SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS – CASE RULINGS (Week 10)
Jann Claudine M. Amago 3 – A
RULE 103 – CHANGE OF NAME
1. Alba vs. CA
Issue: Service of order
Section 4. Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall, by 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 a week for three (3)
consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province.
Substantial corrections or cancellation of entries in civil registry
records affecting the status of legitimacy of a person may be effected
through the institution of a petition under Rule 108 with the RTC. Being a
proceeding in rem, acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of petitioner
is therefore not required. It is enough that the trial court is vested with
jurisdiction over the subject matter.
The court held that service of the order at No. 418 Ermita,
Manila and the publication thereof in a newspaper of general circulation
in Manila, sufficiently complied with the requirement of due process, the
essence of which is an opportunity to be heard. The publication of the
order is a notice to all indispensable parties, including Armi and petitioner
minor, which binds the whole world to the judgment that may be
rendered in the petition.
2. Ceruila vs. Delantar
Issue: Service of order
Under Section 3, Rule 108, not only the civil registrar but also
all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected by a
proceeding concerning the cancellation or correction of an entry in the
civil register must be made parties thereto. While the proceedings under
Rule 108 is one in rem, publication cannot cure the lack of summons on a
person whose birth certificate is sought to be cancelled.
Thus, it was held that no party could be more interested in the
cancellation of Rosilyn’s birth certificate than Rosilyn herself. Her filiation,
legitimacy and date of birth at are at stake. Summons must still be served,
not for the purpose of vesting the courts with jurisdiction, but to comply
with the requirements of fair play and due process. This is but proper, to
afford the person concerned the opportunity to protect her interest if she
so choose.
DIFFERENCES UNDER RULE 103, R.A. NO, 9048 AND RULE 108
1. Re: Final Report on the judicial audit conducted at the RTC, Br. 67,
Paniqui, Tarlac
Issue: Why 375 petitions for change of name and/or correction of entries
in the civil registry were granted without the required hearing and
publication, in gross violation of the provisions of Rule 108 of the Rules
on Civil Procedure
The local civil registrar has primary, not exclusive, jurisdiction
over such petitions for correction of clerical errors and change of first
name and nickname, with RA no. 9048 prescribing the procedure that the
petitioner and local civil registrar should follow. Since the law refer
specifically to the administrative summary proceeding before the local
civil registrar it would be inappropriate to apply the same procedure to
petitions for the correction of entries in the civil registry before the courts.
In the case at bar, the more than 300 cases for correction of
entries filed before the RTC of Paniqui and decided by Judge Sotero do not
fall within the purview of R.A. No. 9048. In other words, not all of said
petitions pertain to the change of first name or nickname or the
correction of typographical errors in the entries of the registry. Some of
said petitions involve substantial changes in the registry such as change of
age, sex, status, and nationality, and even of middle names and surnames
of the petitioners. Judge Soteros conduct in acting on the petitions,
without full compliance with the procedural requirements under Rules
103 and 108 of the Revised Rules of Court, is appalling. He explained that
since R.A. No. 9048 allows corrections of entries without need of hearing
and publication for as long as the necessary documents are submitted,
the same procedure under R.A. No. 9048 is applicable to the petitions filed
before the court. The explanation does not impress.The records of the
cases show that Judge Sotero did not comply with the administrative
procedure under the said law. Thus, while R.A. No. 9048 requires that the
petition for correction of entries be posted in a conspicuous place for ten
(10) consecutive days, the records show that some of the petitions were
decided less than ten (10) days from the date of filing. Clearly then, there
was no way that the 10-day posting requirement could have been
accomplished. The petitions for change of name were also granted even
without publication of the order of hearing in a newspaper of general
circulation.
Observance of the procedure under R.A. No. 9048 does not
excuse Judge Soteros blunders. It appears though that he could have
acted under the false impression that the petitions could be filed only with
the local civil registrar and not with the courts. Verily, he claims that he
resolved the petitions with dispatch in order to accommodate the need
of the petitioners to have their civil registry documents corrected with
immediacy and that he was more lenient since no substantial prejudice
would ensue. His misapprehension affords him no justification or
extenuation. Moreover, his concern and compassion for the petitioners
are misplaced. As a member of the bench, he should be equipped with
the basic knowledge of rules of procedure, including Rules 103 and 108,
which govern the disposition of the petitions. Judge Soteros actuations
clearly exposed a deplorable deficiency in his grasp of the basic principles
of law and rudimentary rules of procedure, for which he should be held
administratively liable.
2. Republic vs. Boalnte
Issue: Substantial compliance with Section 3, Rule 103; Whether
respondent’s bare testimony is sufficient
