ONDE vs.

THE OFFICE OF THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRATION OF LAS PIÑAS CITY

G.R. No. 197174               September 10, 2014

FACTS:

Onde filed a petition for correction of entries in his certificate of live birth before the RTC
and named 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 petitioner’s status
as a legitimate child.

Petitioner argues that Rule 108 of the Rules of Court allows a substantial correction of entries in
the civil registry, stating that in Eleosida v. Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City, the case cited
by the RTC, which 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.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the correction on the first name of petitioner and his mother can be done by
the city civil registrar under R.A. No. 9048.

Yes.

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. Indeed, under Section 1 of R.A. No.
9048 as amended by R.A. 10172, 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. 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 of Court the correction of
clerical or typographical errors. Thus, petitioner can avail of this administrative remedy for the
correction of his and his mother’s first name.
2. Whether the RTC erred in ruling that correcting the entry on petitioner’s birth certificate that
his parents were married on December 23, 1983 in Bicol to "not married" is substantial in nature
requiring adversarial proceedings.

Yes.

Correcting the entry on petitioner’s 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.

3. Whether the RTC erred in dismissing the petition for correction of entries.

Yes. However, such dismissal is without prejudice.

Petitioner can avail of the administrative remedy for the correction of his and his
mother’s first name. 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.

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.

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.

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.
THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. VIRGIE (VIRGEL) L. TIPAY

G.R. No. 209527 February 14, 2018

FACTS:

In a petition dated February 13, 2009, Virgel sought the correction of several entries in his birth
certificate. Attached to the petition are two (2) copies of his birth certificate, respectively issued
by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Governor Generoso, Davao Oriental and the National
Statistics Office (NSO). Both copies reflect his gender as "FEMALE" and his first name as
"Virgie." It further appears that the month and day of birth in the local civil registrar's copy was
blank, while the NSO-issued birth certificate indicates that he was born on May 12, 1976. Virgel
alleged that these entries are erroneous, and sought the correction of his birth certificate as
follows: (a) his gender, from "FEMALE" to "MALE;" (b) his first name, from "VIRGIE" to
"VIRGEL;" and (c) his month and date of birth to "FEBRUARY 25, 1976."

The petition was found sufficient in form and substance, and the case proceeded to trial. There
was no opposition to the petition. Soon after, the RTC rendered its Decision dated July 27, 2010
granting Virgel's petition.

From this decision, the Republic filed a Notice of Appeal, which was given due course by the
trial court. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argued that the
change of Virgel's name from Virgie should have been made through a proceeding under Rule
103, and not Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. This argument was premised on the assumption
that the summary procedure under Rule 108 is confined to the correction of clerical or
innocuous errors, which excludes one's name or date of birth. Since the petition lodged with the
RTC was not filed pursuant to Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, the Republic asserted that the
trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Regional Trial Court was correct in taking cognizance of the petition for correction of
entries in Virgel’s birth certificate applying Rule 108 of the Rules of Court

RULING:

Yes.

The RTC was correct in taking cognizance of the petition for correction of entries in
Virgel’s birth certificate.

R.A. No. 9048 defined a clerical or typographical error as a mistake committed in. the
performance of clerical work, which is harmless and immediately obvious to the understanding.
It was further amended in 2012, when Republic Act (RA) No. 10172 was passed to expand the
authority of local civil registrars and the Consul General to make changes in the day and month
in the date of birth, as well as in the recorded sex of a person when it is patently clear that there
was a typographical error or mistake in the entry.
 In the case at bar, Virgel filed the petition for correction with the RTC in 2009 and R.A.
No. 10172 was not yet in effect. As such, to correct the erroneous gender and date of birth in
Virgel's birth certificate, the proper remedy was to commence the appropriate adversarial
proceedings with the RTC, pursuant to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. The changes in the
entries pertaining to the gender and date of birth are indisputably substantial corrections,
outside the contemplation of a clerical or typographical error that may be corrected
administratively

