[1] G.R. No.

174689             October 22, 2007 reconstruction surgeon in the Philippines, who issued a medical certificate
attesting that he (petitioner) had in fact undergone the procedure.
ROMMEL JACINTO DANTES SILVERIO, petitioner, vs.REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondent. From then on, petitioner lived as a female and was in fact engaged to be
married. He then sought to have his name in his birth certificate changed
DECISION from "Rommel Jacinto" to "Mely," and his sex from "male" to "female."

CORONA, J.: An order setting the case for initial hearing was published in the People’s
Journal Tonight, a newspaper of general circulation in Metro Manila, for three
consecutive weeks.3 Copies of the order were sent to the Office of the
When God created man, He made him in the likeness of God; He created
Solicitor General (OSG) and the civil registrar of Manila.
them male and female. (Genesis 5:1-2)

On the scheduled initial hearing, jurisdictional requirements were

Amihan gazed upon the bamboo reed planted by Bathala and she heard
established. No opposition to the petition was made.
voices coming from inside the bamboo. "Oh North Wind! North Wind!
Please let us out!," the voices said. She pecked the reed once, then twice.
All of a sudden, the bamboo cracked and slit open. Out came two human During trial, petitioner testified for himself. He also presented Dr. Reysio-
beings; one was a male and the other was a female. Amihan named the Cruz, Jr. and his American fiancé, Richard P. Edel, as witnesses.
man "Malakas" (Strong) and the woman "Maganda" (Beautiful). (The
Legend of Malakas and Maganda) On June 4, 2003, the trial court rendered a decision 4 in favor of petitioner. Its
relevant portions read:
When is a man a man and when is a woman a woman? In particular, does
the law recognize the changes made by a physician using scalpel, drugs and Petitioner filed the present petition not to evade any law or judgment or
counseling with regard to a person’s sex? May a person successfully petition any infraction thereof or for any unlawful motive but solely for the purpose
for a change of name and sex appearing in the birth certificate to reflect the of making his birth records compatible with his present sex.
result of a sex reassignment surgery?
The sole issue here is whether or not petitioner is entitled to the relief
On November 26, 2002, petitioner Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio filed a asked for.
petition for the change of his first name and sex in his birth certificate in the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 8. The petition, docketed as SP Case The [c]ourt rules in the affirmative.
No. 02-105207, impleaded the civil registrar of Manila as respondent.
Firstly, the [c]ourt is of the opinion that granting the petition would be more
Petitioner alleged in his petition that he was born in the City of Manila to the in consonance with the principles of justice and equity. With his sexual
spouses Melecio Petines Silverio and Anita Aquino Dantes on April 4, 1962. [re-assignment], petitioner, who has always felt, thought and acted like a
His name was registered as "Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio" in his woman, now possesses the physique of a female. Petitioner’s misfortune
certificate of live birth (birth certificate). His sex was registered as "male." to be trapped in a man’s body is not his own doing and should not be in
any way taken against him.
He further alleged that he is a male transsexual, that is, "anatomically male
but feels, thinks and acts as a female" and that he had always identified Likewise, the [c]ourt believes that no harm, injury [or] prejudice will be
himself with girls since childhood. 1 Feeling trapped in a man’s body, he caused to anybody or the community in granting the petition. On the
consulted several doctors in the United States. He underwent psychological contrary, granting the petition would bring the much-awaited happiness on
examination, hormone treatment and breast augmentation. His attempts to the part of the petitioner and her [fiancé] and the realization of their
transform himself to a "woman" culminated on January 27, 2001 when he dreams.
underwent sex reassignment surgery2 in Bangkok, Thailand. He was
thereafter examined by Dr. Marcelino Reysio-Cruz, Jr., a plastic and

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 1 of 56
 Finally, no evidence was presented to show any cause or ground to deny Petitions for change of name are controlled by statutes. 13 In this connection,
the present petition despite due notice and publication thereof. Even the Article 376 of the Civil Code provides:
State, through the [OSG] has not seen fit to interpose any [o]pposition.
ART. 376. No person can change his name or surname without
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered GRANTING the petition and judicial authority.
ordering the Civil Registrar of Manila to change the entries appearing in
the Certificate of Birth of [p]etitioner, specifically for petitioner’s first name This Civil Code provision was amended by RA 9048 (Clerical Error Law). In
from "Rommel Jacinto" to MELY and petitioner’s gender from "Male" to particular, Section 1 of RA 9048 provides:
FEMALE. 5
SECTION 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or Typographical Error and
On August 18, 2003, the Republic of the Philippines (Republic), thru the Change of First Name or Nickname. – No entry in a civil register shall
OSG, filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals. 6 It alleged that be changed or corrected without a judicial order, except for clerical or
there is no law allowing the change of entries in the birth certificate by reason typographical errors and change of first name or nickname which can
of sex alteration. be corrected or changed by the concerned city or municipal civil
registrar or consul general in accordance with the provisions of this
On February 23, 2006, the Court of Appeals 7 rendered a decision8 in favor of Act and its implementing rules and regulations.
the Republic. It ruled that the trial court’s decision lacked legal basis. There is
no law allowing the change of either name or sex in the certificate of birth on RA 9048 now governs the change of first name. 14 It vests the power and
the ground of sex reassignment through surgery. Thus, the Court of Appeals authority to entertain petitions for change of first name to the city or municipal
granted the Republic’s petition, set aside the decision of the trial court and civil registrar or consul general concerned. Under the law, therefore,
ordered the dismissal of SP Case No. 02-105207. Petitioner moved for jurisdiction over applications for change of first name is now primarily lodged
reconsideration but it was denied.9 Hence, this petition. with the aforementioned administrative officers. The intent and effect of the
law is to exclude the change of first name from the coverage of Rules 103
Petitioner essentially claims that the change of his name and sex in his birth (Change of Name) and 108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil
certificate is allowed under Articles 407 to 413 of the Civil Code, Rules 103 Registry) of the Rules of Court, until and unless an administrative petition for
and 108 of the Rules of Court and RA 9048.10 change of name is first filed and subsequently denied. 15 It likewise lays down
the corresponding venue,16 form17 and procedure. In sum, the remedy and
The petition lacks merit. the proceedings regulating change of first name are primarily administrative
in nature, not judicial.
A Person’s First Name Cannot Be Changed On the Ground of Sex
Reassignment RA 9048 likewise provides the grounds for which change of first name may
be allowed:
Petitioner invoked his sex reassignment as the ground for his petition for
change of name and sex. As found by the trial court: SECTION 4. Grounds for Change of First Name or Nickname. – The
petition for change of first name or nickname may be allowed in any
of the following cases:
Petitioner filed the present petition not to evade any law or judgment or
any infraction thereof or for any unlawful motive but solely for the
purpose of making his birth records compatible with his present sex. (1) The petitioner finds the first name or nickname to be ridiculous,
tainted with dishonor or extremely difficult to write or pronounce;
Petitioner believes that after having acquired the physical features of a
female, he became entitled to the civil registry changes sought. We disagree. (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
The State has an interest in the names borne by individuals and entities for
purposes of identification.11 A change of name is a privilege, not a right. 12
(3) The change will avoid confusion.

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 2 of 56
Petitioner’s basis in praying for the change of his first name was his sex Section 2(c) of RA 9048 defines what a "clerical or typographical error" is:
reassignment. He intended to make his first name compatible with the sex he
thought he transformed himself into through surgery. However, a change of SECTION 2. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act, the following terms
name does not alter one’s legal capacity or civil status. 18 RA 9048 does not shall mean:
sanction a change of first name on the ground of sex reassignment. Rather
than avoiding confusion, changing petitioner’s first name for his declared (3) "Clerical or typographical error" refers to a mistake committed in
purpose may only create grave complications in the civil registry and the the performance of clerical work in writing, copying, transcribing or
public interest. typing an entry in the civil register that is harmless and innocuous,
such as misspelled name or misspelled place of birth or the like, which
Before a person can legally change his given name, he must present proper is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding, and can be
or reasonable cause or any compelling reason justifying such change. 19 In corrected or changed only by reference to other existing record or
addition, he must show that he will be prejudiced by the use of his true and records: Provided, however, That no correction must involve the
official name.20 In this case, he failed to show, or even allege, any prejudice change of nationality, age, status or sex of the petitioner.
that he might suffer as a result of using his true and official name.
Under RA 9048, a correction in the civil registry involving the change of sex is
In sum, the petition in the trial court in so far as it prayed for the change of not a mere clerical or typographical error. It is a substantial change for which
petitioner’s first name was not within that court’s primary jurisdiction as the the applicable procedure is Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
petition should have been filed with the local civil registrar concerned,
assuming it could be legally done. It was an improper remedy because the The entries envisaged in Article 412 of the Civil Code and correctable under
proper remedy was administrative, that is, that provided under RA 9048. It Rule 108 of the Rules of Court are those provided in Articles 407 and 408 of
was also filed in the wrong venue as the proper venue was in the Office of the Civil Code:24
the Civil Registrar of Manila where his birth certificate is kept. More
importantly, it had no merit since the use of his true and official name does
not prejudice him at all. For all these reasons, the Court of Appeals correctly ART. 407. Acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil
dismissed petitioner’s petition in so far as the change of his first name was status of persons shall be recorded in the civil register.
concerned.
ART. 408. The following shall be entered in the civil register:
No Law Allows The Change of Entry In The Birth Certificate As To Sex
On the Ground of Sex Reassignment (1) Births; (2) marriages; (3) deaths; (4) legal separations; (5)
annulments of marriage; (6) judgments declaring marriages void from
The determination of a person’s sex appearing in his birth certificate is a legal the beginning; (7) legitimations; (8) adoptions; (9) acknowledgments
issue and the court must look to the statutes. 21 In this connection, Article 412 of natural children; (10) naturalization; (11) loss, or (12) recovery of
of the Civil Code provides: citizenship; (13) civil interdiction; (14) judicial determination of
filiation; (15) voluntary emancipation of a minor; and (16) changes of
name.
ART. 412. No entry in the civil register shall be changed or corrected
without a judicial order.
The acts, events or factual errors contemplated under Article 407 of the Civil
Code include even those that occur after birth. 25 However, no reasonable
Together with Article 376 of the Civil Code, this provision was amended by interpretation of the provision can justify the conclusion that it covers the
RA 9048 in so far as clerical or typographical errors are involved. The correction on the ground of sex reassignment.
correction or change of such matters can now be made through
administrative proceedings and without the need for a judicial order. In effect,
RA 9048 removed from the ambit of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court the To correct simply means "to make or set aright; to remove the faults or error
correction of such errors.22 Rule 108 now applies only to substantial changes from" while to change means "to replace something with something else of
and corrections in entries in the civil register.23 the same kind or with something that serves as a substitute." 26 The birth
certificate of petitioner contained no error. All entries therein, including those

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 3 of 56
corresponding to his first name and sex, were all correct. No correction is sufficient for the registration of a birth in the civil register. Such
necessary. declaration shall be exempt from documentary stamp tax and shall
be sent to the local civil registrar not later than thirty days after the
Article 407 of the Civil Code authorizes the entry in the civil registry of certain birth, by the physician or midwife in attendance at the birth or by
acts (such as legitimations, acknowledgments of illegitimate children and either parent of the newborn child.
naturalization), events (such as births, marriages, naturalization and deaths)
and judicial decrees (such as legal separations, annulments of marriage, In such declaration, the person above mentioned shall certify to the
declarations of nullity of marriages, adoptions, naturalization, loss or recovery following facts: (a) date and hour of birth; (b) sex and nationality of
of citizenship, civil interdiction, judicial determination of filiation and changes infant; (c) names, citizenship and religion of parents or, in case the
of name). These acts, events and judicial decrees produce legal father is not known, of the mother alone; (d) civil status of parents;
consequences that touch upon the legal capacity, status and nationality of a (e) place where the infant was born; and (f) such other data as may
person. Their effects are expressly sanctioned by the laws. In contrast, sex be required in the regulations to be issued.
reassignment is not among those acts or events mentioned in Article 407.
Neither is it recognized nor even mentioned by any law, expressly or Under the Civil Register Law, a birth certificate is a historical record of the
impliedly. facts as they existed at the time of birth. 29 Thus, the sex of a person is
determined at birth, visually done by the birth attendant (the physician or
"Status" refers to the circumstances affecting the legal situation (that is, the midwife) by examining the genitals of the infant. Considering that there is no
sum total of capacities and incapacities) of a person in view of his age, law legally recognizing sex reassignment, the determination of a person’s sex
nationality and his family membership.27 made at the time of his or her birth, if not attended by error, 30 is immutable.31

The status of a person in law includes all his personal qualities and When words are not defined in a statute they are to be given their common
relations, more or less permanent in nature, not ordinarily and ordinary meaning in the absence of a contrary legislative intent. The
terminable at his own will, such as his being legitimate or words "sex," "male" and "female" as used in the Civil Register Law and laws
illegitimate, or his being married or not. The comprehensive term concerning the civil registry (and even all other laws) should therefore be
status… include such matters as the beginning and end of legal understood in their common and ordinary usage, there being no legislative
personality, capacity to have rights in general, family relations, and intent to the contrary. In this connection, sex is defined as "the sum of
its various aspects, such as birth, legitimation, adoption, peculiarities of structure and function that distinguish a male from a female" 32
emancipation, marriage, divorce, and sometimes even succession. 28 or "the distinction between male and female."33 Female is "the sex that
(emphasis supplied) produces ova or bears young"34 and male is "the sex that has organs to
produce spermatozoa for fertilizing ova."35 Thus, the words "male" and
A person’s sex is an essential factor in marriage and family relations. It is a "female" in everyday understanding do not include persons who have
part of a person’s legal capacity and civil status. In this connection, Article undergone sex reassignment. Furthermore, "words that are employed in a
413 of the Civil Code provides: statute which had at the time a well-known meaning are presumed to have
been used in that sense unless the context compels to the contrary." 36 Since
the statutory language of the Civil Register Law was enacted in the early
ART. 413. All other matters pertaining to the registration of civil
1900s and remains unchanged, it cannot be argued that the term "sex" as
status shall be governed by special laws.
used then is something alterable through surgery or something that allows a
post-operative male-to-female transsexual to be included in the category
But there is no such special law in the Philippines governing sex "female."
reassignment and its effects. This is fatal to petitioner’s cause.
For these reasons, while petitioner may have succeeded in altering his body
Moreover, Section 5 of Act 3753 (the Civil Register Law) provides: 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.
SEC. 5. Registration and certification of births. – The declaration of Thus, there is no legal basis for his petition for the correction or change of the
the physician or midwife in attendance at the birth or, in default entries in his birth certificate.
thereof, the declaration of either parent of the newborn child, shall be

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 4 of 56
Neither May Entries in the Birth Certificate As to First Name or Sex Be However, this Court has no authority to fashion a law on that matter, or on
Changed on the Ground of Equity anything else. The Court cannot enact a law where no law exists. It can only
apply or interpret the written word of its co-equal branch of government,
The trial court opined that its grant of the petition was in consonance with the Congress.
principles of justice and equity. It believed that allowing the petition would
cause no harm, injury or prejudice to anyone. This is wrong. Petitioner pleads that "[t]he unfortunates are also entitled to a life of
happiness, contentment and [the] realization of their dreams." No argument
The changes sought by petitioner will have serious and wide-ranging legal about that. The Court recognizes that there are people whose preferences
and public policy consequences. First, even the trial court itself found that the and orientation do not fit neatly into the commonly recognized parameters of
petition was but petitioner’s first step towards his eventual marriage to his social convention and that, at least for them, life is indeed an ordeal.
male fiancé. However, marriage, one of the most sacred social institutions, is However, the remedies petitioner seeks involve questions of public policy to
a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman.37 One be addressed solely by the legislature, not by the courts.
of its essential requisites is the legal capacity of the contracting parties who
must be a male and a female.38 To grant the changes sought by petitioner will WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.
substantially reconfigure and greatly alter the laws on marriage and family
relations. It will allow the union of a man with another man who has Costs against petitioner.
undergone sex reassignment (a male-to-female post-operative transsexual).
Second, there are various laws which apply particularly to women such as SO ORDERED
the provisions of the Labor Code on employment of women, 39 certain felonies
under the Revised Penal Code 40 and the presumption of survivorship in case
of calamities under Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, 41 among others. These
laws underscore the public policy in relation to women which could be
substantially affected if petitioner’s petition were to be granted.

