Change of Name

MA. LOURDES BARRIENTOS ELEOSIDA, for and in behalf of her minor child, CHARLES
CHRISTIAN ELEOSIDA, petitioner, vs. LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF QUEZON CITY,
and CARLOS VILLENA BORBON
G.R. No. 130277.
May 9, 2002
Puno, J

Nature:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Order[1] of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City, Branch 89, which dismissed motu proprio the petition of Ma. Lourdes Eleosida to correct
some entries in the birth certificate of her son, Charles Christian. The birth certificate shows,
among others, that the child's full name is Charles Christian Eleosida Borbon. He was born
on May 24, 1992 to Ma. Lourdes Barrientos Eleosida and Carlos Villena Borbon. The birth
certificate also indicates that the child's parents were married on January 10, 1985 in Batangas
City .

Facts:
On January 30, 1997, petitioner Ma. Lourdes Eleosida filed a petition before the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City seeking to correct the following entries in the birth certificate of her son,
Charles Christian: first, the surname "Borbon" should be changed to "Eleosida;" second, the
date of the parents' wedding should be left blank; and third, the informant's name should be
"Ma. Lourdes B. Eleosida," instead of "Ma. Lourdes E. Borbon." In support of her petition,
petitioner alleged that she gave birth to her son out of wedlock on May 24, 1992; that she and
the boy's father, Carlos Borbon, were never married; and that the child is therefore illegitimate
and should follow the mother's surname. The petition impleaded the Local Registrar of Quezon
City and Carlos Villena Borbon as respondents.

On April 23, 1997, the trial court issued a notice of hearing. On June 26, 1997, the trial court
issued another order setting the date for the presentation of evidence on July 23, 1997.

RTC Ruling:
On August 25, 1997, the trial court motu proprio dismissed the petition for lack of merit. It
ruled:
It is an established jurisprudence that, only CLERICAL ERRORS OF A HARMLESS AND
INNOCUOUS NATURE like: misspelled name, occupation of the parents, etc., may be the
subject of a judicial order (contemplated under Article 412 of the New Civil Code), authorizing
changes or corrections and: NOT as may affect the CIVIL STATUS, NATIONALITY OR
CITIZENSHIP OF THE PERSONS INVOLVED.

Issue:
Whether corrections of entries in the certificate of live birth pursuant to Article 412 of the Civil
Code, in relation to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court may be allowed even if the errors to be
corrected are substantial and not merely clerical errors of a harmless and innocuous nature.

Held:
Yes.

Ratio:
Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court provides the procedure for cancellation or correction
of entries in the civil registry. The proceedings under said rule may either be summary or
adversary in nature. If the correction sought to be made in the civil register is clerical, then the
procedure to be adopted is summary. If the rectification affects the civil status, citizenship or
nationality of a party, it is deemed substantial, and the procedure to be adopted is
adversary.[10] This is our ruling in Republic vs. Valencia[11] where we held that even
substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected and the true facts established under Rule
108 provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary
proceeding. An appropriate adversary suit or proceeding is one where the trial court has
conducted proceedings where all relevant facts have been fully and properly developed, where
opposing counsel have been given opportunity to demolish the opposite party's case, and
where the evidence has been thoroughly weighed and considered. The Court further laid
down the procedural requirements to make the proceedings under Rule 108 adversary, thus:

The pertinent sections of Rule 108 provide:

SEC. 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.

SEC. 4. Notice and publication.--Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall, by an order,
fix the time and place for the hearing of the same, and cause reasonable notice thereof to be
given to the persons named in the petition. The court shall also cause the order to be
published once in a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation
in the province.

SEC. 5. Opposition.--The civil registrar and any person having or claiming any interest under
the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought may, within fifteen (15) days from notice,
file his opposition thereto.

Thus, the persons who must be made parties to a proceeding concerning the cancellation or
correction of an entry in the civil register are--(1) the civil registrar, and (2) all persons who
have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby. Upon the filing of the petition, it
becomes the duty of the court to--(1) issue an order fixing the time and place for the hearing
of the petition, and (2) cause the order for hearing to be published once a week for three (3)
consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province. The following are
likewise entitled to oppose the petition:--(1) the civil registrar, and (2) any person having or
claiming any interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought.

It is true in the case at bar that the changes sought to be made by petitioner are not merely
clerical or harmless errors but substantial ones as they would affect the status of the marriage
between petitioner and Carlos Borbon, as well as the legitimacy of their son, Charles
Christian. Changes of such nature, however, are now allowed under Rule 108 in accordance
with our ruling in Republic vs. Valencia provided that the appropriate procedural
requirements are complied with.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is GRANTED and the Order dated August 25, 1997 of the
RTC of Quezon City, Branch 89, subject of the petition at bar is set aside. The case is
REMANDED to the court a quo for further proceedings.

Republic vs. Kho G.R. No. 170340 June 29, 2007

Carpio Morales, J:

Nature:
Challenged via petition for review on certiorari is the October 27, 2005 Decision1 of the Court
of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 78124 which affirmed the September 4, 2002 Decision2 of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Butuan City, Branch 5 granting the prayer of respondents
Carlito I. Kho (Carlito), Michael Kho, Mercy Nona Kho-Fortun, and Heddy Moira Kho-Serrano
for the correction of entries in their birth certificates as well as those of Carlitos minor children
Kevin and Kelly Dogmoc Kho.

Facts:
On February 12, 2001, Carlito and his siblings Michael, Mercy Nona and Heddy Moira filed
before the RTC of Butuan City a verified petition for correction of entries in the civil registry of
Butuan City to effect changes in their respective birth certificates. Carlito also asked the court
in behalf of his minor children, Kevin and Kelly, to order the correction of some entries in their
birth certificates.

In the case of Carlito, he requested the correction in his birth certificate of the citizenship of
his mother to "Filipino" instead of "Chinese," as well as the deletion of the word "married"
opposite the phrase "Date of marriage of parents" because his parents, Juan Kho and Epifania
Inchoco (Epifania), were allegedly not legally married. The same request to delete the
"married" status of their parents from their respective birth certificates was made by Carlitos
siblings Michael, Mercy Nona, and Heddy Moira. With respect to the birth certificates of
Carlitos children, he prayed that the date of his and his wifes marriage be corrected from April
27, 1989 to January 21, 2000, the date appearing in their marriage certificate.

On April 23, 2001, Carlito et al. filed an Amended Petition3 in which it was additionally prayed
that Carlitos second name of "John" be deleted from his record of birth; and that the name
and citizenship of Carlitos father in his (Carlitos) marriage certificate be corrected from "John
Kho" to "Juan Kho" and "Filipino" to "Chinese," respectively.

On September 14, 2001,7 the OSG entered its appearance with an authorization to the city
prosecutor of Butuan City to appear in the case and render assistance to it (the OSG).