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. MILLER OMANDAM UNABIA

G.R. No. 213346 February 11, 2019

FACTS:
On February 11,2009, respondent Miller Omandam Unabia filed before the RTC Special
Proceeding No. 2009-018, which is a "Petition for Correction of Entries on the Birth Certificate of
Mellie Umandam Unabia," claiming that his Birth Certificate contained errors in that the name
entered therein was "Mellie Umandam Unabia", when it should be Miller Omandam Unabia";
that the gender was erroneously entered as "female" instead of "male"; and that his father's
middle initial was erroneously indicated as "U" when it should have been "O"
RTC ruled in his favor
On June 27, 2014, the CA issued the assailed Decision, which contains the following
pronouncement: Under Republic Act 10172, which amended R.A. 9048, the city or municipal
registrar or the consul general, as the case may be, is now authorized to correct clerical or
typographical errors in the day and month, in the date of birth or sex of a person appearing in
the civil register without need of a judicial order.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not R.A. No. 10172 can be applied retroactively?
2. Whether or not the medical certificate presented is sufficient to warrant the change of gender
in the birth certificate.

RULINGS:
1. Yes.
When Special Proceeding No. 2009-018 was filed in 2009, the governing law
then was the original, unamended RA 9048. There was no provision then for the
administrative correction or change of clerical or typographical errors or mistakes in the
civil registry entries of the day and month in the date of birth or sex of individuals, but
only clerical or typographical errors and change of first names or nicknames.
 Administrative corrections or changes relating to the date of birth or sex of individuals
was authorized only with the passage in 2012 of R.A. 10172. Even then, the
amendments under RA 10172 should still apply, the law being remedial in nature.
Moreover, under Section 11 of RA 9048, retroactive application is allowed "insofar as it
does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code
and other laws."

2. Yes
On the other hand, while the trial court did not seem to make any material observation in
its pronouncement regarding respondent's physical appearance or otherwise to support its
finding that the latter was male, the record will support a finding that respondent was indeed
male. In his photograph attached to the record, it will be observed particularly that
respondent's Adam's apple - or, in medical terms, his laryngeal prominence - was quite
evident and prominent. This can only indicate that respondent is male, because
anatomically, only men possess an Adam's apple.

As for petitioner's argument that the medical certificate failed to specifically certify that
respondent "has not undergone sex change or sex transplant" as required by law, suffice it
to state that this is no longer required with the certification by Dr. Labis that respondent is
"phenotypically male", meaning that respondent's entire physical, physiological,
and biochemical makeup - as determined both genetically and environmentally - is male,
which thus presupposes that he did not undergo sex reassignment. In other words, as
determined genetically and environmentally, from conception to birth, respondent's entire
being, from the physical, to the physiological, to the biochemical - meaning that all the
chemical processes and substances occurring within respondent - was undoubtedly
male. He was conceived and born male, he looks male, and he functions biologically as a
male.

Thus, in respondent's case, the Court must do away with the requirement of no-sex
change certification. The same is true with respondent's failure to include his known aliases
in his petition, simply because there appear to be none at all; the bottom-line issue is his
gender as entered in the public record, not really his name.

REPUBLIC v. LORENA OMAPAS SALI

G.R. No. 206023 April 03, 2017

FACTS:

Lorena Omapas Sali filed a Petition for Correction of Entry under Rule 108 of the Rules
of Court before the RTC. In her petition, she averred that in recording the facts of her birth, the
personnel of the Local Civil Registrar of Baybay, Leyte, erroneously entered in the records the
following: Firstly, the first name of the petitioner as "DOROTHY" instead of "LORENA" and
Secondly, the date of birth of the petitioner as "June 24, 1968" instead of "April 24, 1968. The
petitioner has been using the name "Lorena A. Omapas” and her date of birth as "April 24,
1968" for as long as she could remember and is known to the community in general as such.
 The trial court ruled in favor of Lorena Sali thereby granting the petition to correct the
erroneous entries in her birth certificate. However, The Republic, through the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG), appealed the RTC Decision for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the
court a quo because the title of the petition and the order setting the petition for hearing did not
contain Sali's aliases.