In the context of Section 3, Rule 103 of the Rules, publication
is valid if the following requisites concur: (1) the petition and the copy of
the order indicating the date and place for the hearing must be
published; (2) the publication must be at least once a week for three
successive weeks; and, (3) the publication must be in some newspaper
of general circulation published in the province, as the court shall deem
best. Another validating ingredient relates to the caveat against the
petition being heard within 30 days prior to an election or within four (4)
months after the last publication of the notice of the hearing.
In this case, the Solicitor General deputized the provincial
prosecutor of Abra for the purpose of appearing in the trial on his behalf.
As it were, the provincial prosecutor of Abra was fully apprised of the new
dates of the initial hearing. Accordingly, there was no actual need for a
republication of the initial notice of the hearing.
 Not lost on the Court is the fact that during the September 25,
2001 initial hearing which, to reiterate is already outside the 4-month
limitation prescribed by the Rules, the provincial prosecutor of Abra
interposed no objection as to the genuineness, authenticity, relevancy or
sufficiency of the exhibits presented to prove the jurisdictional
requirements exacted by the Rules. In a very real sense, therefore, the
petitioner Republic fully and knowingly acquiesced in the jurisdiction of
the trial court. The peculiar circumstances obtaining in this case and the
requirements of fair dealing demand that we accord validity to the
proceedings a quo.
With the view we take of the case, respondent's submission for
a change of name is with proper and reasonable reason. As it were, she
has, since she started schooling, used the given name and has been known
as Maria Eloisa, albeit the name Roselie Eloisa is written on her birth
record. Her scholastic records, as well as records in government offices,
including that of her driver's license, professional license as a certified
public accountant issued by the Professional Regulation Commission, and
the "Quick Count" document of the COMELEC, all attest to her having
used practically all her life the name Maria Eloisa Bringas Bolante.
The imperatives of avoiding confusion dictate that the instant
petition is granted. But beyond practicalities, simple justice dictates that
every person shall be allowed to avail himself of any opportunity to
improve his social standing, provided he does so without causing
prejudice or injury to the interests of the State or of other people.
The OSG's argument that respondent's bare testimony is
insufficient to show that the requested name is not sought for any illegal
purpose and/or in avoidance of any entanglement with the law deserves
scant consideration. Surely, the issuance of a police and NBI clearance or
like certification, while perhaps apropos, cannot, as the OSG suggests, be
a convincing norm of one's good moral character or compelling evidence
to prove that the change of name is not sought for any evil motive or
fraudulent intent. Respondent's open court testimony, given under pain
of perjury and for which she was cross-examined, that she had not been
accused of any crime under her registered name or under her present
name (name that she is using) had convinced the trial court of the bona
fides of her request for change of name.
3. Republic vs. Mercadera
Issue: Whether conversion from Marilyn to Merlyn is tantamount to a
substantial change
The court disagreed with the OSG, holding that the petition
filed by Mercadera before the RTC correctly falls under Rule 108 as it
simply sought a correction of a misspelled given name. To correct simply
means “to make or set aright; to remove faults or error from”. To change
means “to replace something with something else of the same kind or
with something that serves as a substitute.” From the allegations in her
petitions, Mercadera clearly prayed for the lower court “to remove the
faults or error” from her registered given name and “to make or set
aright” the same to conform to the one she grew up to.
Besides, granting that Rule 103 applies to this case and that
compliance with the procedural requirements under Rule 108 falls short
of what is mandated, it still cannot be denied that Mercadera complied
with the requirement for an adversarial proceeding before the lower
court. The publication and posting of the notice of hearing in a newspaper
of general circulation and the notices sent to the OSG and the Local Civil
Registry are sufficient indicia of an adverse proceeding. The fact that no
one opposed the petition, including the OSG, did not deprive the court of
its jurisdiction to hear the same and did not make the proceeding less
adversarial in nature. Considering that the OSG did not oppose the
petition and 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 procedurally defective. Indeed, it has become
unnecessary to further discuss the reasons why the CA correctly affirmed
the findings of the lower court especially in admitting and according
probative value to the evidence presented by Mercadera.
GROUNDS FOR CHANGE OF NAME
1. Republic vs. Hernandez
Issue: Adoption and change of name
RULE 108 – CANCELLATION AND CORRECTION OF ENTRIES
1. Corpuz vs. Sto. Tomas
Issue: Judicial recognition of a divorce decree
The alien spouse cannot claim under the second paragraph of
Art 26 of the Family Code because the substantive right it establishes is in
favour of the Filipino spouse. Only the Filipino spouse can invoke the
second par of Art 26 of the Family Code.
The unavailability of the second paragraph of Art 26 of the
Family Code to aliens does not necessarily strip the petitioner of legal
interest to petition the RTC for the recognition of his foreign divorce