It is true that Article 9 of the Civil Code mandates that "[n]o judge or court
shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or
insufficiency of the law." However, it is not a license for courts to engage in
judicial legislation. The duty of the courts is to apply or interpret the law, not
to make or amend it.

In our system of government, it is for the legislature, should it choose to do

so, to determine what guidelines should govern the recognition of the effects
of sex reassignment. The need for legislative guidelines becomes particularly
important in this case where the claims asserted are statute-based.

To reiterate, the statutes define who may file petitions for change of first
name and for correction or change of entries in the civil registry, where they
may be filed, what grounds may be invoked, what proof must be presented
and what procedures shall be observed. If the legislature intends to confer on
a person who has undergone sex reassignment the privilege to change his
name and sex to conform with his reassigned sex, it has to enact legislation
laying down the guidelines in turn governing the conferment of that privilege.

It might be theoretically possible for this Court to write a protocol on when a

person may be recognized as having successfully changed his sex.

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 5 of 56
[2] Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) which is a condition where persons
thus afflicted possess both male and female characteristics. She further
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 166676 alleged that she was diagnosed to have clitoral hyperthropy in her early years
and at age six, underwent an ultrasound where it was discovered that she
Petitioner, Present: has small ovaries. At age thirteen, tests revealed that her ovarian structures
had minimized, she has stopped growing and she has no breast or menstrual
development. She then alleged that for all interests and appearances as well
- versus - Quisumbing, J., Chairperson,
as in mind and emotion, she has become a male person. Thus, she prayed
that her birth certificate be corrected such that her gender be changed from
JENNIFER B. CAGANDAHAN, Carpio Morales, female to male and her first name be changed from Jennifer to Jeff.

Respondent. Tinga, The petition was published in a newspaper of general circulation for three (3)
consecutive weeks and was posted in conspicuous places by the sheriff of
VELASCO, JR., and the court. The Solicitor General entered his appearance and authorized the
Assistant Provincial Prosecutor to appear in his behalf.
BRION, JJ.
To prove her claim, respondent testified and presented the testimony of Dr.
Promulgated: Michael Sionzon of the Department of Psychiatry, University of the
Philippines-Philippine General Hospital. Dr. Sionzon issued a medical
September 12, 2008 certificate stating that respondent’s condition is known as CAH. He explained
that genetically respondent is female but because her body secretes male
hormones, her female organs did not develop normally and she has two sex
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x organs – female and male. He testified that this condition is very rare, that
respondent’s uterus is not fully developed because of lack of female
DECISION hormones, and that she has no monthly period. He further testified that
respondent’s condition is permanent and recommended the change of
QUISUMBING, J.: gender because respondent has made up her mind, adjusted to her chosen
role as male, and the gender change would be advantageous to her.
This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court raising purely
questions of law and seeking a reversal of the Decision[1] dated January 12, The RTC granted respondent’s petition in a Decision dated January 12, 2005
2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna, which which reads:
granted the Petition for Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate filed by
Jennifer B. Cagandahan and ordered the following changes of entries in The Court is convinced that petitioner has satisfactorily shown that he is
Cagandahan’s birth certificate: (1) the name "Jennifer Cagandahan" changed entitled to the reliefs prayed [for]. Petitioner has adequately presented to the
to "Jeff Cagandahan" and (2) gender from "female" to "male." Court very clear and convincing proofs for the granting of his petition. It was
medically proven that petitioner’s body produces male hormones, and first
The facts are as follows. his body as well as his action and feelings are that of a male. He has chosen
to be male. He is a normal person and wants to be acknowledged and
On December 11, 2003, respondent Jennifer Cagandahan filed a Petition for identified as a male.
Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate 2 before the RTC, Branch 33 of
Siniloan, Laguna. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Civil Register of Pakil, Laguna is
hereby ordered to make the following corrections in the birth [c]ertificate of
In her petition, she alleged that she was born on January 13, 1981 and was Jennifer Cagandahan upon payment of the prescribed fees:
registered as a female in the Certificate of Live Birth but while growing up,
she developed secondary male characteristics and was diagnosed to have

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 6 of 56
a) By changing the name from Jennifer Cagandahan to JEFF birth certificate and respondent’s claimed medical condition known as CAH
CAGANDAHAN; and does not make her a male.7

b) By changing the gender from female to MALE. On the other hand, respondent counters that although the Local Civil
Registrar of Pakil, Laguna was not formally named a party in the Petition for
It is likewise ordered that petitioner’s school records, voter’s registry, Correction of Birth Certificate, nonetheless the Local Civil Registrar was
baptismal certificate, and other pertinent records are hereby amended to furnished a copy of the Petition, the Order to publish on December 16, 2003
conform with the foregoing corrected data. and all pleadings, orders or processes in the course of the proceedings, 8
respondent is actually a male person and hence his birth certificate has to be
corrected to reflect his true sex/gender,9 change of sex or gender is allowed
SO ORDERED.[3]
under Rule 108,10 and respondent substantially complied with the
requirements of Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court. 11
Thus, this petition by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) seeking a
reversal of the abovementioned ruling.
Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court provide:
The issues raised by petitioner are:
Rule 103. CHANGE OF NAME
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE PETITION CONSIDERING
Section 1. Venue. – A person desiring to change his name shall present the
THAT:
petition to the Regional Trial Court of the province in which he resides, [or, in
the City of Manila, to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court].
I.THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULES 103 AND 108 OF THE RULES OF
COURT HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH; AND,
Sec. 2. Contents of petition. – A petition for change of name shall be signed
and verified by the person desiring his name changed, or some other person
II.CORRECTION OF ENTRY UNDER RULE 108 DOES NOT ALLOW on his behalf, and shall set forth:
CHANGE OF "SEX" OR "GENDER" IN THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE, WHILE
RESPONDENT’S MEDICAL CONDITION, i.e., CONGENITAL ADRENAL
(a) That the petitioner has been a bona fide resident of the province where
HYPERPLASIA DOES NOT MAKE HER A "MALE."4
the petition is filed for at least three (3) years prior to the date of such filing;
Simply stated, the issue is whether the trial court erred in ordering the
(b) The cause for which the change of the petitioner's name is sought;
correction of entries in the birth certificate of respondent to change her sex or
gender, from female to male, on the ground of her medical condition known
as CAH, and her name from "Jennifer" to "Jeff," under Rules 103 and 108 of (c) The name asked for.
the Rules of Court.
Sec. 3. Order for hearing. – If the petition filed is sufficient in form and
The OSG contends that the petition below is fatally defective for non- substance, the court, by an order reciting the purpose of the petition, shall fix
compliance with Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court because while the a date and place for the hearing thereof, and shall direct that a copy of the
local civil registrar is an indispensable party in a petition for cancellation or order be published before the hearing at least once a week for three (3)
correction of entries under Section 3, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, successive weeks in some newspaper of general circulation published in the
respondent’s petition before the court a quo did not implead the local civil province, as the court shall deem best. The date set for the hearing shall not
registrar.5 The OSG further contends respondent’s petition is fatally defective be within thirty (30) days prior to an election nor within four (4) months after
since it failed to state that respondent is a bona fide resident of the province the last publication of the notice.
where the petition was filed for at least three (3) years prior to the date of
such filing as mandated under Section 2(b), Rule 103 of the Rules of Court. 6 Sec. 4. Hearing. – Any interested person may appear at the hearing and
The OSG argues that Rule 108 does not allow change of sex or gender in the oppose the petition. The Solicitor General or the proper provincial or city
fiscal shall appear on behalf of the Government of the Republic.

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 7 of 56
Sec. 5. Judgment. – Upon satisfactory proof in open court on the date fixed in Sec. 6. Expediting proceedings. – The court in which the proceedings is
the order that such order has been published as directed and that the brought may make orders expediting the proceedings, and may also grant
allegations of the petition are true, the court shall, if proper and reasonable preliminary injunction for the preservation of the rights of the parties pending
cause appears for changing the name of the petitioner, adjudge that such such proceedings.
name be changed in accordance with the prayer of the petition.
Sec. 7. Order. – After hearing, the court may either dismiss the petition or
Sec. 6. Service of judgment. – Judgments or orders rendered in connection issue an order granting the cancellation or correction prayed for. In either
with this rule shall be furnished the civil registrar of the municipality or city case, a certified copy of the judgment shall be served upon the civil registrar
where the court issuing the same is situated, who shall forthwith enter the concerned who shall annotate the same in his record.
same in the civil register.
The OSG argues that the petition below is fatally defective for non-
Rule 108 CANCELLATION OR CORRECTION OF ENTRIES IN THE CIVIL compliance with Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court because
REGISTRY respondent’s petition did not implead the local civil registrar. Section 3, Rule
108 provides that the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any
Section 1. Who may file petition. – Any person interested in any act, event, interest which would be affected thereby shall be made parties to the
order or decree concerning the civil status of persons which has been proceedings. Likewise, the local civil registrar is required to be made a party
recorded in the civil register, may file a verified petition for the cancellation or in a proceeding for the correction of name in the civil registry. He is an
correction of any entry relating thereto, with the Regional Trial Court of the indispensable party without whom no final determination of the case can be
province where the corresponding civil registry is located. had.[12] Unless all possible indispensable parties were duly notified of the
proceedings, the same shall be considered as falling much too short of the
requirements of the rules.13 The corresponding petition should also implead
Sec. 2. Entries subject to cancellation or correction. – Upon good and valid
as respondents the civil registrar and all other persons who may have or may
grounds, the following entries in the civil register may be cancelled or
claim to have any interest that would be affected thereby. 14 Respondent,
corrected: (a) births; (b) marriages; (c) deaths; (d) legal separations; (e)
however, invokes Section 6,[15] Rule 1 of the Rules of Court which states
judgments of annulments of marriage; (f) judgments declaring marriages void
that courts shall construe the Rules liberally to promote their objectives of
from the beginning; (g) legitimations; (h) adoptions; (i) acknowledgments of
securing to the parties a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of the
natural children; (j) naturalization; (k) election, loss or recovery of citizenship;
matters brought before it. We agree that there is substantial compliance with
(l) civil interdiction; (m) judicial determination of filiation; (n) voluntary
Rule 108 when respondent furnished a copy of the petition to the local civil
emancipation of a minor; and (o) changes of name.
registrar.
Sec. 3. Parties. – When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil
The determination of a person’s sex appearing in his birth certificate is a legal
register is sought, the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any
issue and the court must look to the statutes. In this connection, Article 412 of
interest which would be affected thereby shall be made parties to the
the Civil Code provides:
proceeding.

ART. 412. No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a

Sec. 4. Notice and publication. – Upon the filing of the petition, the court
judicial order.
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 a week for Together with Article 376[16] of the Civil Code, this provision was amended
three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the by Republic Act No. 9048[17] in so far as clerical or typographical errors are
province. involved. The correction or change of such matters can now be made
through administrative proceedings and without the need for a judicial order.
In effect, Rep. Act No. 9048 removed from the ambit of Rule 108 of the Rules
Sec. 5. Opposition. – The civil registrar and any person having or claiming
of Court the correction of such errors. Rule 108 now applies only to
any interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought may,
substantial changes and corrections in entries in the civil register. 18
within fifteen (15) days from notice of the petition, or from the last date of
publication of such notice, file his opposition thereto.

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 8 of 56
Under Rep. Act No. 9048, a correction in the civil registry involving the Intersex individuals are treated in different ways by different cultures. In most
change of sex is not a mere clerical or typographical error. It is a substantial societies, intersex individuals have been expected to conform to either a
change for which the applicable procedure is Rule 108 of the Rules of male or female gender role.[23] Since the rise of modern medical science in
Court.19 Western societies, some intersex people with ambiguous external genitalia
have had their genitalia surgically modified to resemble either male or female
The entries envisaged in Article 412 of the Civil Code and correctable under genitals.[24] More commonly, an intersex individual is considered as suffering
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court are those provided in Articles 407 and 408 of from a "disorder" which is almost always recommended to be treated,
the Civil Code: whether by surgery and/or by taking lifetime medication in order to mold the
individual as neatly as possible into the category of either male or female.
ART. 407. Acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of
persons shall be recorded in the civil register. In deciding this case, we consider the compassionate calls for recognition of
the various degrees of intersex as variations which should not be subject to
outright denial. "It has been suggested that there is some middle ground
ART. 408. The following shall be entered in the civil register:
between the sexes, a ‘no-man’s land’ for those individuals who are neither
truly ‘male’ nor truly ‘female’."[25] The current state of Philippine statutes
(1) Births; (2) marriages; (3) deaths; (4) legal separations; (5) annulments of apparently compels that a person be classified either as a male or as a
marriage; (6) judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning; (7) female, but this Court is not controlled by mere appearances when nature
legitimations; (8) adoptions; (9) acknowledgments of natural children; (10) itself fundamentally negates such rigid classification.
naturalization; (11) loss, or (12) recovery of citizenship; (13) civil interdiction;
(14) judicial determination of filiation; (15) voluntary emancipation of a minor;
In the instant case, if we determine respondent to be a female, then there is
and (16) changes of name.
no basis for a change in the birth certificate entry for gender. But if we
determine, based on medical testimony and scientific development showing
The acts, events or factual errors contemplated under Article 407 of the Civil the respondent to be other than female, then a change in the subject’s birth
Code include even those that occur after birth.20 certificate entry is in order.