On January 31, 2002, respondents presented documentary evidence showing compliance

with the jurisdictional requirements of the petition and testimonial evidence consisting of the
testimonies of Carlito and his mother, Epifania. During the same hearing, an additional
correction in the birth certificates of Carlitos children was requested to the effect that the first
name of their mother be rectified from "Maribel" to "Marivel."

RTC Ruling:
The trial court directed the local civil registrar of Butuan City to correct the entries in the record
of birth of Carlito, as follows: (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. As well as the prayer for
the correction in the birth certificates of Carlitos minor children are granted. Further, the trial
court granted the correction prayed for in Carlitos marriage certificate.

Petitioner, Republic of the Philippines, appealed the RTC Decision to the CA, faulting the trial
court in granting the petition for correction of entries in the subject documents despite the
failure of respondents to implead the minors mother, Marivel, as an indispensable party and
to offer sufficient evidence to warrant the corrections with regard to the questioned "married"
status of Carlito and his siblings parents, and the latters citizenship.

CA Ruling;
By the assailed Decision of October 27, 2005, the CA denied petitioners appeal and affirmed
the decision of the trial court.

Issue:
Whether the failure to implead Marivel and Carlitos parents rendered the trial short of the
required adversary proceeding and the trial courts judgment void.
Held:
No.

Ratio:
A similar issue was earlier raised in Barco v. Court of Appeals.21 That 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.
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.
xxxx
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. x x x.
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 x x x.
xxxx
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. x x x
xxxx
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.22
Given the above ruling, it becomes unnecessary to rule on whether Marivel or respondents
parents should have been impleaded as parties to the proceeding. It may not be amiss to
mention, however, that during the hearing on January 31, 2002, the city prosecutor who was
acting as representative of the OSG did not raise any objection to the non-inclusion of Marivel
and Carlitos parents as parties to the proceeding.
Parenthetically, it seems highly improbable that Marivel was unaware of the proceedings to
correct the entries in her childrens birth certificates, especially since the notices, orders and
decision of the trial court were all sent to the residence23 she shared with Carlito and the
children.
It is also well to remember that the role of the court in hearing a petition to correct certain
entries in the civil registry is to ascertain the truth about the facts recorded therein. 24
With respect to the date of marriage of Carlito and Marivel, their certificate of marriage25 shows
that indeed they were married on January 21, 2000, not on April 27, 1989. Explaining the error,
Carlito declared that the date "April 27, 1989" was supplied by his helper, adding that he was
not married to Marivel at the time his sons were born because his previous marriage was
annulled only in 1999.26 Given the evidence presented by respondents, the CA observed that
the minors were illegitimate at birth, hence, the correction would bring about no change at all
in the nature of their filiation.
With respect to Carlitos mother, it bears noting that she declared at the witness stand that she
was not married to Juan Kho who died in 1959.27 Again, that testimony was not challenged by
the city prosecutor.
The documentary evidence supporting the deletion from Carlitos and his siblings birth
certificates of the entry "Married" opposite the date of marriage of their parents, moreover,
consisted of a certification issued on November 24, 1973 by St. Joseph (Butuan City) Parish
priest Eugene van Vught stating that Juan Kho and Epifania had been living together as
common law couple since 1935 but have never contracted marriage legally.28
A certification from the office of the city registrar, which was appended to respondents
Amended Petition, likewise stated that it has no record of marriage between Juan Kho and
Epifania.29 Under the circumstances, the deletion of the word "Married" opposite the "date of
marriage of parents" is warranted.
With respect to the correction in Carlitos birth certificate of his name from "Carlito John" to
"Carlito," the same was properly granted under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. As correctly
pointed out by the CA, the cancellation or correction of entries involving changes of name falls
under letter "o" of the following provision of Section 2 of Rule 108:30
Section 2. Entries subject to cancellation or correction. Upon good and valid grounds, the
following entries in the civil register may be cancelled or corrected: (a) births; (b) marriages;
(c) deaths; (d) legal separation; (e) judgments of annulment of marriage; (f) judgments
declaring marriages void from the beginning; (g) legitimations; (h) adoptions; (i)
acknowledgments of natural children; (j) naturalization; (k) election, loss or recovery of
citizenship; (l) civil interdiction; (m) judicial determination of filiation; (n) voluntary emancipation
of a minor; and (o)changes of name. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Hence, while the jurisdictional requirements of Rule 103 (which governs petitions for change
of name) were not complied with, observance of the provisions of Rule 108 suffices to effect
the correction sought for.
More importantly, Carlitos official transcript of record from the Urious College in Butuan
City,31 certificate of eligibility from the Civil Service Commission, 32 and voter registration
record33 satisfactorily show that he has been known by his first name only. No prejudice is
thus likely to arise from the dropping of the second name.
The correction of the mothers citizenship from Chinese to Filipino as appearing in Carlitos
birth record was also proper. Of note is the fact that during the cross examination by the city
prosecutor of Epifania, he did not deem fit to question her citizenship. Such failure to oppose
the correction prayed for, which certainly was not respondents fault, does not in any way
change the adversarial nature of the proceedings.
Also significant to note is that the birth certificates of Carlitos siblings uniformly stated the
citizenship of Epifania as "Filipino." To disallow the correction in Carlitos birth record of his
mothers citizenship would perpetuate an inconsistency in the natal circumstances of the
siblings who are unquestionably born of the same mother and father.
Outside the ambit of substantial corrections, of course, is the correction of the name of Carlitos
wife from "Maribel" to "Marivel." The mistake is clearly clerical or typographical, which is not
only visible to the eyes, but is also obvious to the understanding34 considering that the name
reflected in the marriage certificate of Carlito and his wife is "Marivel."
Apropos is Yu v. Republic35 which held that changing the appellants Christian name of
"Sincio" to "Sencio" amounts merely to the righting of a clerical error. The change of name
from Beatriz Labayo/Beatriz Labayu to Emperatriz Labayo was also held to be a mere
innocuous alteration, which can be granted through a summary proceeding.36 The same ruling
holds true with respect to the correction in Carlitos marriage certificate of his fathers name
from "John Kho" to "Juan Kho." Except in said marriage certificate, the name "Juan Kho" was
uniformly entered in the birth certificates of Carlito and of his siblings.37
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME OF JULIAN LIM CARULASON WANG vs. CEBU CITY
CIVIL REGISTRAR
454 SCRA 155
G.R. No. 159966

TINGA, J.:

This is a Petition seeking to drop the petitioners middle name and have his registered name
changed from Julian Lin Carulasan Wang to Julian Lin Wang.