The CA denied the appeal, ruling that: (1) the records are bereft of any indication that Sali is
known by a name other than "Lorena," hence, it would be absurd to compel her to indicate any
other alias that she does not have; (2) Sali not only complied with the mandatory requirements
for an appropriate adversarial proceeding under Rule 108 of the Rules but also gave the
Republic an opportunity to timely contest the purported defective petition; and (3) the change in
the first name of Sali will certainly avoid further confusion as to her identity and there is no
showing that it was sought for a fraudulent purpose or that it would prejudice public interest.

Hence, the appeal to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petition to correct Sali’s birth date from "June 24, 1968" to "April 24, 1968,"
should be given due course.

RULING:

Yes, Sali is correct in filing the petition under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

Sali's petition to correct her birth date from "June 24, 1968" to "April 24, 1968," R.A. No.
9048 is inapplicable. It was only on August 15, 2012 that R.A. No. 10172 was signed into law
amending R.A. No. 9048.14 As modified, Section 1 now includes the day and month in the date
of birth and sex of a person, thus:

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 corrected
without a judicial order, except for clerical or typographical errors and change of first
name or nickname, the day and month in the date of 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 municipal civil registrar or
consul general in accordance with the provisions of this Act and its implementing rules
and regulations.

However, considering that Sali filed her petition in 2008 and before the effectivity of RA 10172
Rule 108 is the appropriate remedy in seeking to correct her date of birth in the civil registry.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MICHELLE SORIANO GALLO

GR No. 207074 Jan 17, 2018

FACTS:

Gallo has never been known as "Michael Soriano Gallo." She has always been female.
Her parents, married on May 23, 1981, have never changed their names. For her, in her petition
before the Regional Trial Court, her Certificate of Live Birth contained errors, which should be
corrected. For her, she was not changing the name that was given to her; she was merely
correcting its entry.
To accurately reflect these facts in her documents, Gallo prayed before the Regional
Trial Court of Ilagan City, Isabela in for the correction of her name from "Michael" to "Michelle"
and of her biological sex from "Male" to "Female" under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
In addition, Gallo asked for the inclusion of her middle name, "Soriano"; her mother's
middle name, "Angangan"; her father's middle name, "Balingao"; and her parent's marriage
date, May 23, 1981, in her Certificate of Live Birth, as these were not recorded.
As proof, she attached to her petition copies of her diploma, voter's certification, official
transcript of records, medical certificate, mother's birth certificate, and parents' marriage
certificate.
The RTC having found Gallo's petition sufficient in form and substance and ordered the
publication of the Notice of Hearing once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Province of Isabela.
The RTC granted her petition however the OSG appealed alleging that Gallo did not
comply with the jurisdictional requirements under Rule 103 because the title of her Petition and
the published Order did not state her official name, "Michael Gallo." Furthermore, the published
Order was also defective for not stating the cause of the change of name.
The Court of Appeals denied the OSG’s appeal and found that Gallo availed of the
proper remedy under Rule 108 as the corrections sought were clerical, harmless, and
innocuous.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the Republic of the Philippines raised a question of fact in alleging that the
change sought by Michelle Soriano Gallo is substantive and not a mere correction of error; and

RULING:
NO.
In the case at bar, petitioner raises an issue which requires an evaluation of evidence as
determining whether or not the change sought is a typographical error or a substantive change
requires looking into the party's records, supporting documents, testimonies, and other
evidence.
Republic Act No. 10172/9048 defines a clerical or typographical error as a recorded
mistake, "which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding." Thus:
"Clerical or typographical error" refers to a mistake committed in the performance of
clerical work in writing, copying, transcribing or typing an entry in the civil register that is
 harmless and innocuous, such as misspelled name or misspelled place of birth, mistake
in the entry of day and month in the date of birth or the sex of the person or the like,
which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding, and can be corrected or
changed only by reference to other existing record or records: Provided, however, That
no correction must involve the change of nationality, age, or status of the petitioner.

By qualifying the definition of a clerical, typographical error as a mistake "visible to the

eyes or obvious to the understanding," the law recognizes that there is a factual determination
made after reference to and evaluation of existing documents presented.
Thus, corrections may be made even though the error is not typographical if it is
"obvious to the understanding," even if there is no proof that the name or circumstance in the
birth certificate was ever used.
The Court agrees with the Regional Trial Court's determination, concurred in by the
Court of Appeals, that this case involves the correction of a mere error.