Respondent undisputedly has CAH. This condition causes the early or Biologically, nature endowed respondent with a mixed (neither consistently
"inappropriate" appearance of male characteristics. A person, like and categorically female nor consistently and categorically male)
respondent, with this condition produces too much androgen, a male composition. Respondent has female (XX) chromosomes. However,
hormone. A newborn who has XX chromosomes coupled with CAH usually respondent’s body system naturally produces high levels of male hormones
has a (1) swollen clitoris with the urethral opening at the base, an ambiguous (androgen). As a result, respondent has ambiguous genitalia and the
genitalia often appearing more male than female; (2) normal internal phenotypic features of a male.
structures of the female reproductive tract such as the ovaries, uterus and
fallopian tubes; as the child grows older, some features start to appear male,
Ultimately, we are of the view that where the person is biologically or
such as deepening of the voice, facial hair, and failure to menstruate at
naturally intersex the determining factor in his gender classification would be
puberty. About 1 in 10,000 to 18,000 children are born with CAH.
what the individual, like respondent, having reached the age of majority, with
good reason thinks of his/her sex. Respondent here thinks of himself as a
CAH is one of many conditions[21] that involve intersex anatomy. During the male and considering that his body produces high levels of male hormones
twentieth century, medicine adopted the term "intersexuality" to apply to (androgen) there is preponderant biological support for considering him as
human beings who cannot be classified as either male or female.[22] The being male. Sexual development in cases of intersex persons makes the
term is now of widespread use. According to Wikipedia, intersexuality "is the gender classification at birth inconclusive. It is at maturity that the gender of
state of a living thing of a gonochoristic species whose sex chromosomes, such persons, like respondent, is fixed.
genitalia, and/or secondary sex characteristics are determined to be neither
exclusively male nor female. An organism with intersex may have biological
Respondent here has simply let nature take its course and has not taken
characteristics of both male and female sexes."
unnatural steps to arrest or interfere with what he was born with. And
accordingly, he has already ordered his life to that of a male. Respondent

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 9 of 56
could have undergone treatment and taken steps, like taking lifelong
medication,[26] to force his body into the categorical mold of a female but he
did not. He chose not to do so. Nature has instead taken its due course in
respondent’s development to reveal more fully his male characteristics.

In the absence of a law on the matter, the Court will not dictate on
respondent concerning a matter so innately private as one’s sexuality and
lifestyle preferences, much less on whether or not to undergo medical
treatment to reverse the male tendency due to CAH. 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"[27] 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 Court affirms as valid and justified the respondent’s position and his
personal judgment of being a male.

In so ruling we do no more than give respect to (1) the diversity of nature;

and (2) how an individual deals with what nature has handed out. In other
words, we respect respondent’s congenital condition and his mature decision
to be a male. Life is already difficult for the ordinary person. We cannot but
respect how respondent deals with his unordinary state and thus help make
his life easier, considering the unique circumstances in this case.

As for respondent’s change of name under Rule 103, this Court has held that
a change of name is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion, to be
exercised in the light of the reasons adduced and the consequences that will
follow.[28] The trial court’s grant of respondent’s change of name from
Jennifer to Jeff implies a change of a feminine name to a masculine name.
Considering the consequence that respondent’s change of name merely
recognizes his preferred gender, we find merit in respondent’s change of
name. Such a change will conform with the change of the entry in his birth
certificate from female to male.

WHEREFORE, the Republic’s petition is DENIED. The Decision dated

January 12, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna,
is AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 10 of 56
[3] G.R. No. 170340              June 29, 2007 On April 23, 2001, Carlito et al. filed an Amended Petition 3 in which it was
additionally prayed that Carlito’s second name of "John" be deleted from his
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.CARLITO I. KHO, record of birth; and that the name and citizenship of Carlito’s father in his
MICHAEL KHO, MERCY NONA KHO-FORTUN, HEDDY MOIRA KHO- (Carlito’s) marriage certificate be corrected from "John Kho" to "Juan Kho"
SERRANO, KEVIN DOGMOC KHO (Minor), and KELLY DOGMOC KHO and "Filipino" to "Chinese," respectively.
(Minor), respondents.
As required, the petition was published for three consecutive weeks 4 in
DECISION Mindanao Daily Patrol-CARAGA, a newspaper of general circulation, after
which it was set for hearing on August 9, 2001.
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
In a letter of June 18, 2001 addressed to the trial court, the city civil registrar 5
stated her observations and suggestions to the proposed corrections in the
Challenged via petition for review on certiorari is the October 27, 2005
birth records of Carlito and his siblings but interposed no objections to the
Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 78124 which
other amendments.
affirmed the September 4, 2002 Decision 2 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- On the scheduled hearing of the petition on August 9, 2001, only the counsel
Serrano for the correction of entries in their birth certificates as well as those for respondents appeared as the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) had
of Carlito’s minor children Kevin and Kelly Dogmoc Kho. yet to enter its appearance for the city civil registrar. The trial court thus reset
the hearing to October 9, 2001. 6 On September 14, 2001,7 the OSG entered
its appearance with an authorization to the city prosecutor of Butuan City to
The undisputed facts are as follows:
appear in the case and render assistance to it (the OSG).
On February 12, 2001, Carlito and his siblings Michael, Mercy Nona and
On January 31, 2002, respondents presented documentary evidence
Heddy Moira filed before the RTC of Butuan City a verified petition for
showing compliance with the jurisdictional requirements of the petition. They
correction of entries in the civil registry of Butuan City to effect changes in
also presented testimonial evidence consisting of the testimonies of Carlito
their respective birth certificates. Carlito also asked the court in behalf of his
and his mother, Epifania. During the same hearing, an additional correction in
minor children, Kevin and Kelly, to order the correction of some entries in
the birth certificates of Carlito’s children was requested to the effect that the
their birth certificates.
first name of their mother be rectified from "Maribel" to "Marivel."
In the case of Carlito, he requested the correction in his birth certificate of the
By Decision8 of September 4, 2002, the trial court directed the local civil
citizenship of his mother to "Filipino" instead of "Chinese," as well as the
registrar of Butuan City to correct the entries in the record of birth of Carlito,
deletion of the word "married" opposite the phrase "Date of marriage of
as follows: (1) change the citizenship of his mother from "Chinese" to
parents" because his parents, Juan Kho and Epifania Inchoco (Epifania),
"Filipino"; (2) delete "John" from his name; and (3) delete the word "married"
were allegedly not legally 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
The same request to delete the "married" status of their parents from their Nona, and Heddy Moira.
respective birth certificates was made by Carlito’s siblings Michael, Mercy
Nona, and Heddy Moira.
Additionally, the trial court ordered the correction of the birth certificates of
the minor children of Carlito to reflect the date of marriage of Carlito and
With respect to the birth certificates of Carlito’s children, he prayed that the Marivel Dogmoc (Marivel) as January 21, 2000, instead of April 27, 1989,
date of his and his wife’s marriage be corrected from April 27, 1989 to and the name "Maribel" as "Marivel."
January 21, 2000, the date appearing in their marriage certificate.

The Local Civil Registrar of Butuan City was impleaded as respondent.

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 11 of 56
With respect to the marriage certificate of Carlito and Marivel, the corrections In the present petition, petitioner contends that since the changes sought by
ordered pertained to the alteration of the name of Carlito’s father from "John respondents were substantial in nature, they could only be granted through
Kho" to "Juan Kho" and the latter’s citizenship from "Filipino" to "Chinese." an adversarial proceeding in which indispensable parties, such as Marivel
and respondents’ parents, should have been notified or impleaded.
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 Petitioner further contends that the jurisdictional requirements to change
subject documents despite the failure of respondents to implead the minors’ Carlito’s name under Section 2 of Rule 103 of the Rules of Court were not
mother, Marivel, as an indispensable party and to offer sufficient evidence to satisfied because the Amended Petition failed to allege Carlito’s prior three-
warrant the corrections with regard to the questioned "married" status of year bona fide residence in Butuan City, and that the title of the petition did
Carlito and his siblings’ parents, and the latter’s citizenship. not state Carlito’s aliases and his true name as "Carlito John I. Kho."
Petitioner concludes that the same jurisdictional defects attached to the
Petitioner also faulted the trial court for ordering the change of the name change of name of Carlito’s father.
"Carlito John Kho" to "Carlito Kho" for non-compliance with jurisdictional
requirements for a change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court. The petition fails.

By the assailed Decision of October 27, 2005, the CA denied petitioner’s It can not be gainsaid that the petition, insofar as it sought to change the
appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial court. citizenship of Carlito’s mother as it appeared in his birth certificate and delete
the "married" status of Carlito’s parents in his and his siblings’ respective
The CA found that Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court, which outlines the birth certificates, as well as change the date of marriage of Carlito and
proper procedure for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry, Marivel involves the correction of not just clerical errors of a harmless and
was observed in the case. innocuous nature.10 Rather, the changes entail substantial and controversial
amendments.
Regarding Carlito’s minor children Kevin and Kelly, the appellate court held
that the correction of their mother’s first name from "Maribel" to "Marivel" was For the change involving the nationality of Carlito’s mother as reflected in his
made to rectify an innocuous error. birth certificate is a grave and important matter that has a bearing and effect
on the citizenship and nationality not only of the parents, but also of the
offspring.11
As for the change in the date of the marriage of Carlito and Marivel, albeit the
CA conceded that it is a substantial alteration, it held that the date would not
affect the minors’ filiation from "legitimate" to "illegitimate" considering that at Further, the deletion of the entry that Carlito’s and his siblings’ parents were
the time of their respective births in 1991 and 1993, their father Carlito’s first "married" alters their filiation from "legitimate" to "illegitimate," with significant
marriage was still subsisting as it had been annulled only in 1999. implications on their successional and other rights.

In light of Carlito’s legal impediment to marry Marivel at the time they were Clearly, the changes sought can only be granted in an adversary proceeding.
born, their children Kevin and Kelly were illegitimate. It followed, the CA went Labayo-Rowe v. Republic12 explains the raison d etre:
on to state, that Marivel was not an indispensable party to the case, the
minors having been represented by their father as required under Section 5 x x x. The philosophy behind this requirement lies in the fact that the books
of Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court. making up the civil register and all documents relating thereto shall be prima
facie evidence of the facts therein contained. If the entries in the civil register
Further, the CA ruled that although Carlito failed to observe the requirements could be corrected or changed through mere summary proceedings and not
of Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, he had complied nonetheless with the through appropriate action wherein all parties who may be affected by the
jurisdictional requirements for correction of entries in the civil registry under entries are notified or represented, the door to fraud or other mischief would
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. The petition for correction of entry in Carlito’s be set open, the consequence of which might be detrimental and far reaching
birth record, it noted, falls under letter "o" of the enumeration under Section 2
of Rule 108.

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 12 of 56
In Republic v. Valencia,13 however, this Court ruled, and has since repeatedly interest which would be affected thereby shall be made parties to the
ruled, that even substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected through proceeding.
a petition filed under Rule 108.14
SEC. 4. Notice and publication. — Upon the filing of the petition, the court
It is undoubtedly true that if the subject matter of a petition is not for the shall, by an order, fix the time and place for the hearing of the same, and
correction of clerical errors of a harmless and innocuous nature, but one cause reasonable notice thereof to be given to the persons named in the
involving nationality or citizenship, which is indisputably substantial as well as petition. The court shall also cause the order to be published once in a week
controverted, affirmative relief cannot be granted in a proceeding summary in for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the
nature. However, it is also true that a right in law may be enforced and a province.
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 SEC. 5. Opposition. — The civil registrar and any person having or claiming
may be corrected and the true facts established provided the parties any interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought may,
aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary within fifteen (15) days from notice of the petition, or from the last date of
proceeding. publication of such notice, file his opposition thereto.

What is meant by "appropriate adversary proceeding?" Black’s Law There is no dispute that the trial court’s Order 19 setting the petition for hearing
Dictionary defines "adversary proceeding["] as follows: and directing any person or entity having interest in the petition to oppose it
was posted20 as well as published for the required period; that notices of
One having opposing parties; contested, as distinguished from an ex parte hearings were duly served on the Solicitor General, the city prosecutor of
application, one of which the party seeking relief has given legal warning to Butuan and the local civil registrar; and that trial was conducted on January
the other party, and afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it. x x x 15 31, 2002 during which the public prosecutor, acting in behalf of the OSG,
(Emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied) actively participated by cross-examining Carlito and Epifania.

The enactment in March 2001 of Republic Act No. 9048, otherwise known as What surfaces as an issue is whether the failure to implead Marivel and
"An Act Authorizing the City or Municipal Civil Registrar or the Consul Carlito’s parents rendered the trial short of the required adversary proceeding
General to Correct a Clerical or Typographical Error in an Entry and/or and the trial court’s judgment void.
Change of First Name or Nickname in the Civil Register Without Need of
Judicial Order," has been considered to lend legislative affirmation to the A similar issue was earlier raised in Barco v. Court of Appeals. 21 That case
judicial precedence that substantial corrections to the civil status of persons stemmed from a petition for correction of entries in the birth certificate of a
recorded in the civil registry may be effected through the filing of a petition minor, June Salvacion Maravilla, to reflect the name of her real father
under Rule 108.16 (Armando Gustilo) and to correspondingly change her surname. The petition
was granted by the trial court.
Thus, this Court in Republic v. Benemerito 17 observed that the obvious effect
of Republic Act No. 9048 is to make possible the administrative correction of Barco, whose minor daughter was allegedly fathered also by Gustilo,
clerical or typographical errors or change of first name or nickname in entries however, sought to annul the trial court’s decision, claiming that she should
in the civil register, leaving to Rule 108 the correction of substantial changes have been made a party to the petition for correction. Failure to implead her
in the civil registry in appropriate adversarial proceedings. deprived the RTC of jurisdiction, she contended.