FACTS: Julian Lin Carulasan Wang was born in Cebu City on February 20, 1998 to parents
Anna Lisa Wang and Sing-Foe Wang who were then not yet married to each other. When his
parents subsequently got married on September 22, 1998, ...they executed a deed of
legitimation of their son so that the childs name was changed from Julian Lin Carulasan to
Julian Lin Carulasan Wang.
The parents of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang plan to stay in Singapore for a long time
because they will let him study there together with his sister named Wang Mei Jasmine who
was born in Singapore. Since in Singapore middle names or the maiden surname of the
mother are not carried in a persons name, they anticipate that Julian Lin Carulasan Wang will
be discriminated against because of his current registered name which carries a middle name.
Julian and his sister might also be asking whether they are brother and sister since they have
different surnames. Carulasan sounds funny in Singapores Mandarin language since they do
not have the letter "R" but if there is, they pronounce it as "L." It is for these reasons that the
name of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang is requested to be changed to Julian Lin Wang.
RTC: rendered a decision denying the petition. It found that the reason given for the change
of name sought in the petitionthat is, that petitioner Julian may be discriminated against
when studies in Singapore because of his middle namedid not fall within the grounds
recognized by law. The change sought is merely for the convenience of the child. It added that
when petitioner Julian reaches the age of majority, he could then decide whether he will
change his name by dropping his middle name.
Petitioner: filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision but this was denied. She then
filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari (Under Rule 45)6 arguing that the trial court has
decided a question of substance not theretofore determined by the Court, that is: whether or
not dropping the middle name of a minor child is contrary to Article 1747 of the Family Code.
COURT: required the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to comment on the petition.
OSG: filed itsComment11 positing that the trial court correctly denied the petition for change of
name. argues that under Article 174 of the Family Code, legitimate children have the right to
bear the surnames of their father and mother, and such right cannot be denied by the mere
expedient of dropping the same. There is also no showing that the dropping of the middle
name "Carulasan" is in the best interest of petitioner, since mere convenience is not sufficient
to support a petition for change of name and/or cancellation of entry. the petitioner has not
shown any compelling reason to justify the change of name or the dropping of the middle
name, for that matter.

ISSUE: Whether the change of name / dropping of the middle name of the petitioner should
be granted

HELD: NO. To justify a request for change of name, petitioner must show not only some proper
or compelling reason therefore 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) when one has continuously used and been known since childhood by a Filipino
name, and was unaware of 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.26 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.

BRAZA vs CITY CIVIL REGISTRAR OF HIMAMAYLAN CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL

607 SCRA 638, G.R. No. 181174, December 4, 2009

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

FACTS: Petitioner Ma. Cristina Torres (Ma. Cristina) and Pablo Sicad Braza, Jr. (Pablo), also
known as "Pablito Sicad Braza," were married1 on January 4, 1978. The union bore Ma.
Cristinas co-petitioners Paolo Josef2 and Janelle Ann3 on May 8, 1978 and June 7, 1983,
respectively, and Gian Carlo4 on June 4, 1980. Pablo died5 on April 15, 2002 in a vehicular
accident in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia. During the wake following the repatriation of his
remains to the Philippines, respondent Lucille Titular (Lucille) began introducing her co-
respondent minor Patrick Alvin Titular Braza (Patrick) as her and Pablo's son. Ma. Cristina
thereupon made inquiries in the course of which she obtained Patrick's birth certificate 6 from
the Local Civil Registrar of Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental with the following entries:
Name of Child : PATRICK ALVIN CELESTIAL TITULAR
Date of Birth : 01 January 1996
Mother : Lucille Celestial Titular
Father : Pablito S. Braza
Date Received at the Local January 13, 1997
Civil Registrar :
Annotation : "Late Registration"
Annotation/Remarks : "Acknowledge (sic) by the father Pablito Braza
on January 13, 1997"
Remarks : Legitimated by virtue of subsequent marriage of
parents on April 22, 1998at Manila. Henceforth, the
child shall be known as Patrick Alvin Titular Braza
Ma. Cristina likewise obtained a copy7 of a marriage contract showing that Pablo and Lucille
were married on April 22, 1998, drawing her and her co-petitioners to file on December 23,
2005 before the Regional Trial Court of Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental a petition 8 to
correct the entries in the birth record of Patrick in the Local Civil Register.
Contending that Patrick could not have been legitimated by the supposed marriage between
Lucille and Pablo, said marriage being bigamous on account of the valid and subsisting
marriage between Ma. Cristina and Pablo, petitioners prayed for (1) the correction of the
entries in Patrick's birth record with respect to his legitimation, the name of the father and
his acknowledgment, and the use of the last name "Braza"; 2) a directive to Leon, Cecilia and
Lucille, all surnamed Titular, as guardians of the minor Patrick, to submit Parick to DNA
testing to determine his paternity and filiation; and 3) the declaration of nullity of the
legitimation of Patrick as stated in his birth certificate and, for this purpose, the declaration of
the marriage of Lucille and Pablo as bigamous.
PATRICK: filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
TRIAL COURT: dismissed the petition without prejudice, it holding that in a special proceeding
for correction of entry, the court, which is not acting as a family court under the Family Code,
has no jurisdiction over an action to annul the marriage of Lucille and Pablo, impugn the
legitimacy of Patrick, and order Patrick to be subjected to a DNA test, hence, the controversy
should be ventilated in an ordinary adversarial action.

PETITIONERS: filed motion for reconsideration, but was denied. Hence, the petition for
review.

ISSUE: Whether the court a quo may pass upon the validity of marriage and questions on
legitimacy even in an action to correct entries in the civil registrar.

HELD: NO. In a special proceeding for correction of entry under Rule 108 (Cancellation or
Correction of Entries in the Original Registry), the trial court has no jurisdiction to nullify
marriages and rule on legitimacy and filiation.
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court vis a vis Article 412 of the Civil Code15 charts the procedure by
which an entry in the civil registry may be cancelled or corrected. The proceeding
contemplated therein may generally be used only to correct clerical, spelling, typographical
and other innocuous errors in the civil registry. A clerical error is one which is visible to the
eyes or obvious to the understanding; an error made by a clerk or a transcriber; a mistake in
copying or writing, or a harmless change such as a correction of name that is clearly
misspelled or of a misstatement of the occupation of the parent. Substantial or contentious
alterations may be allowed only in adversarial proceedings, in which all interested parties are
impleaded and due process is properly observed.
The allegations of the petition filed before the trial court clearly show that petitioners
seek to nullify the marriage between Pablo and Lucille on the ground that it is bigamous and
impugn Patricks filiation in connection with which they ask the court to order Patrick to be
subjected to a DNA test.
Petitioners position does not lie. Their cause of action is actually to seek the
declaration of Pablo and Lucilles marriage as void for being bigamous and impugn Patricks
legitimacy, which causes of action are governed not by Rule 108 but by A.M. No. 02-11-10-
SC which took effect on March 15, 2003, and Art. 17118 of the Family Code, respectively,
hence, the petition should be filed in a Family Court as expressly provided in said
Code.1avvphi1
It is well to emphasize that, doctrinally, validity of marriages as well as legitimacy and
filiation can be questioned only in a direct action seasonably filed by the proper party, and not
through collateral attack such as the petition filed before the court a quo.

