropping his middle name is convenience. However, how such change
of name would make his integration into Singaporean society easier and
convenient is not clearly established. That the continued use of his
middle name would cause confusion and difficulty does not constitute
proper and reasonable cause to drop it from his registered complete
name.
In addition, petitioner is only a minor. Considering the nebulous
foundation on which his petition for change of name is based, it is best
that the matter of change of his name be left to his judgment and
discretion when he reaches the age of majority. As he is of tender age,
he may not yet understand and appreciate the value of the change of his
name and granting of the same at this point may just prejudice him in
his rights under our laws.

REPUBLIC VS CA and VICENCIO

FACTS:

The petitioner was born at Capitol Medical Center in Quezon City on
January 19, 1971 to parents Pablo Castro Vicencio and Fe Esperanza de
Vega Leabres. On January 10,
1927,aftermarital disagreement, Vicencio left their Meycauayan
Bulacan conjugal property and never returned nor gave support to his
family. Leabres found an ally in Ernesto Yu who would later end up as
her husband. On June 29, 1976, Leabres filed a petition , known as Civil
case number E-02009 with the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court
for the dissolution of her conjugal partnership with Vicencio. In a
decision given by Hon Regina C. Ordoez Benitez dated July11, 1977,
the petition was granted. The petitioners mother filed another petition
in 1983 to drop the surname of her husband therefrom and this, known
as Special Proclamation 8316346 was again approved in a decision
rendered by Hon. Emeterio C. Cui of Branch XXV. Yet again,under Special
Proclamation number 84-22605, Leabres filed a petition to declare Pablo
Vicencioan absentee. Hon. Corona Ibay- Somera decided in favour of the
petitioners mother on April 26,1984. The positive results of these
petitions paved the way for the marriage of the petitioners mother and
Ernesto Yu on April 15, 1986.
Evidence was established that the petitioner had not remembered much
her real father, PabloVicencio, and that in his absence, it was Ernesto Yu
who had taken Vicencios place. Although petitioner uses the surname
Vicencio in her school and other related activities, she contends that in
such situations, confusion arose as to her parentage leading to inquiries
as to why she is using Vicencio as surname ; causing much
embarrassment on her part. In two occasions when she ranas a beauty
contestant for Lions Club Affair and Manila Red Cross, her name was
registered asCynthia L. Yu. His stepfather had given his consent thereto
upon prior consultation with him. The Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) , having participated in the cross examination of Cynthia Vicencio
and her witnesses, manifested opposition over the petition. The court
argued that there was no valid cause for the denial of the petition and
that taking into account the fact that the court cannot compel the
stepfather of the petitioner to consider adoption , failure to observe the
process should not be a cause for disallowing petitioner to legally
change her name, in addition to the opportunity of the respondent to
improve her personality and welfare under asocially recognized
surname, that of her stepfather. On August 31, 1987, the Manila
Regional Trial Court Branch 52 granted private respondent Cynthia
Vicencios petition for change of surname from Vicencio to Yu. The same
was affirmed by the decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 28,
1989.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the appellate court made a mistake or violated
standards in affirming the decision of the trial court to allow the change
in private respondents surname to that of her stepfathers surname.

RULING:

Among the grounds for change of name which have been held valid are:
(a) When the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to
write or pronounce; (b) When the change results as a legal consequence,
as in legitimation; (c) When the change will avoid confusion; (d) Having
continuously used and been known since childhood by a Filipino name,
unaware of her alien parentage; (e) A sincere desire to adopt a Filipino
name to erase signs of former alienage, all in good faith and without
prejudicing anybody; and (f) When the surname causes embarrassment
and there is no showing that the desired change of name was for a
fraudulent purpose or that the change of name would prejudice public
interest.

Private respondent asserts that she falls under one of justifiable
grounds, specifically under avoidance of confusion since she has been
recognized by society as the daughter of Ernesto Yu although she admits
to having used Vicencio in beauty pageants and in her debut.

In the argument of the SG, I argues that change in surname might give
rise to legal complications since her stepfather has two other children
with her mother and such complications may affect even the issue of
inheritance should the stepfather die. The OSG further argues that
change of name would be easy through adoption which Ernesto YU did
not opt for.