When all the procedural requirements under Rule 108 are thus followed, the In dismissing Barco’s petition, this Court held that the publication of the order
appropriate adversary proceeding necessary to effect substantial corrections of hearing under Section 4 of Rule 108 cured the failure to implead an
to the entries of the civil register is satisfied. 18 The pertinent provisions of indispensable party.
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court read:
The essential requisite for allowing substantial corrections of entries in the
SEC. 3. Parties. – When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil civil registry is that the true facts be established in an appropriate adversarial
registrar is sought, the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 13 of 56
proceeding. This is embodied in Section 3, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, It is also well to remember that the role of the court in hearing a petition to
which states: correct certain entries in the civil registry is to ascertain the truth about the
facts recorded therein.24
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 With respect to the date of marriage of Carlito and Marivel, their certificate of
interest which would be affected thereby shall be made parties to the marriage25 shows that indeed they were married on January 21, 2000, not on
proceeding. 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
Undoubtedly, Barco is among the parties referred to in Section 3 of Rule 108. at the time his sons were born because his previous marriage was annulled
Her interest was affected by the petition for correction, as any judicial only in 1999.26 Given the evidence presented by respondents, the CA
determination that June was the daughter of Armando would affect her observed that the minors were illegitimate at birth, hence, the correction
ward’s share in the estate of her father. x x x. would bring about no change at all in the nature of their filiation.

Yet, even though Barco was not impleaded in the petition, the Court of With respect to Carlito’s mother, it bears noting that she declared at the
Appeals correctly pointed out that the defect was cured by compliance with witness stand that she was not married to Juan Kho who died in 1959. 27
Section 4, Rule 108, which requires notice by publication x x x. Again, that testimony was not challenged by the city prosecutor.

The purpose precisely of Section 4, Rule 108 is to bind the whole world to the The documentary evidence supporting the deletion from Carlito’s and his
subsequent judgment on the petition. The sweep of the decision would cover siblings’ birth certificates of the entry "Married" opposite the date of marriage
even parties who should have been impleaded under Section 3, Rule 108, of their parents, moreover, consisted of a certification issued on November
but were inadvertently left out. x x x 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
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 A certification from the office of the city registrar, which was appended to
essentially through publication. Publication is notice to the whole world that respondents’ Amended Petition, likewise stated that it has no record of
the proceeding has for its object to bar indefinitely all who might be minded to marriage between Juan Kho and Epifania. 29 Under the circumstances, the
make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established. It is deletion of the word "Married" opposite the "date of marriage of parents" is
the publication of such notice that brings in the whole world as a party in the warranted.
case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it. 22
With respect to the correction in Carlito’s birth certificate of his name from
Given the above ruling, it becomes unnecessary to rule on whether Marivel "Carlito John" to "Carlito," the same was properly granted under Rule 108 of
or respondents’ parents should have been impleaded as parties to the the Rules of Court. As correctly pointed out by the CA, the cancellation or
proceeding. It may not be amiss to mention, however, that during the hearing correction of entries involving changes of name falls under letter "o" of the
on January 31, 2002, the city prosecutor who was acting as representative of following provision of Section 2 of Rule 108:30
the OSG did not raise any objection to the non-inclusion of Marivel and
Carlito’s parents as parties to the proceeding. Section 2. Entries subject to cancellation or correction. — Upon good and
valid grounds, the following entries in the civil register may be cancelled or
Parenthetically, it seems highly improbable that Marivel was unaware of the corrected: (a) births; (b) marriages; (c) deaths; (d) legal separation; (e)
proceedings to correct the entries in her children’s birth certificates, judgments of annulment of marriage; (f) judgments declaring marriages void
especially since the notices, orders and decision of the trial court eHe were from the beginning; (g) legitimations; (h) adoptions; (i) acknowledgments of
all sent to the residence23 she shared with Carlito and the children. 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)

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 14 of 56
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, Carlito’s 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 mother’s citizenship from Chinese to Filipino as

appearing in Carlito’s 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 Carlito’s siblings

uniformly stated the citizenship of Epifania as "Filipino." To disallow the
correction in Carlito’s birth record of his mother’s 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 Carlito’s 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 understanding 34 considering that the name reflected in the
marriage certificate of Carlito and his wife is "Marivel."

Apropos is Yu v. Republic 35 which held that changing the appellant’s

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 Carlito’s marriage certificate of his father’s
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.

SO ORDERED.

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 15 of 56
[4] G.R. No. 233520, March 06, 2019 On January 17, 2017, the petitioner filed before the RTC of Davao City,
where she was a resident, a Petition 6 entitled "In the Matter of the Petition of
ROICE ANNE F. FOX, PETITIONER, v. THE PHILIPPINE STATISTICS Roice Anne F. Fox to Correct in the Report of Birth under Registration
AUTHORITY AND THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, Number 2016-124030 the Year of Birth of Her Minor Daughter Zion Pearl F.
RESPONDENTS. Fox From June 27, 2016 to June 27, 2015," which was docketed as SP Case
No. R-DV0-17-00181-SP. In an Order7 dated March 24, 2017, however, the
RTC motu proprio dismissed the petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
DECISION
The pertinent portions of the order read, thus:
A. REYES, JR., J.:
Acting on the petition, this court cites Section 1 of Rule 108 of the Rules of
Civil Procedure which provides for the Cancellation or Correction of Entries in
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court the Civil Registry, as follows:
filed by Roice Anne F. Fox (petitioner), assailing the Orders dated March 24,
20171 and July 24, 20172 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 54 of
Section 1, Rule 108
Davao City, which dismissed outright her petition for correction of entry on
the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
"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
Antecedent Facts
verified petition for the cancellation or correction of any entry relating thereto,
with the [Regional Trial Court] of the province where the corresponding civil
On October 29, 2012, petitioner married Thomas Kenneth K. Fox (Thomas), registry is located."
a Canadian citizen, in a ceremony held at the Grand Regal Hotel in Lanang,
Davao City. Right after their union, they flew to Thomas's hometown in
Evidently, the Regional Trial Court in Davao City has no jurisdiction over the
Weyburn, Saskatchewan, Canada where they have decided to settle and
instant petition which seeks to direct the Philippine Statistics Authority in
raise a family. Not long thereafter, the petitioner conceived and gave birth to
Manila to make the correction of entry in the report of birth of Zion Pearl F.
a baby girl, whom they named Zion Pearl Fox (Zion), on June 27, 2015. The
Fox made by the Philippine Consulate Office of Calgary, Alberta, Canada to
fact of birth of the petitioner's daughter was duly registered at the Registrar's
the said office in Manila.
Office in Regina Saskatchewan, Canada, which issued the corresponding
birth certificate. In the said certificate, the petitioner's minor daughter's
birthdate was correctly stated as June 27, 2015. Thereafter, in October 2015, WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the instant petition is
her daughter was issued a Canadian passport which also properly reflected hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. 8
the exact date of birth of the child.3
On April 10, 2017, the petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration, 9 but the
On June 7, 2016, considering that the petitioner's daughter was born outside same was denied in the Order10 dated July 24, 2017, which pertinently states:
of the Philippines, the Philippine Consulate Office (PCO) in Calgary, Alberta
submitted a Report of Birth4 of the child to the national office of the Philippine In the instant petition, the fact of birth of petitioner’s daughter Zion Pearl F.
Statistics Authority (PSA) in Manila. Unfortunately, through oversight or Fox was reported by petitioner to the Philippine Consulate in Calgary,
mistake, the PCO erroneously indicated the child's birthdate as June 27, Alberta, Canada, which in turn caused to be recorded directly said fact of
2016, instead of June 27, 2015, in the said Report of Birth. The petitioner birth before the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) in Manila and not to any
brought the said discrepancy to the attention of the concerned officials of the local civil registrar. Consequently, the Petition for Correction of Entry in the
PCO which, instead of taking immediate action, advised her to file a petition Report of Birth of Zion Pearl F. Fox recorded directly before the Philippine
before the proper court in the Philippines for the correction of entry in the Statistics Office in Manila should have been filed before the Regional Trial
Report of Birth of her daughter.5 Court in Manila pursuant to Section 1 of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
There is no evidence that said fact of birth was recorded in the Civil Registry
Ruling of the RTC of Davao City. Consequently, the Regional Trial Court in Davao City is NOT

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 16 of 56
the proper venue of the instant petition for correction of entry in the report of Rule 1, Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides that "[a] special proceeding
birth of the minor daughter of the petitioner. is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a
particular fact." Rule 108 creates a remedy to rectify facts of a person's life
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Motion for Reconsideration is which are recorded by the State pursuant to the Civil Register Law or Act No.
hereby DENIED. SO ORDERED.11 3753. These are facts of public consequence such as birth, death or
marriage, which the State has an interest in recording. 13
The petitioner turns to this Court for relief in a petition for review on certiorari
raising a pure question of law, particularly whether the RTC was correct in Given that Rule 108 pertains to a special proceeding, the specific provisions
motu proprio dismissing her petition for correction of entry on the ground of stated thereunder, particularly on venue, must be observed in order to vest
lack of jurisdiction. the court with jurisdiction.

Ruling of the Court The petition lacks merit. Apart from the foregoing, the petition likewise failed to comply with other
jurisdictional requirements such as impleading the civil registrar and all
persons who may have a claim or interest in the correction sought. The local
In the assailed Order dated March 24, 2017, the RTC motu proprio dismissed
civil registrar is an indispensable party for which no final determination of the
the petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. It ruled that the proper court
case can be reached. In Republic v. Court of Appeals,14 the Court reiterated
is the RTC of Manila, where the PSA Office, in which the Report of Birth of
the importance of impleading the civil registrar on petitions filed under Rule
the petitioner's daughter was registered, is situated.
108, viz.:
To be clear, the petition filed before the RTC was a petition for correction of
The local civil registrar is thus required to be made a party to the proceeding.
entry which, under Section 1 of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, must be filed
He is an indispensable party, without whom no final determination of the case
in the RTC where the corresponding civil registry is located. The Rule
can be had. As he was not impleaded in this case much less given notice of
provides:
the proceeding, the decision of the trial court, insofar as it granted the prayer
for the correction of entry, is void. The absence of an indispensable party in a
Section 1. Who may file petition. - Any person interested in any act, event, case renders ineffectual all the proceedings subsequent to the filing of the
order or decree concerning the civil status of persons which has been complaint including the judgment.15
recorded in the civil register, may file a verified petition for the cancellation or
correction of any entry relating thereto, with the [Regional Trial Court] of the
The inescapable consequence of the failure to implead the civil registrar is
province where the corresponding civil registry is located.
that the RTC will not acquire jurisdiction over the case or, if proceedings were
conducted, to render the same a nullity. In Republic, the Court emphasized,
Section 2. Entries subject to cancellation or correction. — Upon good and thus:
valid grounds, the following entries in the civil register may be cancelled or
corrected: (a) births; (b) marriage; (c) deaths; (d) legal separations; (e)
The necessary consequence of the failure to implead the civil registrar as an
judgments of annulments of marriage; (f) judgments declaring marriages void
indispensable party and to give notice by publication of the petition for
from the beginning; (g) legitimations; (h) adoptions; (i) acknowledgments of
correction of entry was concerned, null and void for lack of jurisdiction both
natural children; U) naturalization; (k) election, loss or recovery of citizenship;
as to party and as to the subject matter.16
(1) civil interdiction; (m) judicial determination of filiation; (n) voluntary
emancipation of a minor; and (o) changes of name.
In view of the defects in the filing of the petition, the RTC of Davao City
cannot be faulted in dismissing the same on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Based on the above-mentioned rule, a petition for the cancellation or
Nonetheless, the dismissal is without prejudice to the refilling of the petition in
correction of any entry concerning the civil status of persons which has been
the proper court, with full compliance to the specific requirements of Rule
recorded in the civil register may be filed with the RTC of the province where
108. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Orders dated March 24,
the corresponding civil registry is located.
2017 and July 24, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 54 of Davao City
are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.
It bears stressing that Rule 108 is a special proceeding for which specific
rules apply. In Fujiki v. Marinay,12 the Court noted, thus:

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 17 of 56
[5] G.R. No. 211724 In an Order9 dated January 10, 2011, the RTC initially dismissed the petition
on the ground that petitioner's recourse to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR CORRECTION OF ENTRY was improper, as the petition did not involve mere correction of clerical errors
(CHANGE OF FAMILY NAME IN THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF FELIPE C. but a matter of filiation which should, thus, be filed in accordance with Rule
ALMOJUELA AS APPEARING IN THE RECORDS OF THE NATIONAL 103 of the same Rules. Moreover, it found that a similar petition docketed as
STATISTICS OFFICE), FELIPE C. ALMOJUELA, Petitioner Spec. Proc. No. 1229 had already been ruled upon and dismissed by the
vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent court. 10

RESOLUTION Petitioner moved for reconsideration, maintaining that the issue of filiation is
immaterial since he was only seeking a correction of entry by including the
surname "Almojuela" to "Felipe Condeno," his first and middle names
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
appearing on his birth certificate with the NSO. He likewise insisted that the
name "Jorge V. Almojuela" was clearly indicated thereon as the name of his
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 is the Decision2 dated father. Finding merit in petitioner's arguments, the RTC, in an Order 11 dated
February 27, 2014 rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV. February 9, 2011, reconsidered its earlier disposition and allowed petitioner
No. 98082, which reversed and set aside the Decision 3 dated October 6, to present his evidence.12
2011 and the Order4 dated November 14, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court of
Virac, Catanduanes, Branch 43 (RTC) in Spec. Proc. No. 1345 granting the
During the proceedings, it was discovered that petitioner's name as
Petition for Correction of Entry in the Certificate of Live Birth filed by
registered in the Book of Births in the custody of the Municipal Civil Registar
petitioner Felipe C. Almojuela (petitioner).
of Pandan, Catanduanes is "Felipe Condeno" and not "Felipe C. Almojuela,"
contrary to petitioner's allegation.13
The Facts
The RTC Ruling
For almost sixty (60) years, petitioner has been using the surname
"Almojuela." However, when he requested for a copy of his birth certificate
In a Decision14 dated October 6, 2011, the R TC granted the petition and
from the National Statistics Office (NSO), he was surprised to discover that
accordingly, directed the Municipal Civil Registrar .of Pandan, Catanduanes
he was registered as "Felipe Condeno," instead of "Felipe Almojuela." Thus,
to cause the correction of entry of the facts of petitioner's birth by changing
he filed a Petition for Correction of Entry5 in his NSO birth certificate before
his surname from "Condeno" to "Almojuela" and to furnish the Civil Registrar
the RTC, 6 docketed as Spec. Proc. No. 1345.7
General with a copy of the corrected birth certificate. 15
Petitioner alleged that he was born on February 25, 1950 in Pandan,
In so ruling, the R TC found that the change in petitioner's surname would
Catanduanes and is the acknowledged natural child of Jorge V. Almojuela
cause no prejudice to the Almojuela family nor would they be the object of
(Jorge), fonner governor of the said province, and Francisca B. Condeno
future mischief. Instead, petitioner has shown that he was accepted and
(Francisca), both deceased. He averred that while his parents did not marry
acknowledged by his half-siblings. Moreover, allowing petitioner to retain the
each other, he has been known to his family and friends as "Felipe
surname that he has been using for over sixty (60) years, i.e., "Almojuela,"
Almojuela" and has been using the said surname in all of his official and legal
would avoid confusion in his personal undertakings, as well as in the
documents, including his school records from elementary to college,
community.16
certificate of Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) membership,
government service records, appointment as Provincial General Services
Officer, report of rating in the First Grade Entrance Examination of the Civil However, considering that the Book of Births of the Municipal Civil Registrar
Service Commission, Philippine Passport, Marriage Contract, and Certificate of Pandan, Catanduanes reflects the name "Felipe Condeno" as petitioner's
of Compensation Payment/Tax Withheld. In support of his petition, he also registered name, the R TC ordered that the same be first corrected before
presented a copy of his birth certificate issued by the Local Civil Registrar of the correction of entry in the records of the NSO could be had. 17
the Municipality of Pandan, Catanduanes showing that "Felipe Almojuela"
appears as his registered full name.8