decree. The petitioner, being a naturalized Canadian citizen now, is
clothed by the presumptive evidence of the authenticity of foreign
divorce decree with conformity to alien’s national law.
The Pasig City Civil Registry acted out of line when it registered
the foreign decree of divorce on the petitioner and respondent’s marriage
certificate without judicial order recognizing the said decree. The
registration of the foreign divorce decree without the requisite judicial
recognition is void.
We hasten to point out, however, that this ruling should not be
construed as requiring two separate proceedings for the registration of a
foreign divorce decree in the civil registry one for recognition of the
foreign decree and another specifically for cancellation of the entry under
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. The recognition of the foreign divorce
decree may be made in a Rule 108 proceeding itself, as the object of
special proceedings (such as that in Rule 108 of the Rules of Court) is
precisely to establish the status or right of a party or a particular
fact. Moreover, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court can serve as the
appropriate adversarial proceeding[41] by which the applicability of the
foreign judgment can be measured and tested in terms of jurisdictional
infirmities, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake
of law or fact.
The petition for review on certiorari is granted, the RTC
decision is reversed and Court ordered to remand of the case to the trial
court for further proceedings in light of the ruling.
2. Republic vs. Coseteng – Magpayo
Issue: Petition changes the status of the petitioner which should be
made under adversarial proceedings
The petition is impressed with merit.
A person can effect a change of name under Rule 103 (CHANGE OF
NAME) using valid and meritorious grounds including (a) when the name
is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or pronounce;
(b) when the change results as a legal consequence such as 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 and record on appeal should be reckoned from the receipt of the order
to erase signs of former alienage, all in good faith and without denying the motion for new trial or motion for reconsideration.
prejudicing anybody; and (f) when the surname causes embarrassment From the time petitioners received the July 23, 2003 order
and there is no showing that the desired change of name was for a (denying their motion for reconsideration of the July 23, 2002 order) on
fraudulent purpose or that the change of name would prejudice public July 31, 2003, they had 30 days or until August 30, 2003 to file their notice
interest. Respondents reason for changing his name cannot be of appeal and record on appeal. They did so on August 29, 2003. Thus, the
considered as one of, or analogous to, recognized grounds, however. appeal was made on time.
The change being sought in respondents petition goes so far as
to affect his legal status in relation to his parents. It seeks to change his
legitimacy to that of illegitimacy. Rule 103 then would not suffice to grant
respondents supplication. Since respondents desired change affects his
civil status from legitimate to illegitimate, Rule 108 applies. 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 that of Makati in the present case, and all persons who have or
claim any interest which would be affected thereby should be made
parties to the proceeding.
As earlier stated, however, the petition of respondent was filed
not in Makati where his birth certificate was registered but in Quezon
City. And as the above-mentioned title of the petition filed by respondent
before the RTC shows, neither the civil registrar of Makati nor his father
and mother were made parties thereto.
Rule 108 clearly mandates two sets of notices to different
potential oppositors. The first notice is that given to the persons named
in the petition and the second (which is through publication) is that given
to other persons who are not named in the petition but nonetheless may
be considered interested or affected parties, such as creditors. That two
sets of notices are mandated under the above-quoted Section 4 is
validated by the subsequent Section 5, also above-quoted, which provides
for two periods (for the two types of potential oppositors) within which
to file an opposition (15 days from notice or from the last date of
publication).
IN FINE, 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.

RULE 109 – APPEALS IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

1. Zayco vs. Hinlo, Jr.

Issue: Petitioners challenged the January 5, 2004 RTC order in the CA by
way of a petition for certiorari and mandamus. In a decision dated June
27, 2005, the CA dismissed the petition.[9] It ruled that there was no
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC as the notice of appeal
and record on appeal were in fact filed beyond the prescribed period.

Petitioners sought reconsideration but the CA denied it. Hence,

this petition.
Petitioners contend that the RTC erred when it ruled that the
July 23, 2002 and July 23, 2003 orders were not appealable. They also
claim that their notice of appeal and record on appeal were filed on time.
We agree. An order appointing an administrator of a deceased
persons estate is a final determination of the rights of the parties in
connection with the administration, management and settlement of the
decedents estate. It is a final order and, hence, appealable.
In appeals in special proceedings, a record on appeal is
required. The notice of appeal and the record on appeal should both be
filed within 30 days from receipt of the notice of judgment or final order.
Pursuant to Neypes v. CA, the 30-day period to file the notice of appeal