The SC found that there is no legally justifiable cause for allowing such
change.

In the matter of the Adoption of Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia

FACTS:

Honorato B. Catindig, filed a petition to adopt his minor illegitimate child
Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia. He alleged that Stephanie's middle
name be changed to "Garcia," her mother's surname, and that her
surname be changed to "Catindig." the trial court granted the petition
for adoption. Petitioner then filed for clarification and/or
reconsideration praying that Stephanie should be allowed to use the
surname of her biological mother as her middle name. The trial court
denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration as there is no law or
jurisprudence allowing an adopted child to use the surname of his
biological mother as his middle name.

ISSUE:

Whether an illegitimate child may use the surname of her mother as her
middle name when she is subsequently adopted by her natural father.

RULING:
There is no law prohibiting an illegitimate child adopted by her natural
father, like Stephanie, to use, as middle name her mother's surname.
The court finds no reason why she should not be allowed to do so.

Republic vs. Coseteng- Magpayo

Facts:

Julian Edward Emerson Coseteng Magpayo claimed that his parents
were never married andfiled a petition in QC to change his name to
Julian Edward Emerson Marquez Lim Coseteng(using the maiden name
of his mother). Records which show that he has been using the surname
of Coseteng since childhood (academic records)

Trial Court granted petition and ordered Civil Registrar to:

a. Delete the entry date and place of marriage(of parents) in
respondents live birth certificate

b. Change entry of Last name from Magpayo to Coseteng

c. Delete entry of Coseting from Middle name

d. Delete entry of Fulvio Miranda Magpayo Jr in the entry for Father

Republic filed a motion against the order of the court stating that the
change of name of respondent also calls for a change of civil status from
legitimateto illegitimate and that the Court exceeded jurisdiction when
it ordered deletion of name of the father


Issue:

WON respondents change of name was affected through an appropriate
adversary proceeding.



RULING:

Respondents reason for changing his name cannot be considered as
anyone of the recognized grounds in rule 103 (respondent denies his
legitimacy by affecting his legal status in relation to his parents)

Since respondents desired change affects his legitimacy, rule 108 should
apply

Rule 108 clearly directs that a petition which concerns ones civil status
should be filed in the civil
registry in which the entry is sought to be cancelled or corrected
(Makati, not QC) and "all persons who have or claim any interest which
would be affected thereby" should be made parties to the proceeding

When a petition for cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil
register involves substantial and controversial alterations including those
on citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of
marriage, a strict compliance with the requirements of Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court is mandated

Decision of Trial Court was nullified.


REPUBLIC VS CAGANDAHAN

FACTS:

Jennifer Cagandahan was registered as a female in her Certificate of Live
Birth. During her childhood years, she suffered from clitoral
hypertrophy and was later on diagnosed that her ovarian structures had
minimized. She likewise has no breast nor menstruation. Subsequently,
she was diagnosed of having Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH), a
condition where those afflicted possess secondary male characteristics
because of too much secretion of male hormones, androgen. According
to her, for all interests and appearances as well as in mind and emotion,
she has become a male person. She filed a petition at RTC Laguna for
Correction of Entries in her Birth Certificate such that her gender or sex
be changed to male and her first name be changed to Jeff.

ISSUE:

WON correction of entries in her birth certificate should be granted.

RULING:

The Court considered the compassionate calls for recognition of the
various degrees of intersex as variations which should not be subject to
outright denial. SC is of the view that where the person is biologically or
naturally intersex the determining factor in his gender classification
would be what the individual, having reached the age of majority, with
good reason thinks of his/her sex. As in this case, respondent, thinks of
himself as a male and considering that his body produces high levels of
male hormones, there is preponderant biological support for considering
him as being a male. Sexual development in cases of intersex persons
makes the gender classification at birth inconclusive. It is at maturity
that the gender of such persons, like respondent, is fixed.