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 18 of 56
The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General The petition is bereft of merit.
(OSG), moved for reconsideration, 18 citing lack of jurisdiction due to defective
publication and contending that the caption or title of a petition for change of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court provides the procedure for the correction of
name should state: (a) the alias or other name of petitioner; (b) the name he substantial changes in the civil registry through an appropriate adversary
seeks to adopt; and (c) the cause for the change of name, all of which were proceeding. 32 An adversary proceeding is defined as one "having opposing
lacking in the petition filed before the RTC. 19 In an Order20 dated November parties; contested, as distinguished from an ex parte application, one of
14, 2011, the RTC denied the OSG's motion and reiterated its stance that which the party seeking relief has given legal warning to the other party, and
based on the allegations thereon, the petition was only for the correction of afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it."33
entry in the records of the NSO. As petitioner had established compliance
with the jurisdictional requirements therefor, the RTC had thus acquired Sections 3, 4, and 5, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court state:
jurisdiction.21 Dissatisfied, the OSG appealed22 to the CA.
SEC. 3. Parties. - When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil
The CA Ruling 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
In a Decision23 dated February 27, 2014, the CA reversed and set aside the proceeding.
assailed RTC Decision and Order, and nullified the RTC's order for the
correction of entry in petitioner's birth certificate. 24 It held that although SEC. 4. Notice and publication. - Upon the filing of the petition, the court
petitioner correctly invoked Rule 108 of the Rules of Court in filing his shall, by an order, fix the time and place for the hearing of the same, and
petition,25 he, however, failed to strictly comply with the requirements cause reasonable notice thereof to be given to the persons named in the
thereunder when he omitted to implead the Local Civil Registrar and his half- petition. The court shall also cause the order to be published once a week
siblings, who stand to be affected by the corrections prayed for, as parties. 26 for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the
Sections 427 and 5 28 of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court require that notice be province.
sent to persons named in the petition, as well as to those not named thereon
but nonetheless may be considered interested or affected parties. In
petitioner's case, his failure to imp lead and notify the Local Civil Registrar SEC. 5. Opposition. - The civil registrar and any person having or
and his half-siblings as mandated by the rules precluded the RTC from claiming any interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is
acquiring jurisdiction over the case. 29 sought may, within fifteen (15) days from notice of the petition, or from the
last date of publication of such notice, file his opposition thereto. (Emphases
supplied)
Moreover, the CA also found that the correction of entry sought by petitioner
was not merely clerical in nature, but necessarily involved a determination of
his filiation. As petitioner failed to show that his putative father, Jorge, A reading of Sections 4 and 5 shows that the Rule mandates two (2) sets of
recognized him as his child through any of the means allowed under Article notices to potential oppositors: one given to persons named in the petition,
176 of the Family Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 9255, 30 petitioner, and another given to other persons who are not named in the petition but
therefore, cannot use "Almojuela" as his sumame.31 nonetheless may be considered interested or affected parties. 34
Consequently, the petition for a substantial correction of an entry in the civil
registry should implead as respondents the civil registrar, as well as all other
Aggrieved, petitioner elevated the matter before the Court through the instant persons who have or claim to have any interest that would be affected
petition.1âwphi1 thereby. 35

The Issue Before the Court In Republic v. Coseteng-Magpayo, 36 the Court emphasized that in a petition
for a substantial correction or change of entry in the civil registry under Rule
The sole issue to be resolved by the Court is whether or not the CA erred in 108, it is mandatory that the civil registrar, as well as all other persons who
nullifying the correction of entry on petitioner's birth certificate on the ground have or claim to have any interest that would be affected thereby be made
of lack of jurisdiction. respondents for the reason that they are indispensable parties.37 Thus, the
Court nullified the order to effect the necessary changes for respondent's
The Court's Ruling failure to strictly comply with the foregoing procedure laid down in Rule 108

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 19 of 56
 38
of the Rules of Court. Citing Labayo-Rowe v. Republic, the Court held lack/failure to implead and notify the affected or interested parties, such as
therein: when: (a) earnest efforts were made by petitioners in bringing to court all
possible interested parties; (b) the parties themselves initiated the corrections
Aside from the Office of the Solicitor General, all other indispensable parties proceedings; (c) there is no actual or presumptive awareness of the
should have been made respondents. They include not only the declared existence of the interested parties; or, (d) when a party is inadvertently left
father of the child but the child as well, together with the paternal out,44 these exceptions are, unfortunately, unavailing in this case.
grandparents, if any, as their hereditary rights would be adversely affected
thereby. All other persons who may be affected by the change should be In sum, the failure to strictly comply with the above-discussed requirements
notified or represented. The truth is best ascertained under an adversary of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court for correction of an entry in the civil
system of justice. registrar involving substantial and controversial alterations renders the entire
proceedings therein null and void. In Republic v. CA, 45 the Court held that the
The right of the child Victoria to inherit from her parents would be proceedings of the trial court were null and void for lack of jurisdiction as the
substantially impaired if her status would be changed from "legitimate" to petitioners therein failed to implead the civil registrar, an indispensable party,
"illegitimate." Moreover, she would be exposed to humiliation and in the petition for correction of entry, viz.: >>
embarrassment resulting from the stigma of an illegitimate filiation that she
will bear thereafter. The fact that the notice of hearing of the petition was The local civil registrar is thus required to be made a party to the proceeding.
published in a newspaper of general circulation and notice thereof was He is an indispensable party, without whom no final determination of the case
served upon the State will not change the nature of the proceedings taken. can be had. As he was not imp leaded in this case much less given notice of
Rule 108, like all the other provisions of the Rules of Court, was promulgated the proceeding, the decision of the trial court, insofar as it granted the prayer
by the Supreme Court pursuant to its rule-making authority under Section 13, for the correction of entry, is void. The absence of an indispensable party
Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution, which directs that such rules shall not in a case renders ineffectual all proceedings subsequent to the filing of
diminish, increase or modify substantive rights. If Rule 108 were to be the complaint including the judgment.
extended beyond innocuous or harmless changes or corrections of errors
which are visible to the eye or obvious to the understanding, so as to The necessary consequence of the failure to implead the civil registrar
comprehend substantial and controversial alterations concerning citizenship, as an indispensable party and to give notice by publication of the
legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, without observing petition for correction of entry was to render the proceeding of the trial
the proper proceedings as earlier mentioned, said rule would thereby court, so far as the corrction of entry was concerned, null and void for
become an unconstitutional exercise which would tend to increase or modify lack of jurisdiction both as to party and as to the subject matter.46
substantive rights. This situation is not contemplated under Article 412 of the
Civil Code. 39 (Emphases, italics and underscoring supplied) Consequently, the petition for correction of entry by petitioner must perforce
be dismissed.
Similarly, in Republic v. Uy,40 the Court nullified the trial court's order to
correct respondent's entry for the latter's failure to implead and notify not only WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated February 27,
the Local Civil Registrar, but also her parents and siblings as the persons 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. C.V. No. 98082 is hereby
who have interest and are affected by the changes or corrections sought. 41 AFFIRMED. Consequently, the Decision dated October 6, 2011 of the
Regional Trial Court of Virac, Catanduanes, Branch 43 in Spec. Proc. No.
In this case, the CA correctly found that petitioner failed to implead both the 1345 granting the Petition for Correction of Entry in the Certificate of Live
Local Civil Registrar and his half-siblings. 42 Although he claims that his half- Birth in NULLIFIED.
siblings have acknowledged and accepted him, the procedural rules
nonetheless mandate compliance with the requirements in the interest of fair SO ORDERED.
play and due process and to afford the person concerned the opportunity to
protect his interest if he so chooses. 43

Moreover, although it is true that in certain instances, the Court has allowed
the subsequent publication of a notice of hearing to cure the petition's

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 20 of 56
[6] G.R. No. 207074 and her parent's marriage date, May 23, 1981, in her Certificate of Live Birth,
as these were not recorded. 8
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner vs. MICHELLE SORIANO
GALLO, Respondent As proof, she attached to her petition copies of her diploma, voter's
certification, official transcript of records, medical certificate, mother's birth
DECISION certificate, and parents' marriage certificate. 9

LEONEN, J.: The Regional Trial Court, having found Gallo's petition sufficient in form and
substance, set a hearing on August 2, 2010. It also ordered the publication of
the Notice of Hearing once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a
Names are labels for one's identity. They facilitate social interaction,
newspaper of general circulation in the Province of Isabela. 10
including the allocation of rights and determination of liabilities. It is for this
reason that the State has an interest in one's name.
The Office of the Solicitor General authorized the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor to appear on its behalf. 11 Trial then ensued.
The name through which one is known is generally, however, not chosen by
the individual who bears it. Rather, it is chosen by one's parents. In this
sense, the choice of one's name is not a product of the exercise of autonomy During trial, Gallo testified on her allegations. She showed that her college
of the individual to whom it refers. diploma, voter's certification, and transcript indicated that her name was
"Michelle Soriano Gallo." The doctor who examined her also certified that she
was female. 12 On cross-examination, Gallo explained that she never
In view of the State's interest in names as markers of one's identity, the law
undertook any gender-reassignment surgery and that she filed the petition
requires that these labels be registered. Understandably, in some cases, the
not to evade any civil or criminal liability, but to obtain a passport. 13
names so registered or other aspects of one's identity that pertain to one's
name are not reflected with accuracy in the Certificate of Live Birth filed with
the civil registrar. The Regional Trial Court, in its December 7, 20 I 0 Order, granted the
petition. 14 It lent credence to the documents Gallo presented and found that
the corrections she sought were "harmless and innocuous." 15 It concluded
Changes to one's name, therefore, can be the result of either one of two (2)
that there was a necessity to correct Gallo's Certificate of Live Birth and
motives. The first, as an exercise of one's autonomy, is to change the
applied Rule I 08 of the Rules of Court, 16 citing Republic v. Cagandahan. 17
appellation that one was given for various reasons. The other is not an
Thus:
exercise to change the label that was given to a person; it is simply to correct
the data as it was recorded in the Civil Registry.
WHEREFORE, above premises considered, an order is hereby issued
directing the Civil Registrar General, NSO through the Municipal Civil
This is a Petition for Review1 under Rule 45 assailing the April 29, 2013
Registrar of Ilagan, Isabela to correct the entries in the Birth Certificate of the
Decision2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 96358, which denied
petitioner as well as in the National Statistics Office Authenticated copy
the Republic of the Philippines' appeal 3 from the Regional Trial Court
particularly her first name "MICHAEL" to "MICHELLE", gender from "MALE"
December 7, 2010 Order4 granting herein respondent Michelle Soriano
to "FEMALE'', middle name of petitioner to be entered as "SORIANO", middle
Gallo's (Gallo) Petition for Correction of Entry of her Certificate of Live Birth.
names of petitioner's parents to be properly supplied as "ANGANGAN" for
the mother and "BALINGAO" for the father, as well as date of marriage of
To accurately reflect these facts in her documents, Gallo prayed before the petitioner's parents to be recorded as "MAY 23, 1981 ", after payment of
Regional Trial Court of Ilagan City, Isabela in Special Proc. No. 2155 5 for the legal fees if there be any.
correction of her name from "Michael" to "Michelle" and of her biological sex
from "Male" to "Female" under Rule 1086 of the Rules of Court.7
SO ORDERED.18
In addition, Gallo asked for the inclusion of her middle name, "Soriano"·' her
The Office of the Solicitor General appealed, alleging that the applicable rule
mother's middle name, "Angangan"; her father's middle name, "Balingao";
should be Rule 103 of the Rules of Court for Petitions for Change of Name. 19

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 21 of 56
It argued that Gallo did not comply with the jurisdictional requirements under it filed the present Petition via Rule 45 under the 1997 Rules of Civil
Rule 103 because the title of her Petition and the published Order did not Procedure. The Petition raises procedural errors made by the Regional Trial
state her official name, "Michael Gallo." 20 Furthermore, the published Order Court and the Court of Appeals in finding for Gallo. 31
was also defective for not stating the cause of the change of name. 21
Citing Republic v. Mercadera,32 petitioner argues that "only clerical, spelling,
The Court of Appeals, in its assailed April 29, 2013 Decision, denied the typographical and other innocuous errors in the civil registry may be raised"
Office of the Solicitor General's appeal. 22 It found that Gallo availed of the in petitions for correction under Rule 108. 33 Thus, the correction must only be
proper remedy under Rule 108 as the corrections sought were clerical, for a patently misspelled name. 34 As "Michael" could not have been the result
harmless, and innocuous.23 It further clarified that Rule 108 is limited to the of misspelling "Michelle," petitioner contends that the case should fall under
implementation of Article 412 of the Civil Code 24 and that the proceedings Rule 103 for it contemplates a substantial change. 35
which stem from it can "either be summary, if the correction sought is clerical,
or adversary . . . if [it] affects . . . civil status, citizenship or nationality ... which Petitioner holds that since the applicable rule is Rule 103, Gallo was not able
are deemed substantial corrections."25 to comply with the jurisdictional requirements for a change of name under
Section 2 of this Rule. 36 It also argues that the use of a different name is not
The Court of Appeals discussed that Rule 103, on the other hand, "governs a reasonable ground to change name under Rule 103. 37
the proceeding for changing the given or proper name of a person as
recorded in the civil register."26 Finally, petitioner insists that Gallo failed to exhaust administrative remedies
and observe the doctrine of primary jurisdiction 38 as Republic Act No. 9048
Jurisprudence has recognized the following grounds as sufficient to warrant a allegedly now governs the change of first name, superseding the civil
change of name, to wit: (a) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or registrar's jurisdiction over the matter.39
extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (b) when the change results as a
legal consequence of legitimation or adoption; ( c) when the change will To support its claim, it cited Silverio v. Republic, 40 which held that "[t]he
avoid confusion; (d) when one has continuously used and been known since intent and effect of the law is to exclude the change of first name from the
childhood by a Filipino name and was unaware of alien parentage; (e) when coverage of Rules 103 ... and 108 ... of the Rules of Court, until and unless
the change is based on a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase an administrative petition for change of name is first filed and subsequently
signs of former alienage, all in good faith and without prejudice to anybody; denied."41
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 Respondent Gallo, in her Comment, 42 counters that the issue of whether or
change of name would prejudice public interest.27 not the petitioned corrections are innocuous or clerical is a factual issue,
which is improper in a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.43 In
The Court of Appeals also stated that Republic Act No. 10172, "the present any case, she argues that the corrections are clerical; hence, the applicable
law on the matter, classifies a change in the first name or nickname, or sex of rule is Rule 108 and not Rule 103, with the requirements of an adversarial
a person as clerical error that may be corrected without a judicial order." 28 It proceeding properly satisfied. 44 Lastly, she contends that petitioner has
applied this ruling on the inclusion of Gallo's middle name, her parents' waived its right to invoke the doctrines of non-exhaustion of administrative
middle names, and the latter's date of marriage, as they do not involve remedies and primary jurisdiction when it failed to file a motion to dismiss
substantial corrections.29 before the Regional Trial Court and only raised these issues before this
Court. 45
As the petition merely involved the correction of clerical errors, the Court of
Appeals held that a summary proceeding would have sufficed. With this Petitioner filed its Reply.46 The case was then submitted for resolution after
determination, the Regional Trial Court's more rigid and stringent adversarial the parties filed their respective Memoranda.47
proceeding was more than enough to satisfy the procedural requirements
under Rule 108. 30 The issues for this Court's resolution are:

However, the Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, believes
otherwise. For it, Gallo wants to change the name that she was given. Thus,

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 22 of 56
First, whether or not the Republic of the Philippines raised a question of fact the credibility of witnesses, or the existence or relevance of surrounding
in alleging that the change sought by Michelle Soriano Gallo is substantive circumstances and their relationship to each other, the issue is factual. 49
and not a mere correction of error;
In the case at bar, petitioner raises an issue which requires an evaluation of
Second, whether or not Michelle Soriano Gallo's petition involves a evidence as determining whether or not the change sought is a typographical
substantive change under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court instead of mere error or a substantive change requires looking into the party's records,
correction of clerical errors; and supporting documents, testimonies, and other evidence.

Finally, whether or not Michelle Soriano Gallo failed to exhaust administrative On changes of first name, Republic Act No. 10172, which amended Republic
remedies and observe the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.1âwphi1 Act No. 9048, is helpful in identifying the nature of the determination sought.

This Court finds for the respondent.1âwphi1 Hers was a Petition to correct Republic Act No. 1017250 defines a clerical or typographical error as a
the entry in the Civil Registry. recorded mistake, "which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the
understanding." Thus:
I.In assailing the Court of Appeals' ruling that the change sought by Gallo
was a mere correction of error, petitioner raises a question of fact not proper Section 2. Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act, the following terms shall
under a Rule 45 Petition, which should only raise questions of law. mean:

Time and again, it has been held that this Court is not a trier of facts. Thus, (3) "Clerical or typographical error" refers to a mistake committed in the
its functions do not include weighing and analyzing evidence adduced from performance of clerical work in writing, copying, transcribing or typing an
the lower courts all over again. 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
In Spouses Miano v. Manila Electric Co.48: 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
The Rules of Court states that a review of appeals filed before this Court is
correction must involve the change of nationality, age, or status of the
"not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion." The Rules of Court
petitioner. 51
further requires that only questions of law should be raised in petitions filed
under Rule 45 since factual questions are not the proper subject of an appeal
by certiorari. It is not this Court's function to once again analyze or weigh Likewise, Republic Act No. 904852 states:
evidence that has already been considered in the lower courts.
Section 2. Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act, the following terms shall
Bases Conversion Development Authority v. Reyes distinguished a question mean:
of law from a question of fact:
(3) "Clerical or typographical error" refers to a mistake committed in the
Jurisprudence dictates that there is a "question of law" when the doubt or performance of clerical work in writing, copying, transcribing or typing an
difference arises as to what the law is on a certain set of facts or entry in the civil register that is harmless and innocuous, such as misspelled
circumstances; on the other hand, there is a "question of fact" when the issue name or misspelled place of birth or the like, which is visible to the eyes or
raised on appeal pertains to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. The test obvious to the understanding, and can be corrected or changed only by
for determining whether the supposed error was one of "law" or "fact" is not reference to other existing record or records: Provided, however, That no
the appellation given by the parties raising the same; rather, it is whether the correction must involve the change of nationality, age, status or sex of the
reviewing court can resolve the issues raised without evaluating the petitioner.53
evidence, in which case, it is a question of law; otherwise, it is one of fact. In
other words, where there is no dispute as to the facts, the question of By qualifying the definition of a clerical, typographical error as a mistake
whether or not the conclusions drawn from these facts are correct is a "visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding," the law recognizes that
question of law. However, if the question posed requires a re-evaluation of

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 23 of 56
there is a factual determination made after reference to and evaluation of This requirement for judicial authorization was justified to prevent fraud and
existing documents presented. allow other parties, who may be affected by the change of name, to oppose
the matter, as decisions in these proceedings bind the whole world. 59
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 Rule 103 procedurally governs judicial petitions for change of given name or
circumstance in the birth certificate was ever used. surname, or both, pursuant to Article 376 of the Civil Code. This rule provides
the procedure for an independent special proceeding in court to establish the
This Court agrees with the Regional Trial Court's determination, concurred in status of a person involving his relations with others, that is, his legal position
by the Court of Appeals, that this case involves the correction of a mere in, or with regard to, the rest of the community. In petitions for change of
error. As these are findings of fact, this Court is bound by the lower courts' name, a person avails of a remedy to alter the "designation by which he is
findings. known and called in the community in which he lives and is best known."
When granted, a person's identity and interactions are affected as he bears a
new "label or appellation for the convenience of the world at large in
II.A In any case, Rule 103 of the Rules of Court does not apply to the case at
addressing him, or in speaking of, or dealing with him." Judicial permission
bar. The change in the entry of Gallo's biological sex is governed by Rule
for a change of name aims to prevent fraud and to ensure a record of the
108 of the Rules of Court while Republic Act No. 9048 applies to all other
change by virtue of a court decree.
corrections sought.

The proceeding under Rule 103 is also an action in rem which requires
Under Article 407 of the Civil Code, the books in the Civil Register include
publication of the order issued by the court to afford the State and all other
"acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons," 54
interested parties to oppose the petition. When complied with, the decision
which are prima facie evidence of the facts stated there.55
binds not only the parties impleaded but the whole world. As notice to all,
publication serves to indefinitely bar all who might make an objection. "It is
Entries in the register include births, marriages, deaths, legal separations, the publication of such notice that brings in the whole world as a party in the
annulments of marriage, judgments declaring marriages void from the case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it."
beginning, legitimations, adoptions, acknowledgments of natural children,
naturalization, loss or recovery of citizenship, civil interdiction, judicial
Essentially, a change of name does not define or effect a change of one's
determination of filiation, voluntary emancipation of a minor, and changes of
existing family relations or in the rights and duties flowing therefrom. It does
name.56
not alter one's legal capacity or civil status. However, "there could be
instances where the change applied for may be open to objection by parties
As stated, the governing law on changes of first name is currently Republic who already bear the surname desired by the applicant, not because he
Act No. 10172, which amended Republic Act No. 9048. Prior to these laws, would thereby acquire certain family ties with them but because the existence
the controlling provisions on changes or corrections of name were Articles of such ties might be erroneously impressed on the public mind." Hence, in
376 and 412 of the Civil Code. requests for a change of name, "what is involved is not a mere matter of
allowance or disallowance of the request, but a judicious evaluation of the
Article 376 states the need for judicial authority before any person can sufficiency and propriety of the justifications advanced ... mindful of the
change his or her name. 57 On the other hand, Article 412 provides that consequent results in the event of its grant ... " 60 (Citations omitted)
judicial authority is also necessary before any entry in the civil register may
be changed or corrected. 58 Applying Article 412 of the Civil Code, a person desiring to change his or her
name altogether must file a petition under Rule 103 with the Regional Trial
Under the old rules, a person would have to file an action in court under Rule Court, which will then issue an order setting a hearing date and directing the
103 for substantial changes in the given name or surname provided they fall order's publication in a newspaper of general circulation. 61
under any of the valid reasons recognized by law, or Rule 108 for corrections
of clerical errors. After finding that there is proper and reasonable cause to change his or her
name, the Regional Trial Court may grant the petition and order its entry in
the civi1 register.62

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 24 of 56
On the other hand, Rule 108 applies when the person is seeking to correct by the use of his official name. To assess the sufficiency of the grounds
clerical and innocuous mistakes in his or her documents with the civil invoked therefor, there must be adversarial proceedings.
register. 63 It also governs the correction of substantial errors in the entry of
the information enumerated in Section 2 of this Rule 64 and those affecting the In petitions for correction, only clerical, spelling, typographical and other
civil status, citizenship, and nationality of a person. 65 The proceedings under innocuous errors in the civil registry may be raised. Considering that the
this rule may either be summary, if the correction pertains to clerical enumeration in Section 2, Rule 108 also includes "changes of name," the
mistakes, or adversary, if it pertains to substantial errors. 66 correction of a patently misspelled name is covered by Rule 108. Suffice it to
say, not all alterations allowed in one's name are confined under Rule 103.
As explained in Republic v. Mercadera:67 Finally in Republic v. Valencia, the Corrections for clerical errors may be set right under Rule 108.
above[-]stated views were adopted by this Court insofar as even substantial
errors or matters in a civil registry may be corrected and the true facts This rule in "names," however, does not operate to entirely limit Rule 108 to
established, provided the parties aggrieved avail themselves of the the correction of clerical errors in civil registry entries by way of a summary
appropriate adversary proceeding. "If the purpose of the petition is merely to proceeding. As explained above, Republic v. Valencia is the authority for
correct the clerical errors which are visible to the eye or obvious to the allowing substantial errors in other entries like citizenship, civil status, and
understanding, the court may, under a summary procedure, issue an order paternity, to be corrected using Rule 108 provided there is an adversary
for the correction of a mistake. However, as repeatedly construed, changes proceeding. "After all, the role of the Court under Rule 108 is to ascertain the
which may affect the civil status from legitimate to illegitimate, as well as sex, truths about the facts recorded therein."71 (Citations omitted)
are substantial and controversial alterations which can only be allowed after
appropriate adversary proceedings depending upon the nature of the issues However, Republic Act No. 904872 amended Articles 376 and 412 of the Civil
involved. Changes which affect the civil status or citizenship of a party are Code, effectively removing clerical errors and changes of the name outside
substantial in character and should be threshed out in a proper action the ambit of Rule 108 and putting them under the jurisdiction of the civil
depending upon the nature of the issues in controversy, and wherein all the registrar. 73
parties who may be affected by the entries are notified or represented and
evidence is submitted to prove the allegations of the complaint, and proof to
the contrary admitted .... " "Where such a change is ordered, the Court will In Silverio v. Republic:74 The State has an interest in the names borne by
not be establishing a substantive right but only correcting or rectifying an individuals and entities for purposes of identification. A change of name is a
erroneous entry in the civil registry as authorized by law. In short, Rule 108 of privilege, not a right. Petitions for change of name are controlled by statutes.
the Rules of Court provides only the procedure or mechanism for the proper In this connection, Article 376 of the Civil Code provides:
enforcement of the substantive law embodied in Article 412 of the Civil Code
and so does not violate the Constitution."68 (Emphasis in the original) ART. 376. No person can change his name or surname without judicial
authority.
Following the procedure in Rule 103, Rule 108 also requires a petition to be
filed before the Regional Trial Court. The trial court then sets a hearing and This Civil Code provision was amended by RA 9048 (Clerical Error Law) . . .
directs the publication of its order in a newspaper of general circulation in the
province.69 After the hearing, the trial court may grant or dismiss the petition RA 9048 now governs the change of first name. It vests the power and
and serve a copy of its judgment to the Civil Registrar. 70 authority to entertain petitions for change of first name to the city or municipal
civil registrar or consul general concerned. Under the law, therefore,
Mercadera clarified the applications of Article 376 and Rule 103, and of jurisdiction over applications for change of first name is now primarily lodged
Article 412 and Rule 108, thus: with the aforementioned administrative officers. The intent and effect of the
law is to exclude the change of first name from the coverage of Rules 103
The "change of name" contemplated under Article 376 and Rule 103 must (Change of Name) and 108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil
not be confused with Article 412 and Rule 108. A change of one's name Registry) of the Rules of Court, until and unless an administrative petition for
under Rule 103 can be granted, only on grounds provided by law. In order to change of name is first filed and subsequently denied. It likewise lays down
justify a request for change of name, there must be a proper and compelling the corresponding venue, form and procedure. In sum, the remedy and the
reason for the change and proof that the person requesting will be prejudiced proceedings regulating change of first name are primarily administrative in
nature, not judicial.75 (Citations omitted)

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 25 of 56
In Republic v. Cagandahan: 76 The determination of a person's sex appearing administratively corrected where it is patently clear that there is a clerical or
in his birth certificate is a legal issue and the court must look to the statutes. typographical mistake in the entry. It may be changed by filing a subscribed
In this connection, Article 412 of the Civil Code provides: and sworn affidavit with the local civil registry office of the city or municipality
where the record being sought to be corrected or changed is kept. 83
ART. 412. No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a
judicial order. 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
Together with Article 376 of the Civil Code, this provision was amended by corrected without a judicial order, except for clerical or typographical errors
Republic Act No. 9048 in so far as clerical or typographical errors are and change of first name or nickname, the day and month in the date of birth
involved. The correction or change of such matters can now be made or sex of a person where it is patently clear that there was a clerical or
through administrative proceedings and without the need for a judicial order. typographical error or mistake in the entry, which can be corrected or
In effect, Rep. Act No. 9048 removed from the ambit of Rule 108 of the Rules changed by the concerned city or municipal civil registrar or consul general in
of Court the correction of such errors. Rule 108 now applies only to accordance with the provisions of this Act and its implementing rules and
substantial changes and corrections in entries in the civil register. 77 regulations. 84 (Emphasis supplied)
(Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)
However, Republic Act No. 10172 does not apply in the case at bar as it was
78
In Republic v. Sali: The petition for change of first name may be allowed, only enacted on August 15, 2012-more than two (2) years after Gallo filed her
among other grounds, if the new first name has been habitually and Petition for Correction of Entry on May 13, 2010. 85 Hence, Republic Act No.
continuously used by the petitioner and he or she has been publicly known 9048 governs.
by that first name in the community. The local city or municipal civil registrar
or consul general has the primary jurisdiction to entertain the petition. It is II.B As to the issue of which between Rules 103 and 108 applies, it is
only when such petition is denied that a petitioner may either appeal to the necessary to determine the nature of the correction sought by Gallo.
civil registrar general or file the appropriate petition with the proper court. 79
(Emphasis supplied, citations omitted) Petitioner maintains that Rule 103 applies as the changes were substantive
while respondent contends that it is Rule 108 which governs as the changes
Republic Act No. 9048 also dispensed with the need for judicial proceedings pertain only to corrections of clerical errors.
in case of any clerical or typographical mistakes in the civil register or
changes in first names or nicknames. 80 Upon scrutiny of the records in this case, this Court rules that Gallo's