ROMMEL JACINTO DANTES SILVERIO vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 174689, October 22, 2007

Facts:

Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio, born and registered as a male, underwent sex reassignment
in Bangkok, Thailand, the fact of which was certified here in the Philippines by virtue of a
medical certificate issued by one Dr. Marcelino Reysio-Cruz. He then lived his life as a woman.
On November 26, 2002, Rommel filed a petition for the change of his first name and sex before
the RTC of Manila. The court having underwent the jurisdictional requirements, and there
having no opposition, the court proceeded with the hearing where Rommel presented his
American Fiance as witness.
RTC gave due course to his petition, ruling based on equity, that petitioners misfortune to
be trapped in a mans body is not his own doing and should not be taken against him and that
no harm, injury or prejudice will be caused to anybody if the petition were to be granted. His
name was thus changed to Mely, and sex to female. Republic filed a petition for certiorari in
the CA. The appellate court reversed the decision of the RTC.

Petitioners claim / Issue:

Petitioner essentially claims that the change of his name and sex in his birth certificate is
allowed under Articles 407 to 413 of the Civil Code, Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court
and RA 9048.

Held: Petitioner, your contention is not meritorious.

Ratio decidendi:

1.) Change of Name, primarily Administrative in nature: Section 1 of RA 9048 provides

in essence that no entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a
judicial order, except for clerical or typographical errors, which can be changed by
concerned city or municipal civil registrar or consul general. The jurisdiction therefore
is primarily lodged with these officers. The intent and effect of the law is to exclude the
change of first name from the coverage of Rules 103 (Change of Name) and 108
(Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) of the Rules of Court, until
and unless an administrative petition for change of name is first filed and subsequently
denied. In sum, the remedy and the proceedings regulating change of first name are
primarily administrative in nature, not judicial. Hence, the venue to which petitioner
filed is improper.

2.) Grounds for change of name: RA 9048 provides the grounds for which change of
first name may be allowed: 1) petitioner finds the first name or nickname to be
ridiculous, tainted with dishonor or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; 2) The new
first name or nickname has been habitually and continuously used by the petitioner
and he has been publicly known by that first name or nickname in the community; or
3) The change will avoid confusion.

From these grounds, it can be gleaned that RA 9048 does not sanction a change of
first name on the ground of sex reassignment. Rather than avoiding confusion,
changing petitioners name for his declared purpose may only create grave
complications. Before a person can legally change his given name, he must present
proper or reasonable cause or any compelling reason justifying such change. In
addition, he must show that he will be prejudiced by the use of his true and official
name. In this case, he failed to show, or even allege, any prejudice that he might suffer
as a result of using his true and official name.

3.) No Law Allows The Change of Entry In The Birth Certificate As To Sex On the
Ground of Sex Reassignment: By virtue of RA 9048, Rule 108 now applies only to
substantial changes and corrections in entries in the civil register, excluding the clerical
or typographical error. Section 2 of RA 9048 provides expressly that no correction
must involve the change of nationality, age, status or sex of the petitioner.

The entries envisaged in Article 412 of the Civil Code and correctable under Rule 108
of the Rules of Court are those provided in Articles 407 and 408 of the Civil Code
(*please see the codal provisions). The acts, events or factual errors contemplated
under Article 407 of the Civil Code include even those that occur after birth. However,
 no reasonable interpretation of the provision can justify the conclusion that it covers
the correction on the ground of sex reassignment.

4.) Purposes:

A. Correction - To correct simply means "to make or set aright; to remove the faults
or error from" while to change means "to replace something with something else of
the same kind or with something that serves as a substitute." The birth certificate
of petitioner contained no error. All entries therein, including those corresponding
to his first name and sex, were all correct. No correction is necessary.
B. Entry of Certain Acts under Article 407 - Article 407 of the Civil Code authorizes
the entry in the civil registry of certain acts (such as legitimations,
acknowledgments of illegitimate children and naturalization), events (such as
births, marriages, naturalization and deaths) and judicial decrees (such as legal
separations, annulments of marriage, declarations of nullity of marriages,
adoptions, naturalization, loss or recovery of citizenship, civil interdiction, judicial
determination of filiation and changes of name). These acts, events and judicial
decrees produce legal consequences that touch upon the legal capacity, status
and nationality of a person. Their effects are expressly sanctioned by the laws. In
contrast, sex reassignment is not among those acts or events mentioned in Article
407. Neither is it recognized nor even mentioned by any law, expressly or impliedly.

5.) Status of a Person is permanent. The status of a person in law includes all his
personal qualities and relations, more or less permanent in nature, not ordinarily
terminable at his own will, such as his being legitimate or illegitimate, or his being
married or not. The comprehensive term status include such matters as the
beginning and end of legal personality, capacity to have rights in general, family
relations, and its various aspects, such as birth, legitimation, adoption, emancipation,
marriage, divorce, and sometimes even succession. (emphasis supplied)

For these reasons, while petitioner may have succeeded in altering his body and appearance
through the intervention of modern surgery, no law authorizes the change of entry as to sex
in the civil registry for that reason. Thus, there is no legal basis for his petition for the correction
or change of the entries in his birth certificate.

Republic vs. Cagandahan, GR No. 166676

FACTS: Jennifer Cagandahan filed before the Regional Trial Court Branch 33 of Siniloan,
Laguna a Petition for Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate of her name from Jennifer B.
Cagandahan to Jeff Cagandahan and her gender from female to male. It appearing that
Jennifer Cagandahan is suffering from Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia which is a rare medical
condition where afflicted persons possess both male and female characteristics. Jennifer
Cagandaha
n grew up with secondary male characteristics. To further her petition, Cagandahan presented
in court the medical certificate evidencing that she is suffering from Congenital Adrenal
Hyperplasia which certificate is issued by Dr. Michael Sionzon of the Department of
Psychiatry, University of the Philippines-Philippine General Hospital, who, in addition,
explained that Cagandahan genetically is female but because her body secretes male
hormones, her female organs did not develop normally, thus has organs of both male and
female. The lower court decided in her favor but the Office of the Solicitor General appealed
before the Supreme Court invoking that the same was a violation of Rules 103 and 108 of the
Rules of Court because the said petition did not implead the local civil registrar.
ISSUE: The issue in this case is the validity of the change of sex or gender and name of
respondent as ruled by the lower court.

HELD: The contention of the Office of the Solicitor General that the petition is fatally defective
because it failed to implead the local civil registrar as well as all persons who have or claim
any interest therein is not without merit. However, it must be stressed that private respondent
furnished the local civil registrar a copy of the petition, the order to publish on December 16,
2003 and all pleadings, orders or processes in the course of the proceedings. In which case,
the Supreme Court ruled that there is substantial compliance of the provisions of Rules 103
and 108 of the Rules of Court. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that the determination of
a persons sex appearing in his birth certificate is a legal issue which in this case should be
dealt with utmost care in view of the delicate facts present in this case.