Remo vs. Secretary of Foreign Affairs

G.R. 169202; 5 March 2010

FACTS:

Maria Virginia V. Remo (Remo) is a Filipino citizen, married to Francisco
R. Rallonza. Her Philippine passport, which was to expire on 27 October
2000, showed Rallonza as her surname, Maria Virginia as her given
name, and Remo as her middle name. While her marriage was still
subsisting, she applied for the renewal of her passport with the
Department of Foreign Affairs office in Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A., with a
request to revert to her maiden name and surname in the replacement
passport. When her request was denied, she made a similar request to
the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. The Secretary of Foreign Affairs denied
the request, holding that while it is not obligatory for a married woman
to use her husbands name, she could use her maiden name in her
passport application only if she had not used her married name in her
previous application. The Secretary explained that under the
implementing rules of Republic Act No. 8239 or the Philippine Passport
Act of 1996, a woman applicant may revert to her maiden name only in
cases of annulment of marriage, divorce, and death of the husband.
Remo brought the case to the Office of the President which affirmed the
Secretarys ruling. Remo filed a petition for review before the Court of
Appeals which denied the petition. When her motion for reconsideration
was denied, Remo filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court.
Remo argued that RA 8239 conflicted with and was an implied repeal of
Article 370 of the Civil Code which allows the wife to continue using her
maiden name upon marriage, as settled in the case of Yasin vs.
Honorable Judge Sharia District Court *311 Phil. 696, 707 (1995)+.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Remo, who originally used her husbands surname in her
expired passport, can revert to the use of her maiden name in the
replacement passport, despite the subsistence of her marriage.

RULING:

The petition was denied. Remo cannot use her maiden name in the
replacement passport while her marriage subsists.No conflict between
Civil Code and RA 8239. Indeed, under Article 370 of the Civil Code and
as settled in the case of Yasin vs. Honorable Judge Sharia District Court
(supra), a married woman has an option, but not an obligation, to use
her husbands surname upon marriage. She is not prohibited from
continuously using her maiden name because when a woman marries,
she does not change her name but only her civil status. RA 8239 does
not conflict with this principle.RA 8239, including its implementing rules
and regulations, does not prohibit a married woman from using her
maiden name in her passport. In fact, in recognition of this right, the
Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) allows a married woman who
applies for a passport for the first time to use her maiden name. Such an
applicant is not required to adopt her husbands surname.In the case of
renewal of passport, a married woman may either adopt her husbands
surname or continuously use her maiden name. If she chooses to adopt
her husbands surname in her new passport, the DFA additionally
requires the submission of an authenticated copy of the marriage
certificate. Otherwise, if she prefers to continue using her maiden name,
she may still do so. The DFA will not prohibit her from continuously using
her maiden name.


REPUBLIC VS VALENCIA
FACTS:
Respondent Leonor Valencia, for and in behalf of her minor children,
Bernardo Go and Jessica Go filed with the Court of First Instance of Cebu
a petition for the cancellation and/or correction of entries of birth of
Bernardo Go and Jessica Go in the Civil Registry of the City of Cebu. The
case was docketed as Special Proceedings No. 3043-R.
The Solicitor General filed an opposition to the petition alleging that the
petition for correction of entry in the Civil Registry pursuant to Article
412 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines in relation to Rule 108 of the
Revised Rules of Court, contemplates a summary proceeding and
correction of mere clerical errors, those harmless and innocuous
changes such as the correction of a name that is merely mispelled,
occupation of parents, etc., and not changes or corrections involving civil
status, nationality, or citizenship which are substantial and controversial.
Finding the petition to be sufficient in form and substance, the trial court
issued an order directing the publication of the petition and the date of
hearing thereof in the Cebu Advocate, a newspaper of general
circulation in the city and province of Cebu, once a week for three (3)
consecutive weeks, and notice thereof, duly served on the Solicitor
General, the Local Civil Registrar of Cebu City and Go Eng.
Subsequently, the Local Civil Registrar of Cebu City filed a motion to
dismiss on the ground that since the petition seeks to change the
nationality or citizenship of Bernardo Go and Jessica Go from "Chinese"
to "Filipino" and their status from "Legitimate" to Illegitimate", and
changing also the status of the mother from "married" to "single" the
corrections sought are not merely clerical but substantial, involving as
they do the citizenship and status of the petitioning minors and the
status of their mother.
The lower court denied the motion to dismiss.