Section 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or Typographical Error and Change of Petition involves a mere correction of clerical errors.
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 A clerical or typographical error pertains to a
and change of first name or nickname 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. 81 [M]istake committed in the performance of clerical work in writing, copying,
transcribing or typing an entry in the civil register that is harmless and
innocuous ... which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding, and
Thus, a person may now change his or her first name or correct clerical can be corrected or changed only by reference to other existing record or
errors in his or her name through administrative proceedings. Rules 103 and records[.] 86
108 only apply if the administrative petition has been filed and later denied.
However, corrections which involve a change in nationality, age, or status are
In 2012, Republic Act No. 9048 was amended by Republic Act No. 10172. 82 not considered clerical or typographical. 87

In addition to the change of the first name, the day and month of birth, and Jurisprudence is replete with cases determining what constitutes a clerical or
the sex of a person may now be changed without judicial proceedings. typographical error in names with the civil register.
Republic Act No. 10172 clarifies that these changes may now be

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 26 of 56
In Republic v. Mercadera, 88 Merlyn Mercadera (Mercadera) sought to correct name "Lorena" and the birth date "April 24, 1968" ever since. She also
her name from "Marilyn" to "Merlyn." 89 She alleged that "she had been averred that she had always been known as "Lorena" in her community. She
known as MERLYN ever since" and she prayed that the trial court correct her claimed that the petition was just to correct the error and not to evade any
recorded given name "Marilyn" "to conform to the one she grew up to." 90 The criminal or civil liability, or to affect any succession of another person. 95
Office of the Solicitor General argued that this change was substantial which
must comply with the procedure under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court. 91 In response, the Office of the Solicitor General, representing the Republic,
However, this Court ruled that Rule 103 did not apply because the petition argued against Sali's claim, alleging that the petition was for a change of
merely sought to correct a misspelled given name: name under Rule 103 and not for the correction of a simple clerical error. It
averred that there must be a valid ground for the name change, and the
In this case, the use of the letter "a" for the letter "e," and the deletion of the applicant's names and aliases must be stated in the title of the petition and
letter "i," so that what appears as "Marilyn" would read as "Merlyn'' is patently the order setting it for hearing. It also contended that assuming Rule 108 was
a rectification of a name that is clearly misspelled. The similarity between the proper remedy, Sali failed to exhaust her remedies when she did not file
"Marilyn" and "Merlyn" may well be the object of a mix-up that blemished an affidavit under Republic Act No. 9048.96
Mercadera's Certificate of Live Birth until her adulthood, thus, her interest to
correct the same. In Sali, this Court held that Rule 103 did not apply because the petition was
not for a change of name, but a petition for correction of errors in the
The [Court of Appeals] did not allow Mercadera the change of her name. recording of Sali's name and birth date. Sali had been using the name
What it did allow was the correction of her misspelled given name which she "Lorena" since birth, and she merely sought to have her records conform to
had been using ever since she could remember. 92 the name she had been using as her true name. She had no intention of
changing her name altogether. Thus, her prayer for the correction of her
Mercadera also cited similar cases in which this Court determined what misspelled name is not contemplated by Rule 103.97
constitutes harmless errors that need not go through the proceedings under
Rule 103: In the case at bar, petitioner, raising the same arguments as that in Sali,
claims that the change sought by Gallo is substantial, covered by Rule 103
Indeed, there are decided cases involving mistakes similar to Mercadera's because the two (2) names are allegedly entirely different from each other. It
case which recognize the same a harmless error. In Yu v. Republic it was argues that "Michael" could not have been the result of a misspelling of
held that "to change 'Sincio' to 'Sencio' which merely involves the substitution "Michelle."98
of the first vowel 'i' in the first name into the vowel 'e' amounts merely to the
righting of a clerical error." In LabayoRowe v. Republic, it was held that the On the other hand, Gallo argues that the corrections are clerical which fall
change of petitioner's name from "Beatriz Labayo/Beatriz Labayu" to under Rule 108, with the requirements of an adversarial proceeding properly
"Emperatriz Labayo" was a mere innocuous alteration wherein a summary complied. 99
proceeding was appropriate. In Republic v. Court of Appeals, Jaime B.
Caranto and Zenaida P. Caranto, the correction involved the substitution of Considering that Gallo had shown that the reason for her petition was not to
the letters "ch" for the letter "d," so that what appears as "Midael" as given change the name by which she is commonly known, this Court rules that her
name would read "Michael." In the latter case, this Court, with the agreement petition is not covered by Rule 103. Gallo is not filing the petition to change
of the Solicitor General, ruled that the error was plainly clerical, such that, her current appellation. She is merely correcting the misspelling of her name.
"changing the name of the child from 'Midael C. Mazon' to 'Michael C. Mazon'
cannot possibly cause any confusion, because both names can be read and Correcting and changing have been differentiated, thus:
pronounced with the same rhyme (tugma) and tone (tono, tunog, himig).93
(Citations omitted)
To correct simply means "to make or set aright; to remove the faults or error
from." To change means "to replace something with something else of the
Likewise, in Republic v. Sali,94 Lorena Omapas Sali (Sali) sought to correct same kind or with something that serves as a substitute. 100
her Certificate of Live Birth, alleging that her first name was erroneously
entered as "Dorothy" instead of "Lorena," and her date of birth as "June 24,
1968" instead of "April 24, 1968." She alleged that she had been using the Gallo is not attempting to replace her current appellation. She is merely
correcting the misspelling of her given name. "Michelle" could easily be

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 27 of 56
misspelled as "Michael," especially since the first four (4) letters of these two seeks is simply the removal of the clerical fault or error in her first name, and
(2) names are exactly the same. The differences only pertain to an additional to set aright the same to conform to the name she grew up with.
letter "a" in "Michael," and "le" at the end of "Michelle." "Michelle" and
"Michael" may also be vocalized similarly, considering the possibility of Nevertheless, at the time Sali's petition was filed, R.A. No. 9048 was already
different accents or intonations of different people. In any case, Gallo does in effect . . .
not seek to be known by a different appellation. The lower courts have
determined that she has been known as "Michelle" all throughout her life. The petition for change of first name may be allowed, among other grounds,
She is merely seeking to correct her records to conform to her true given if the new first name has been habitually and continuously used by the
name. petitioner and he or she has been publicly known by that first name in the
community. The local city or municipal civil registrar or consul general has
However, Rule 108 does not apply in this case either. the primary jurisdiction to entertain the petition. It is only when such petition is
denied that a petitioner may either appeal to the civil registrar general or file
As stated, Gallo filed her Petition for Correction of Entry on May 13, 2010. 101 the appropriate petition with the proper court . . .
The current law, Republic Act No. 10172, does not apply because it was
enacted only on August 19, 2012.102 In this case, the petition, insofar as it prayed for the change of Sali's first
name, was not within the RTC's primary jurisdiction. It was improper because
The applicable law then for the correction of Gallo's name is Republic Act No. the remedy should have been administrative, i.e., filing of the petition with the
9048. 103 local civil registrar concerned. For failure to exhaust administrative remedies,
the RTC should have dismissed the petition to correct Sali's first name. 106
To reiterate, Republic Act No. 9048 was enacted on March 22, 2001 and
removed the correction of clerical or typographical errors from the scope of Likewise, the prayers to enter Gallo's middle name as Soriano, the middle
Rule 108. It also dispensed with the need for judicial proceedings in case of names of her parents as Angangan for her mother and Balingao for her
any clerical or typographical mistakes in the civil register, or changes of first father, and the date of her parents' marriage as May 23, 1981 fall under
name or nickname. Thus: clerical or typographical errors as mentioned in Republic Act No. 9048.

Section 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or Typographical Error and Change of Under Section 2(3) of Republic Act No. 9048:
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 (3) "Clerical or typographical error" refers to a mistake committed in the
and change of first name or nickname which can be corrected or changed by performance of clerical work in writing, copying, transcribing or typing an
the concerned city or municipal civil registrar or consul general in accordance entry in the civil register that is harmless and innocuous, such as misspelled
with the provisions of this Act and its implementing rules and regulations. 104 name or misspelled place of birth or the like, which is visible to the eyes or
obvious to the understanding, and can be corrected or changed only by
Therefore, it is the civil registrar who has primary jurisdiction over Gallo's reference to other existing record or records: Provided, however, That no
petition, not the Regional Trial Court. Only if her petition was denied by the correction must involve the change of nationality, age, status or sex of the
local city or municipal civil registrar can the Regional Trial Court take petitioner. 107
cognizance of her case. In Republic v. Sali, 105
These corrections may be done by referring to existing records in the civil
Sali's petition is not for a change of name as contemplated under Rule 103 of register. None of it involves any change in Gallo's nationality, age, status, or
the Rules but for correction of entries under Rule 108. What she seeks is the sex.
correction of clerical errors which were committed in the recording of her
name and birth date. This Court has held that not all alterations allowed in Moreover, errors "visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding" 108 fall
one's name are confined under Rule 103 and that corrections for clerical within the coverage of clerical mistakes not deemed substantial. If it is
errors may be set right under Rule 108. The evidence presented by Sali "obvious to the understanding," even if there is no proof that the name or
show that, since birth, she has been using the name "Lorena." Thus, it is circumstance in the birth certificate was ever used, the correction may be
apparent that she never had any intention to change her name. What she made.

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 28 of 56
Thus, as to these corrections, Gallo should have sought to correct them Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, a party must
administratively before filing a petition under Rule 108. first avail of all administrative processes available before seeking the courts'
intervention. The administrative officer concerned must be given every
However, the petition to correct Gallo's biological sex was rightfully filed opportunity to decide on the matter within his or her jurisdiction. Failing to
under Rule 108 as this was a substantial change excluded in the definition of exhaust administrative remedies affects the party's cause of action as these
clerical or typographical errors in Republic Act No. 9048. 109 remedies refer to a precedent condition which must be complied with prior to
filing a case in court. 118
This was affirmed in Republic v. Cagandahan: 110Under Rep. Act No. 9048, a
correction in the civil registry involving the change of sex is not a mere However, failure to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
clerical or typographical error. remedies does not affect the court's jurisdiction. 119 Thus, the doctrine may be
waived as in Soto v. Jareno: 120
It is a substantial change for which the applicable procedure is Rule 108 of
the Rules of Court. 111 (Citation omitted) Failure to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does
not affect the jurisdiction of the court. We have repeatedly stressed this in a
long line of decisions. The only effect of noncompliance with this rule is that it
It was only when Republic Act No. 10172 was enacted on August 15, 2012
will deprive the complainant of a cause of action, which is a ground for a
that errors in entries as to biological sex may be administratively corrected,
motion to dismiss. If not invoked at the proper time, this ground is deemed
provided that they involve a typographical or clerical error. 112
waived and the court can then take cognizance of the case and try it. 121
However, this is not true for all cases as corrections in entries of biological
Meanwhile, under the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction, if an
sex may still be considered a substantive matter.
administrative tribunal has jurisdiction over a controversy, courts should not
resolve the issue even if it may be within its proper jurisdiction. This is
In Cagandahan, 113 this Court ruled that a party who seeks a change of name especially true when the question involves its sound discretion requiring
and biological sex in his or her Certificate of Live Birth after a gender special knowledge, experience, and services to determine technical and
reassignment surgery has to file a petition under Rule 108. 114 In that case, it intricate matters of fact.122
was held that the change did not involve a mere correction of an error in
recording but a petition for a change of records because the sex change was
In Republic v. Lacap: Corollary to the doctrine of exhaustion of
initiated by the petitioner. 115
administrative remedies is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction; that is, courts
cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within
IV.Considering that Gallo did not first file an administrative case in the civil the jurisdiction of the administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that
register before proceeding to the courts, petitioner contends that respondent question by the administrative tribunal, where the question demands the
failed to exhaust administrative remedies and observe the doctrine of primary exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge,
jurisdiction under Republic Act No. 9048.116 experience and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical
and intricate matters of fact. 124 (Citation omitted)
On the other hand, respondent argues that petitioner has waived its right to
invoke these doctrines because it failed to file a motion to dismiss before the Thus, the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction refers to the
Regional Trial Court and only raised these issues before this Court. 117 competence of a court to take cognizance of a case at first instance. Unlike
the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, it cannot be waived.
This Court rules in favor of Gallo.
However, for reasons of equity, in cases where jurisdiction is lacking, this
Court has ruled that failure to raise the issue of non-compliance with the
doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction at an opportune time may bar a
subsequent filing of a motion to dismiss based on that ground by way of
laches.125