In deciding the case, the Supreme Court brings forth the need to elaborate the term
intersexuality which is the condition or let us say a disorder that respondent is undergoing.
INTERSEXUALITY applies to human beings who cannot be classified as either male or
female. It is the state of a living thing of a gonochoristic species whose sex chromosomes,
genitalia, and/or secondary sex characteristics are determined to be neither exclusively male
nor female. It is said that an organism with intersex may have biological characteristics of both
male and female sexes. In view of the foregoing, the highest tribunal of the land consider the
compassionate calls for recognition of the various degrees of intersex as variations which
should not be subject to outright denial.

The current state of Philippine statutes apparently compels that a person be classified either
as a male or as a female, but this Court is not controlled by mere appearances when nature
itself fundamentally negates such rigid classification. That is, Philippine courts must render
judgment based on law and the evidence presented. In the instant case, there is no denying
that evidence points that respondent is male. In determining respondent to be a female, there
is no basis for a change in the birth certificate entry for gender. The Supreme Court held that
where the person is biologically or naturally intersex the determining factor in his gender
classification would be what the individual, like respondent, having reached the age of
majority, with good reason thinks of his/her sex. 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. The Court will not consider respondent as having
erred in not choosing to undergo treatment in order to become or remain as a female. Neither
will the Court force respondent to undergo treatment and to take medication in order to fit the
mold of a female, as society commonly currently knows this gender of the human species.
Respondent is the one who has to live with his intersex anatomy. To him belongs the human
right to the pursuit of happiness and of health. Thus, to him should belong the primordial choice
of what courses of action to take along the path of his sexual development and maturation. In
the absence of evidence that respondent is an incompetent and in the absence of evidence
to show that classifying respondent as a male will harm other members of society who are
equally entitled to protection under the law, the Supreme Court affirmed as valid and justified
the respondents position and his personal judgment of being a male.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. DR. NORMA S. LUGSANAY UY G.R. No.

198010 August 12, 2013

FACTS:

Respondent alleged that:

She was born on February 8, 1952 and is the illegitimate daughter of Sy Ton and
Sotera Lugsanay.
 Her Certificate of Live Birth shows that her full name is "Anita Sy" when in fact she is
allegedly known to her family and friends as "Norma S. Lugsanay."
Her school records, Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) Board of Medicine
Certificate, and passport bear the name "Norma S. Lugsanay."
She is an illegitimate child considering that her parents were never married, so she
had to follow the surname of her mother.
She is a Filipino citizen and not Chinese, and all her siblings bear the surname
Lugsanay and are all Filipinos.

The RTC set the case for hearing. The order was published in a newspaper of general
circulation in the City of Gingoog and the Province of Misamis Oriental once a week for three
(3) consecutive weeks. The (OSG) and the City Prosecutors Office was furnished with the
copy of the petition and court order for their information and guidance.

On June 28, 2004, the RTC issued an Order in favor of respondent. OSG assailed the decision
for failure to implead indispensable parties.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondents compliance to publication and notice requirement under
S4R108 cured the defect of failure to implead indispensable parties?

RULING:

No. RTC/CA Decisions nullified.

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.

In this case, it was only the Local Civil Registrar of Gingoog City who was impleaded as
respondent in the petition.

The respondent seeks the correction of her first name and surname, her status from
"legitimate" to "illegitimate" and her citizenship from "Chinese" to "Filipino." Thus, respondent
should have impleaded and notified not only the Local Civil Registrar but also her parents and
siblings as the persons who have interest and are affected by the changes or corrections
respondent wanted to make.

The fact that the notice of hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation and
notice thereof was served upon the State will not change the nature of the proceedings taken.
A reading of Sections 4 and 5, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court shows that the Rules mandate
two sets of notices to different potential oppositors: (1) The persons named in the petition; and
(2) other persons who are not named in the petition but nonetheless may be considered
interested or affected parties.

Summons must be served not for the purpose of vesting the courts with jurisdiction but to
comply with the requirements of fair play and due process to afford the person concerned the
opportunity to protect his interest if he so chooses.
There may be cases where the Court held that the failure to implead and notify the affected or
interested parties may be cured:

1. by the publication of the notice of hearing, earnest efforts were made by petitioners in
bringing to court all possible interested parties;
2. where the interested parties themselves initiated the corrections proceedings;
3. when there is no actual or presumptive awareness of the existence of the interested
parties; or
4. When a party is inadvertently left out.

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
ofthe Rules of Court is mandated.

MINORU FUJIKI vs. MARIA PAZ GALELA MARINAY, SHINICHI MAEKARA | G.R. No.
196049 | June 26, 2013

DOCTRINE: A Petition for Recognition of a Foreign Judgment is not an action to nullify a

marriage. It is an action for Philippine courts to recognize the effectivity of a foreign judgment
on a case which was already tried and decided under foreign law. The recognition of the
foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous marriage is a subsequent event that establishes a new
status, right and fact that needs to be reflected in the civil registry. Thus, upon recognition of
the foreign judgment, this right becomes conclusive and the judgment serves as the basis for
the correction or cancellation of entry in the civil registry.

FACTS:

Fujiki is a Japanese national who married Marinay in the Philippines on 23 January 2004.
The marriage did not sit well with petitioners parents. Thus, Fujiki could not bring his wife
to Japan where he resides. Eventually, they lost contact with each other.
In 2008, Marinay met another Japanese, Maekara. Marinay and Maekara were married on
15 May 2008 without the first marriage being dissolved. Maekara brought Marinay to
Japan. However, Marinay allegedly suffered physical abuse from Maekara.
She left Maekara and started to contact Fujiki and eventually, they were able to reestablish
their relationship.
In 2010, Fujiki helped Marinay obtain a judgment from a family court in Japan which
declared the marriage between Marinay and Maekara void on the ground of bigamy.
Fujiki filed a petition in the RTC for the Recognition of Foreign Judgment, praying that: (1)
the Japanese Family Court judgment be recognized; (2) that the bigamous marriage
between Marinay and Maekara be declared void ab initio under Articles 35(4) and 41 of
the Family Code of the Philippines; and (3) for the RTC to direct the Local Civil Registrar
of Quezon City to annotate the Japanese Family Court judgment on the Certificate of
Marriage between Marinay and Maekara and to endorse such annotation to the Office of
the Administrator and Civil Registrar General in the National Statistics Office (NSO).
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) immediately dismissed the petition, for gross violation of
the provisions of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and
Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC), that it is only "the husband or
the wife," in this case either Maekara or Marinay, can file the petition to declare their
marriage void, and not Fujiki.
Fujiki sought for the reconsideration of the RTCs Order on the ground that A.M. No. 02-
11-10-SC contemplated ordinary civil actions for declaration of nullity and annulment of
 marriage. Thus, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not apply. A petition for recognition of foreign
judgment is a special proceeding, which "seeks to establish a status, a right or a particular
fact," and not a civil action which is "for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the
prevention or redress of a wrong."
The RTC considered the petition as a collateral attack on the validity of marriage between
Marinay and Maekara. The trial court held that this is a "jurisdictional ground" to dismiss
the petition.
The Solicitor General agreed with the petition, arguing that Fujiki, as the spouse of the first
marriage, is an injured party who can sue to declare the bigamous marriage between
Marinay and Maekara void.