ISSUE:

WON the lower court erred in ordering the correction of the petitioners
citizenship and civil status and the citizenship and civil status of her
minor children.

RULING:

It is undoubtedly true that if the subject matter of a petition is not for
the correction of clerical errors of a harmless and innocuous nature, but
one involving nationality or citizenship, which is indisputably substantial
as well as controverted, affirmative relief cannot be granted in a
proceeding summary in nature. However, it is also true that a right in
law may be enforced and a wrong may be remedied as long as the
appropriate remedy is used. This Court adheres to the principle that
even substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected and the true
facts established provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail
themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding. The court's role in
hearing the petition to correct certain entries in the civil registry is to
ascertain the truth about the facts recorded therein. Under our system
of administering justice, truth is best ascertained or approximated by
trial conducted under the adversary system. Apart from Bernardo Go
and Jessica Go, there are four (4) other sisters and one (1) other brother
born of the same father and mother. Not only are all five registered as
Filipino citizens but they have pursued careers which require Philippine
citizenship as a mandatory pre-requisite. To emphasize the strict policy
of the government regarding professional examinations, it was the law
until recently that to take the board exams for pharmacist, the applicant
should possess natural born citizenship. There are other facts on the
record. Leonor Valencia is a registered voter and had always exercised
her right of suffrage from the time she reached voting age until the
national elections immediately preceding the filing of her petition. The
five other sisters and brother are also registered voters and likewise
exercised the right of suffrage.
An uncle of the mother's side had held positions in the government
having been elected twice as councilor and twice as vice-mayor of
Victorias, Negros Occidental. Respondent Leonor Valencia has purchased
and registered two (2) parcels of land as per Transfer Certificate of Title
No. T-46104 and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-37275. These
allegations are well documented and were never contradicted by the
Republic. As correctly observed by the lower court.
The right of suffrage is one of the important rights of a citizen. This is
also true with respect to the acquisition of a real property. The evidence
further shows that her children had been allowed to take the Board
Examinations given by the Government for Filipino citizens only.
It would be a denial of substantive justice if two children proved by the
facts to be Philippine citizens, and whose five sisters and brother born of
the same mother and father enjoy all the rights of citizens, are denied
the same rights on the simple argument that the "correct procedure"
not specified or even intimated has not been followed.



BARCO VS CA
FACTS:
This case stemmed from a petition for correction of entries in the birth
certificate of a minor, June Salvacion Maravilla, to reflect the name of
her real father (Armando Gustilo) and to correspondingly change her
surname. The petition was granted by the trial court.
Barco, whose minor daughter was allegedly fathered also by Gustilo,
however, sought to annul the trial courts decision, claiming that she
should have been made a party to the petition for correction. Failure to
implead her deprived the RTC of jurisdiction, she contended.
ISSUE:
WON the trial court erred in its decision.
RULING:
In dismissing Barcos petition, this Court held that the publication of the
order of hearing under Section 4 of Rule 108 cured the failure to implead
an indispensable party.
The essential requisite for allowing substantial corrections of entries in
the civil registry is that the true facts be established in an appropriate
adversarial proceeding. This is embodied in Section 3, Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court, which states:
Section 3. Parties. When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil
register is sought, the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim
any interest which would be affected thereby shall be made parties to
the proceeding.
Undoubtedly, Barco is among the parties referred to in Section 3 of Rule
108. Her interest was affected by the petition for correction, as any
judicial determination that June was the daughter of Armando would
affect her wards share in the estate of her father.
Yet, even though Barco was not impleaded in the petition, the Court of
Appeals correctly pointed out that the defect was cured by compliance
with Section 4, Rule 108, which requires notice by publication.
The purpose precisely of Section 4, Rule 108 is to bind the whole world
to the subsequent judgment on the petition. The sweep of the decision
would cover even parties who should have been impleaded under
Section 3, Rule 108, but were inadvertently left out.
Verily, a petition for correction is an action in rem, an action against a
thing and not against a person. The decision on the petition binds not
only the parties thereto but the whole world. An in-rem proceeding is
validated essentially through publication. Publication is notice to the
whole world that the proceeding has for its object to bar indefinitely all
who might be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right
sought to be established. It is the publication of such notice that brings
in the whole world as a party in the case and vests the court with
jurisdiction to hear and decide it.