ISSUES:

(1) Does A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC apply to petitions for recognition of foreign judgment? NO
(2) May the husband or wife of a prior marriage file a petition for the recognition of the foreign
judgment nullifying the subsequent marriage between his or her spouse and a foreign
citizen on the ground of bigamy YES
(3) Is the petition for the recognition of foreign judgment with a prayer for the correction or
cancellation of an entry in the civil registry a collateral attack on the validity of marriage
between Marinay and Maekara? NO

RULING:

The rule on the Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of
Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) is not applicable on Petitions for
Recognition of Foreign Judgment

The Rule on A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not apply in a petition to recognize a foreign judgment
relating to the status of a marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign country.
The Court held that the rule in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC that only the husband or wife can file a
declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage "does not apply if the reason behind the petition
is bigamy." To hold that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC applies to a petition for recognition of foreign
judgment would defeat the purpose of recognizing foreign judgments, which is "to limit
repetitive litigation on claims and issues."

For Philippine courts to recognize a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage where
one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign country, the petitioner only needs to prove the foreign
judgment as a fact under the Rules of Court. Petitioner may prove the Japanese Family Court
judgment through (1) an official publication or (2) a certification or copy attested by the officer
who has custody of the judgment. If the office which has custody is in a foreign country such
as Japan, the certification may be made by the proper diplomatic or consular officer of the
Philippine foreign service in Japan and authenticated by the seal of office.

There is no reason to disallow Fujiki to simply prove as a fact the Japanese Family Court
judgment nullifying the marriage between Marinay and Maekara on the ground of bigamy.
While the Philippines has no divorce law, the Japanese Family Court judgment is fully
consistent with Philippine public policy, as bigamous marriages are declared void from the
beginning under Article 35(4) of the Family Code. Bigamy is a crime under Article 349 of the
Revised Penal Code. Thus, Fujiki can prove the existence of the Japanese Family Court
judgment in accordance with Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25, in relation to Rule 39, Section
48(b) of the Rules of Court.

The husband of prior subsisting marriage has the personality to file a petition for
declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage
The recognition of a foreign judgment only requires proof of fact of the judgment and may be
made in a special proceeding for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry under
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. Under Section 1, any person interested in any act, event,
order or decree concerning the civil status of persons which has been recorded in the
civil register, may file a verified petition for the cancellation or correction of any entry relating
thereto, with the RTC of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located, may
file a petition.

Fujiki has the personality to file a petition to recognize the Japanese Family Court judgment
nullifying the marriage between Marinay and Maekara on the ground of bigamy because the
judgment concerns his civil status as married to Marinay. The prior spouse has a personal
and material interest in maintaining the integrity of the marriage he contracted and the property
relations arising from it. He is interested in the cancellation of an entry of a bigamous marriage
in the civil registry, which compromises the public record of his marriage. The interest derives
from the substantive right of the spouse not only to preserve his most intimate human relation,
but also to protect his property interests that arise by operation of law the moment he contracts
marriage.

Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not preclude a spouse of a subsisting marriage to
question the validity of a subsequent marriage on the ground of bigamy. On the contrary, when
Section 2(a) states that "a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be
filed solely by the husband or the wife"it refers to the husband or the wife of the subsisting
marriage. Under Article 35(4) of the Family Code, bigamous marriages are void from the
beginning. Thus, the parties in a bigamous marriage are neither the husband nor the wife
under the law. The husband or the wife of the prior subsisting marriage is the one who has the
personality to file a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage under Section
2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. When the right of the spouse to protect his marriage is violated,
the spouse is clearly an injured party and is therefore interested in the judgment of the suit.

A petition for recognition of a foreign judgment is not an action to nullify a marriage

The validity of marriage can be questioned only in a direct action to nullify the marriage. A
petition for correction or cancellation of an entry in the civil registry cannot substitute for an
action to invalidate a marriage. A direct action is necessary to prevent circumvention of the
substantive and procedural safeguards of marriage under the Family Code, A.M. No. 02-11-
10-SC and other related laws. However, this does not apply in a petition for correction or
cancellation of a civil registry entry based on the recognition of a foreign judgment annulling a
marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of the foreign country.

A recognition of a foreign judgment is not an action to nullify a marriage. It is an action for

Philippine courts to recognize the effectivity of a foreign judgment, which presupposes a
case which was already tried and decided under foreign law. The procedure in A.M. No.
02-11-10-SC does not apply in a petition to recognize a foreign judgment annulling a bigamous
marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of the foreign country.

In the recognition of foreign judgments, Philippine courts are incompetent to substitute their
judgment on how a case was decided under foreign law. They cannot decide on the "family
rights and duties, or on the status, condition and legal capacity" of the foreign citizen who is a
party to the foreign judgment. Thus, Philippine courts are limited to the question of whether to
extend the effect of a foreign judgment in the Philippines. In a foreign judgment relating to the
status of a marriage involving a citizen of a foreign country, Philippine courts only decide
whether to extend its effect to the Filipino party, under the rule of lex nationalii expressed in
Article 15 of the Civil Code.
For this purpose, Philippine courts will only determine (1) whether the foreign judgment is
inconsistent with an overriding public policy in the Philippines; and (2) whether any alleging
party is able to prove an extrinsic ground to repel the foreign judgment. If there is neither
inconsistency with public policy nor adequate proof to repel the judgment, Philippine courts
should recognize the foreign judgment as part of the comity of nations. Upon recognition of
the foreign judgment, this right becomes conclusive and the judgment serves as the basis for
the correction or cancellation of entry in the civil registry.

The recognition of the foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous marriage is a subsequent event
that establishes a new status, right and fact that needs to be reflected in the civil registry.
Otherwise, there will be an inconsistency between the recognition of the effectivity of the
foreign judgment and the public records in the Philippines.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MERLINDA L. OLAYBAR | G.R. No. 189538 |

February 10, 2014

DOCTRINE: Rule 108 cannot be availed of to determine the validity of marriage. What the
respondent sought is the correction of the record of such marriage to reflect the truth as set
forth by the evidence. The testimonial and documentary evidence clearly established that the
only "evidence" of marriage which is the marriage certificate was a forgery. In allowing the
correction of the subject certificate of marriage by cancelling the wife portion thereof, the trial
court did not declare the marriage void as there was no marriage to speak of.

FACTS:

Olaybar requested from the National Statistics Office (NSO) a Certificate of No Marriage
(CENOMAR). She then discovered that she was already married to Ye Son Sune, a
Korean National, on June 24, 2002.
Olaybar denied having contracted the marriage and claimed that she did not know the
alleged husband. Moreover, she averred that she did not appear before the solemnizing
officer, that the signature appearing in the marriage certificate is not hers.
She filed a Petition for Cancellation of Entries in the Marriage Contract, especially the
entries in the wife portion. Olaybar impleaded the Local Civil Registrar of Cebu City, as
well as her alleged husband, as parties to the case.
During trial, Olaybar testified on her own behalf. Further, Olaybar presented Natinga as
witness, an employee of MTCC, Branch 1, who confirmed that the marriage of Ye Son
Sune was indeed celebrated in their office, but claimed that the alleged wife who appeared
was definitely not Olaybar. A document examiner also testified that the signature
appearing in the marriage contract was forged.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petition and directed the Local Civil Registrar
of Cebu City to cancel all the entries in the WIFE portion of the alleged marriage contract
of the petitioner and respondent Ye Son Sune. Finding that the signature appearing in the
subject marriage contract was not that of Olaybar, the court found basis in granting the
latters prayer to straighten her record and rectify the terrible mistake.
The petitioner opposed and moved for reconsideration, contending that: (1) there was no
clerical spelling, typographical and other innocuous errors in the marriage contract for it to
fall within the provisions of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court; and (2) granting the cancellation
of all the entries in the wife portion of the alleged marriage contract is, in effect, declaring
the marriage void ab initio.
The RTC denied petitioners motion for reconsideration and held that it had jurisdiction to
take cognizance of cases for correction of entries even on substantial errors under Rule
108 of the Rules of Court being the appropriate adversary proceeding required.
Considering that respondents identity was used by an unknown person to contract
 marriage with a Korean national, it would not be feasible for respondent to institute an
action for declaration of nullity of marriage since it is not one of the void marriages under
Articles 35 and 36 of the Family Code.

ISSUE: Is the cancellation of entries in the marriage contract which, in effect, nullifies the
marriage may be undertaken in a Rule 108 proceeding? NO

RULING:

Rule 108 of the Rules of Court provides the procedure for cancellation or correction of entries
in the civil registry. The proceedings may either be summary or adversary. If the correction is
clerical, then the procedure to be adopted is summary. If the rectification affects the civil status,
citizenship or nationality of a party, it is deemed substantial, and the procedure to be adopted
is adversary.

In Republic v. Valencia, the Court has repeatedly ruled that "even substantial errors in a civil
registry may be corrected through a petition filed under Rule 108, with the true facts
established and the parties aggrieved by the error availing themselves of the appropriate
adversarial proceeding." An appropriate adversary suit or proceeding is one where the
trial court has conducted proceedings where all relevant facts have been fully and
properly developed, where opposing counsel have been given opportunity to demolish
the opposite partys case, and where the evidence has been thoroughly weighed and
considered.

In filing the petition for correction of entry under Rule 108, respondent made the Local Civil
Registrar of Cebu City, as well as her alleged husband Ye Son Sune, as parties-respondents.
It is undisputed that the procedural requirements set forth in Rule 108 were complied with.
The Office of the Solicitor General was likewise notified of the petition which in turn authorized
the Office of the City Prosecutor to participate in the proceedings. More importantly, trial was
conducted where respondent herself, the stenographer of the court where the alleged
marriage was conducted, as well as a document examiner, testified. Several documents were
also considered as evidence. With the testimonies and other evidence presented, the trial
court found that the signature appearing in the subject marriage certificate was different from
respondents signature appearing in some of her government issued identification cards. The
court thus made a categorical conclusion that respondents signature in the marriage
certificate was not hers and, therefore, was forged. Clearly, it was established that, as she
claimed in her petition, no such marriage was celebrated.

While the Court maintains that Rule 108 cannot be availed of to determine the validity of
marriage, it held that it cannot nullify the proceedings before the trial court where all the parties
had been given the opportunity to contest the allegations of respondent; the procedures were
followed, and all the evidence of the parties had already been admitted and examined. Olaybar
sought, not the nullification of marriage as there was no marriage to speak of, but the
correction of the record of such marriage to reflect the truth as set forth by the evidence.
Otherwise stated, in allowing the correction of the subject certificate of marriage by cancelling
the wife portion thereof, the trial court did not, in any way, declare the marriage void as there
was no marriage to speak of.

FRANCLER P. ONDE, Petitioner, vs. THE OFFICE OF THE LOCAL CIVIL

REGISTRATION OF LAS PIAS CITY, Respondent.
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari of the Orders1 dated October 7, 2010 and March
1, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 201, Las Pias City, in Special Proceedings
Case No. 10-0043. The RTC dismissed the case filed by petitioner Francler P. Onde for
correction of entries in his certificate of live birth.

The antecedent facts follow:

Petitioner filed a petition2 for correction of entries in his certificate of live birth before the R TC
and named respondent Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Las Pifias City as sole respondent.
Petitioner alleged that he is the illegitimate child of his parents Guillermo A. Onde and Matilde
DC Pakingan, but his birth certificate stated that his parents were married. His birth certificate
also stated that his mother's first name is Tely and that his first name is Franc Ler. He prayed
that the following entries on his birth certificate be corrected as follows:

Entry From To
1) Date and place of marriage of his parents December 23, 1983 - Bicol Not Married
2) First name of his mother Tely Matilde
3) His first name Franc Ler Francler

In its Order dated October 7, 2010, the RTC dismissed the petition for correction of entries on
the ground thatit is insufficient in form and substance. It ruled that the proceedings must be
adversarial since the first correction is substantial in nature and would affect petitioners status
as a legitimate child. It was further held that the correction in the first name of petitioner and
his mother can be done by the city civil registrar under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9048, entitled
An Act Authorizing the City or Municipal Civil Registrar or the ConsulGeneral to Correct a
Clerical or Typographical Error in an Entry and/or Change of First Name or Nickname in the
Civil Registrar Without Need of a Judicial Order, Amending for this Purpose Articles 376 and
412 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

In its Order dated March 1, 2011,the RTC denied petitioners motion for reconsideration, as it
found no proof that petitioners parents were not married on December 23, 1983.

Essentially, the petition raises fourissues: (1) whether the RTC erred in ruling that the
correction on the first name of petitioner and his mother can be done by the city civil registrar
under R.A. No. 9048; (2) whether the RTC erred in ruling that correcting the entry on
petitioners birth certificate that his parents were married on December 23, 1983 in Bicol to
"not married" is substantial in nature requiring adversarial proceedings; (3) whether the RTC
erred in dismissing the petition for correction of entries; and (4) whether the RTC erred in ruling
that there is no proof that petitioners parents were not married on December 23, 1983.

Petitioner argues that Rule 108 ofthe Rules of Court allows a substantial correction of entries
in the civil registry, stating that in Eleosida v. Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City,3 the case
cited by the RTC, we have actually ruled that substantial changes in the civil registry are now
allowed under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. He likewise adds that proof that his parents
were not married will be presented during the trial, not during the filing of the petition for
correction of entries.

In its comment, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) contends that the RTC correctly
dismissed the petition for correction of entries. It points out that the first names of petitioner
and his mother can be corrected thru administrative proceedings under R.A. No. 9048. Such
correction of the entry on petitioners birth certificate that his parents were married on
December 23, 1983 in Bicol to "not married" is a substantial correction affecting his legitimacy.
Hence, it must be dealt with in adversarial proceedings where all interested parties are
impleaded.