CERUILA VS. DELANTAR

FACTS:

Spouses Platon and Librada Ceruila filed an action for annulment and cancellation
of the birth certificate of Maria Rosilyn Telin Delantar, the child-victim in the rape
case involving Romeo Jalosjos for the reasons that said birth certificate was made
an instrument of the crime of simulation of birth and therefore invalid and spurious,
and it falsified all material entries therein. On April 11, 1997 the RTC rendered its
decision granting the petition. On July 15, 1997 Rosilyn represented by her legal
guardian filed with the CA a petition for annulment of judgment in the petition for
cancellation of entry of her birth certificate claiming that she and her guardian were
not notified of the petition and the subsequent judgment and learned about the
same only from the news on May 16, 1997. On June 10, 1999 the CA granted the
petition and declared null andv oid the decision of the RTC. The motion for
reconsideration filed by spouses Ceruila was denied. Hence this petition.

ISSUE:

WON the requirements of Rule 108 were complied with.

RULING:

In the case at bar only the Civil Registrar of Manila was served summons, who,
however, did not participate in the proceedings. This alone is clearly not
sufficient to comply with the requirements laid down by the rules. The claim
that lack of summons on Rosilyn was cured by publication of the order setting
the case for hearing is not correct. Summons must still be served, not for the
purpose of vesting the courts with jurisdiction, but to comply with the
requirements of fair play on due process. This is but proper to afford the person
concerned the opportunity to protect her interest if she so chooses. Rosilyn was
never made a party at all to the proceedings seeking the cancellation of her birth
certificate. Neither did petitioners make any effort to summon the Solicitor
General.



REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CARLITO I. KHO et al.
FACTS:
Carlito Kho (Kho) and his family applied for the correction of various
details in their birth certificate. Kho petitioned for (1) change the
citizenship of his mother from Chinese to Filipino; (2) delete John
from his name; and (3) delete the word married opposite the date of
marriage of his parents. The last correction was ordered to be effected
likewise in the birth certificates of respondents Michael, Mercy Nona,
and Heddy Moira.
The petition from a non-adversarial nature of the change is premised
onRepublic Act No. 9048, which allows first name and nickname in birth
certificates without judicial order. The Municipal officer approved of the
change. The Solicitor General objected to the correction on the ground
that the correction not merely clerical but requires an adversarial
proceeding. The Court of Appeals found in favor of Kho.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Khos request for change in the details of their birth
certificate requires an adversarial proceeding
RULING:
It can not be gainsaid that the petition, insofar as it sought to change the
citizenship of Carlitos mother as it appeared in his birth certificate and
delete the married status of Carlitos parents in his and his siblings
respective birth certificates, as well as change the date of marriage of
Carlito and Marivel involves the correction of not just clerical errors of a
harmless and innocuous nature. Rather, the changes
entail substantialand controversial amendments.
For the change involving the nationality of Carlitos mother as reflected
in his birth certificate is a grave and important matter that has a bearing
and effect on the citizenship and nationality not only of the parents, but
also of the offspring.
Further, the deletion of the entry that Carlitos and his siblings parents
were married alters their filiation from legitimate to illegitimate,
with significant implications on their successional and other rights.
Clearly, the changes sought can only be granted in an adversary
proceeding.
The enactment in March 2001 of Republic Act No. 9048, otherwise
known as An Act Authorizing the City or Municipal Civil Registrar or the
Consul General to Correct A Clerical or Typographical Error In An Entry
and/or Change of First Name or Nickname in the Civil Register Without
Need of Judicial Order, has been considered to lend legislative
affirmation to the judicial precedence that substantial corrections to the
civil status of persons recorded in the civil registry may be effected
through the filing of a petition under Rule 108.
When all the procedural requirements under Rule 108 are thus followed,
the appropriate adversary proceeding necessary to effect
substantial corrections to the entries of the civil register is satisfied.