We deny the petition.

On the first issue, we agree with the RTC that the first name of petitioner and his mother as
appearing in his birth certificate can be corrected by the city civil registrar under R.A. No. 9048.
We note that petitioner no longer contested the RTCs ruling on this point.4 Indeed, under
Section 15 of R.A. No. 9048, clerical or typographical errors on entries in a civil register can
be corrected and changes of first name can be done by the concerned city civil registrar
without need of a judicial order. Aforesaid Section 1, as amended by R.A. No. 10172, now
reads: SECTION 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or Typographical Error and Change of First
Name or Nickname. No entry in a civil register shall be changed or correctedwithout a judicial
order, except for clerical or typographical errors and change of first name or nickname, the
day and month in the dateof birth or sex of a person where it is patently clear that there was a
clerical or typographical error or mistake in the entry, which can be corrected or changed by
the concerned city or municipalcivil registraror consul general in accordance with the
provisions of this Act and its implementing rules and regulations. (Emphasis supplied.)

In Silverio v. Republic,6 we held that under R.A. No. 9048, jurisdiction over applications for
change of first name is now primarily lodged with administrative officers. The intent and effect
of said law is to exclude the change of first name from the coverage of Rules 103 (Change of
Name) and 108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) of the Rules of
Court, until and unless an administrative petition for change of name is first filed and
subsequently denied. The remedy and the proceedings regulating change of first name are
primarily administrative in nature, not judicial. In Republic v. Cagandahan,7 we said that under
R.A.No. 9048, the correction of clerical or typographical errors can now be made through
administrative proceedings and without the need for a judicial order. The law removed from
the ambit of Rule 108 of the Rules ofCourt the correction of clerical or typographical errors.
Thus petitioner can avail of this administrative remedy for the correction of his and his mothers
first name.

On the second issue, we also agree with the RTC in ruling that correcting the entry on
petitioners birth certificate that his parents were married on December 23, 1983 in Bicol to
"not married" is a substantial correction requiring adversarial proceedings. Said correction is
substantial as it will affect his legitimacy and convert him from a legitimate child to an
illegitimate one. In Republic v. Uy,8 we held that corrections of entries in the civil register
including those on citizenship, legitimacyof paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of
marriage,involve substantial alterations. 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 adversaryproceedings.9

On the third issue, we likewise affirm the RTC in dismissing the petition for correction of
entries. As mentioned, petitioner no longer contested the RTC ruling that the correction he
sought on his and his mothers first name can be done by the city civil registrar. Under the
circumstances, we are constrained to deny his prayer that the petition for correction of entries
before the RTC bereinstated since the same petition includes the correction he sought on his
and his mothers first name.

We clarify, however, that the RTCs dismissal is without prejudice. As we said, petitioner can
avail ofthe administrative remedy for the correction of his and his mothers first
name.1wphi1 He can also file a new petition before the RTC to correct the alleged erroneous
entry on his birth certificate that his parents were married on December 23, 1983 in Bicol. This
substantial correction is allowed under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. As we reiterated in
Eleosida v. Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City:10

x x x This is our ruling in Republic vs. Valenciawhere we held that even substantial errors in a
civil registry may be corrected and the true facts established under Rule 108 [of the Rules of
Court]provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the appropriate
adversary proceeding. x x x

xxxx

It is true in the case at bar that the changes sought to be made by petitioner are not merely
clerical or harmless errors but substantial ones as they would affect the status of the marriage
between petitioner and Carlos Borbon, as well as the legitimacy of their son, Charles Christian.
Changes of such nature, however, are now allowed under Rule 108in accordance with our
ruling in Republic vs. Valencia provided that the appropriate procedural requirements are
complied with. x x x (Emphasis supplied.)

We also stress that a petition seeking a substantial correction of an entry in a civil register
must implead as parties to the proceedings not only the local civil registrar, as petitioner did
in the dismissed petition for correction of entries, but also all persons who have or claim any
interest which would be affected by the correction. This is required by Section 3, Rule 108 of
the Rules of Court:

SEC. 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. (Emphasis supplied.)

In Eleosida,11 we cited Section 3, and Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, as
the procedural requirements laid down by the Court to make the proceedings under Rule 108
adversary. In Republic v. Uy,12 we have similarly ruled that 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 the Rules of Court is mandated. Thus, in his new
petition, petitioner should at least implead his father and mother as parties since the
substantial correction he is seeking will also affect them.

In view of the foregoing discussion, it is no longer necessary to dwell on the last issue as
petitioner will have his opportunity to prove his claim that his parents were not married on
December 23, 1983 when he files the new petition for the purpose.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition and AFFIRM the Orders dated October 7, 2010 and
March 1, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 201, Las Pifias City, in Special Proceedings
Case No. 10-0043. The dismissal ordered by the Regional Trial Court is, however, declared
to be without prejudice.

Dear Yuli,

Please be informed that there are two (2) ways of correcting erroneous entries in a document,
such as a Birth Certificate, registered with the Office of the Civil Registrar. The first is through
an administrative process of correcting entries in the Local Civil Registrar where the pertinent
document was registered, in accordance with Republic Act (R.A) No. 9048 or the Clerical Error
Law, as amended by R.A. No. 10172, if the matter involved is the correction of clerical or
typographical errors in the first name, nickname, place of birth, day and month of birth or sex
of a person. All other forms of erroneous entry may only be corrected through a petition in
court.

Clearly stated in the case of Onde v. The Office of the Local Civil Registration of Las Pias
City (G.R. No. 197174, 10 September 2014), penned by the Honorable former Associate
Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., that:

[C]orrections of entries in the civil register including those on citizenship, legitimacy of

paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, involve substantial alterations. 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 proceedings.

Just like in your situation, the erroneous entry with respect to the religion of your parents
cannot be considered as mere clerical or typographical in nature. In order to correct this entry
and record your parents religion as Roman Catholic, you need to file a petition for Correction
of Entry in accordance with Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, to be filed in the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) with jurisdiction over the place where your birth certificate was registered.

In the said petition, the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest which
would be affected by the change shall be made parties to the case. (Section 3, Rule 108, Id.)
Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall set the case for a hearing and that reasonable
notice thereof be given to the persons named in the petition. The court shall also cause the
order to be published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
circulation in your province having jurisdiction on the respondent local civil registry. (Section
4, Id.) If you successfully prove your petition, the court, after hearing, shall issue an order
granting the correction you prayed for and a certified copy of the judgment shall be served
upon the civil registrar concerned who shall annotate the same in his record.(Section 7, Id.)
Thereafter, your birth certificate shall reflect the correct religion of your parents.

Again, we find it necessary to mention that this opinion is solely based on the facts you have
narrated and our appreciation of the same. The opinion may vary when the facts are changed
or elaborated.