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 29 of 56
In Tijam v. Sibonghanoy:126 True also is the rule that jurisdiction over the Thus, where a party participated in the proceedings and the issue of non-
subject-matter is conferred upon the courts exclusively by law, and as the compliance was raised only as an afterthought at the final stage of appeal,
lack of it affects the very authority of the court to take cognizance of the case, the party invoking it may be estopped from doing so.
the objection may be raised at any stage of the proceedings. However,
considering the facts and circumstances of the present case - which shall Nonetheless, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the
forthwith be set forth - We are of the opinion that the Surety is now barred by corollary doctrine of primary jurisdiction, which are based on sound public
laches from invoking this plea at this late hour for the purpose of annulling policy and practical considerations, are not inflexible rules. There are many
everything done heretofore in the case with its active participation . . . accepted exceptions, such as: (a) where there is estoppel on the part of the
party invoking the doctrine; (b) where the challenged administrative act is
A party may be estopped or barred from raising a question in different ways patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction; (c) where there is
and for different reasons. Thus we speak of estoppels in pais, of estoppel by unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the
deed or by record, and of estoppel by laches. complainant; ( d) where the amount involved is relatively small so as to make
the rule impractical and oppressive; ( e) where the question involved is purely
Laches, in a general sense, is failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of justice; (f) where
unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, judicial intervention is urgent; (g) when its application may cause great and
could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert irreparable damage; (h) where the controverted acts violate due process; (i)
a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party when the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been
entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it. rendered moot; G) when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate
remedy; (k) when strong public interest is involved; and, (1) in quo warranto
proceedings . . 128 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
The doctrine of laches or of "stale demands" is based upon grounds of public
policy which requires, for the peace of society, the discouragement of stale
claims and, unlike the statute of limitations, is not a mere question of time but Petitioner does not deny that the issue of non-compliance with these two (2)
is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a right or doctrines was only raised in this Court. Thus, in failing to invoke these
claim to be enforced or asserted. contentions before the Regional Trial Court, it is estopped from invoking
these doctrines as grounds for dismissal.
It has been held that a party cannot invoke the jurisdiction of a court to
secure affirmative relief against his opponent and, after obtaining or failing to WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED. The April 29,
obtain such relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction ... In the case 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 96358 is
just cited, by way of explaining the rule, it was further said that the question AFFIRMED. The Petition for Correction of Entry in the Certificate of Live Birth
whether the court had jurisdiction either of the subject-matter of the action or of Michelle Soriano Gallo is GRANTED. This Court directs that the Certificate
of the parties was not important in such cases because the party is barred of Live Birth of Michelle Soriano Gallo be corrected as follows:
from such conduct not because the judgment or order of the court is valid
and conclusive as an adjudication, but for the reason that such a practice 1) Correct her first name from "Michael" to "Michelle";
cannot be tolerated- obviously for reasons of public policy.
2) Correct her biological sex from "Male" to "Female";
Furthermore, it has also been held that after voluntarily submitting a cause
and encountering an adverse decision on the merits, it is too late for the loser 3) Enter her middle name as "Soriano";
to question the jurisdiction or power of the court ... And in Littleton vs.
Burgess, ... the Court said that it is not right for a party who has affirmed and 4) Enter the middle name of her mother as "Angangan";
invoked the jurisdiction of a court in a particular matter to secure an
affirmative relief, to afterwards deny that same jurisdiction to escape a
penalty. 127 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted) 5) Enter the middle name of her father as "Balingao"; and

6) Enter the date of her parents' marriage as "May 23, 1981."

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 30 of 56
SO ORDERED.

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 31 of 56
[7] G.R. No. 198010               August 12, 2013 least once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks at the expense of
respondent, and that the order and petition be furnished the Office of the
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, vs. DR. NORMA S. Solicitor General (OSG) and the City Prosecutor’s Office for their information
LUGSANAY UY, RESPONDENT. and guidance.14 Pursuant to the RTC Order, respondent complied with the
publication requirement.
DECISION
On June 28, 2004, the RTC issued an Order in favor of respondent, the
dispositive portion of which reads:
PERALTA, J.:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
GRANTED. THE CITY CIVIL REGISTRAR OF GINGOOG CITY, or any
Court are the Court of Appeals (CA) 1 Decision2 dated February 18, 2011 and
person acting in his behalf is directed and ordered to effect the correction or
Resolution3 dated July 27, 2011 in CA-G.R. CV No. 00238-MIN. The assailed
change of the entries in the Certificate of Live Birth of petitioner’s name and
decision dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner Republic of the Philippines
citizenship so that the entries would be:
and, consequently, affirmed in toto the June 28, 2004 Order 4 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 27, Gingoog City in Special Proceedings No. 230-
2004 granting the Petition for Correction of Entry of Certificate of Live Birth a) As to petitioner’s name :
filed by respondent Dr. Norma S. Lugsanay Uy; while the assailed resolution
denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.
First Name : NORMA
The facts of the case are as follows:
Middle Name : SY
On March 8, 2004, respondent filed a Petition for Correction of Entry in her
Certificate of Live Birth.5 Impleaded as respondent is the Local Civil Registrar Last Name : LUGSANAY
of Gingoog City. She alleged that she was born on February 8, 1952 and is
the illegitimate daughter of Sy Ton and Sotera Lugsanay 6 Her Certificate of
Live Birth7 shows that her full name is "Anita Sy" when in fact she is allegedly b) As to petitioner’s nationality/citizenship :
known to her family and friends as "Norma S. Lugsanay." She further claimed : FILIPINO
that her school records, Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) Board of
Medicine Certificate,8 and passport9 bear the name "Norma S. Lugsanay."
She also alleged that she is an illegitimate child considering that her parents SO ORDERED.15
were never married, so she had to follow the surname of her mother. 10 She
also contended that she is a Filipino citizen and not Chinese, and all her
The RTC concluded that respondent’s petition would neither prejudice the
siblings bear the surname Lugsanay and are all Filipinos.11
government nor any third party. It also held that the names "Norma Sy
Lugsanay" and "Anita Sy" refer to one and the same person, especially since
Respondent allegedly filed earlier a petition for correction of entries with the the Local Civil Registrar of Gingoog City has effected the correction.
Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Gingoog City to effect the corrections on Considering that respondent has continuously used and has been known
her name and citizenship which was supposedly granted. 12 However, the since childhood as "Norma Sy Lugsanay" and as a Filipino citizen, the RTC
National Statistics Office (NSO) records did not bear such changes. Hence, granted the petition to avoid confusion.16
the petition before the RTC.
On February 18, 2011, the CA affirmed in toto the RTC Order. The CA held
On May 13, 2004, the RTC issued an Order 13 finding the petition to be that respondent’s failure to implead other indispensable parties was cured
sufficient in form and substance and setting the case for hearing, with the upon the publication of the Order setting the case for hearing in a newspaper
directive that the said Order be published in a newspaper of general of general circulation for three (3) consecutive weeks and by serving a copy
circulation in the City of Gingoog and the Province of Misamis Oriental at

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 32 of 56
of the notice to the Local Civil Registrar, the OSG and the City Prosecutor’s SEC. 6. Expediting proceedings. – The court in which the proceeding is
Office.17 As to whether the petition is a collateral attack on respondent’s brought may make orders expediting the proceedings, and may also grant
filiation, the CA ruled in favor of respondent, considering that her parents preliminary injunction for the preservation of the rights of the parties pending
were not legally married and that her siblings’ birth certificates uniformly state such proceedings.
that their surname is Lugsanay and their citizenship is Filipino. 18 Petitioner’s
motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated July 27, 2011. SEC. 7. Order. – After hearing, the court may either dismiss the petition or
issue an order granting the cancellation or correction prayed for. In either
Hence, the present petition on the sole ground that the petition is dismissible case, a certified copy of the judgment shall be served upon the civil registrar
for failure to implead indispensable parties. concerned who shall annotate the same in his record.19

Cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry is governed by Rule In this case, respondent sought the correction of entries in her birth
108 of the Rules of Court, to wit: certificate, particularly those pertaining to her first name, surname and
citizenship. She sought the correction allegedly to reflect the name which she
SEC. 1. Who may file petition. – Any person interested in any act, event, has been known for since childhood, including her legal documents such as
order or decree concerning the civil status of persons which has been passport and school and professional records. She likewise relied on the
recorded in the civil register, may file a verified petition for the cancellation or birth certificates of her full blood siblings who bear the surname "Lugsanay"
correction of any entry relating thereto, with the Regional Trial Court of the instead of "Sy" and citizenship of "Filipino" instead of "Chinese." The
province where the corresponding civil registry is located. changes, however, are obviously not mere clerical as they touch on
respondent’s filiation and citizenship. In changing her surname from "Sy"
(which is the surname of her father) to "Lugsanay" (which is the surname of
SEC. 2. Entries subject to cancellation or correction. – Upon good and valid
her mother), she, in effect, changes her status from legitimate to illegitimate;
grounds, the following entries in the civil register may be cancelled or
and in changing her citizenship from Chinese to Filipino, the same affects her
corrected: (a) births; (b) marriages; (c) deaths; (d) legal separations; (e)
rights and obligations in this country. Clearly, the changes are substantial.
judgments of annulments 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; It has been settled in a number of cases starting with Republic v. Valencia 20
(l) civil interdiction; (m) judicial determination of filiation; (n) voluntary that even substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected and the true
emancipation of a minor; and (o) changes of name. facts established provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves
of the appropriate adversary proceeding.21 The pronouncement of the Court
in that case is illuminating:
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 It is undoubtedly true that if the subject matter of a petition is not for the
proceeding. 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
SEC. 4. Notice and Publication. – Upon the filing of the petition, the court
nature. However, it is also true that a right in law may be enforced and a
shall, by an order, fix the time and place for the hearing of the same, and
wrong may be remedied as long as the appropriate remedy is used. This
cause reasonable notice thereof to be given to the persons named in the
Court adheres to the principle that even substantial errors in a civil registry
petition. The court shall also cause the order to be published once a week for
may be corrected and the true facts established provided the parties
three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the
aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary
province.
proceeding. x x x
SEC. 5. Opposition. – The civil registrar and any person having or claiming
What is meant by "appropriate adversary proceeding?" Black’s Law
any interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought may,
Dictionary defines "adversary proceeding" as follows:
within fifteen (15) days from notice of the petition, or from the last date of
publication of such notice, file his opposition thereto.

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 33 of 56
One having opposing parties; contested, as distinguished from an ex parte In this case, it was only the Local Civil Registrar of Gingoog City who was
application, one of which the party seeking relief has given legal warning to impleaded as respondent in the petition below. This, notwithstanding, the
the other party, and afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it. Excludes RTC granted her petition and allowed the correction sought by respondent,
an adoption proceeding.22 which decision was affirmed in toto by the CA.

In sustaining the RTC decision, the CA relied on the Court’s conclusion in We do not agree with the RTC and the CA.
Republic v. Kho,23 Alba v. Court of Appeals,24 and Barco v. Court of
Appeals,25 that the failure to implead indispensable parties was cured by the This is not the first time that the Court is confronted with the issue involved in
publication of the notice of hearing pursuant to the provisions of Rule 108 of this case. Aside from Kho, Alba and Barco, the Court has addressed the
the Rules of Court. In Republic v. Kho, 26 petitioner therein appealed the RTC same in Republic v. Coseteng-Magpayo,31 Ceruila v. Delantar,32 and Labayo-
decision granting the petition for correction of entries despite respondents’ Rowe v. Republic.33
failure to implead the minor’s mother as an indispensable party. The Court,
however, did not strictly apply the provisions of Rule 108, because it opined In Republic v. Coseteng-Magpayo,34 claiming that his parents were never
that it was highly improbable that the mother was unaware of the legally married, respondent therein filed a petition to change his name from
proceedings to correct the entries in her children’s birth certificates especially "Julian Edward Emerson Coseteng Magpayo," the name appearing in his
since the notices, orders and decision of the trial court were all sent to the birth certificate to "Julian Edward Emerson Marquez Lim Coseteng." The
residence she shared with them.27 notice setting the petition for hearing was published and there being no
opposition thereto, the trial court issued an order of general default and
In Alba v. Court of Appeals,28 the Court found nothing wrong with the trial eventually granted respondent’s petition deleting the entry on the date and
court’s decision granting the petition for correction of entries filed by place of marriage of parties; correcting his surname from "Magpayo" to
respondent although the proceedings was not actually known by petitioner. In "Coseteng"; deleting the entry "Coseteng" for middle name; and deleting the
that case, petitioner’s mother and guardian was impleaded in the petition for entry "Fulvio Miranda Magpayo, Jr." in the space for his father. The Republic
correction of entries, and notices were sent to her address appearing in the of the Philippines, through the OSG, assailed the RTC decision on the
subject birth certificate. However, the notice was returned unserved, because grounds that the corrections made on respondent’s birth certificate had the
apparently she no longer lived there. Thus, when she allegedly learned of the effect of changing the civil status from legitimate to illegitimate and must only
granting of the petition, she sought the annulment of judgment which the be effected through an appropriate adversary proceeding. The Court nullified
Court denied. Considering that the petition for correction of entries is a the RTC decision for respondent’s failure to comply strictly with the
proceeding in rem, the Court held that acquisition of jurisdiction over the procedure laid down in Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. Aside from the wrong
person of the petitioner is, therefore, not required and the absence of remedy availed of by respondent as he filed a petition for Change of Name
personal service was cured by the trial court’s compliance with Rule 108 under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, assuming that he filed a petition under
which requires notice by publication.29 Rule 108 which is the appropriate remedy, the petition still failed because of
improper venue and failure to implead the Civil Registrar of Makati City and
In Barco v. Court of Appeals, 30 the Court addressed the question of whether all affected parties as respondents in the case.
the court acquired jurisdiction over petitioner and all other indispensable
parties to the petition for correction of entries despite the failure to implead In Ceruila v. Delantar,35 the Ceruilas filed a petition for the cancellation and
them in said case. While recognizing that petitioner was indeed an annulment of the birth certificate of respondent on the ground that the same
indispensable party, the failure to implead her was cured by compliance with was made as an instrument of the crime of simulation of birth and, therefore,
Section 4 of Rule 108 which requires notice by publication. In so ruling, the invalid and spurious, and it falsified all material entries therein. The RTC
Court pointed out that the petitioner in a petition for correction cannot be issued an order setting the case for hearing with a directive that the same be
presumed to be aware of all the parties whose interests may be affected by published and that any person who is interested in the petition may interpose
the granting of a petition. It emphasized that the petitioner therein exerted his comment or opposition on or before the scheduled hearing. Summons
earnest effort to comply with the provisions of Rule 108. Thus, the publication was likewise sent to the Civil Register of Manila. After which, the trial court
of the notice of hearing was considered to have cured the failure to implead granted the petition and nullified respondent’s birth certificate. Few months
indispensable parties. after, respondent filed a petition for the annulment of judgment claiming that
she and her guardian were not notified of the petition and the trial court’s
decision, hence, the latter was issued without jurisdiction and in violation of

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 34 of 56
her right to due process. The Court annulled the trial court’s decision for It is clear from the foregoing discussion that when a petition for cancellation
failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 108, especially the non- or correction of an entry in the civil register involves substantial and
impleading of respondent herself whose birth certificate was controversial alterations, including those on citizenship, legitimacy of
nullified.1âwphi1 paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, a strict compliance with the
requirements of Rule 108 ofthe Rules of Court is mandated. 44 If the entries in
In Labayo-Rowe v. Republic,36 petitioner filed a petition for the correction of the civil register could be corrected or changed through mere summary
entries in the birth certificates of her children, specifically to change her name proceedings and not through appropriate action wherein all parties who may
from Beatriz V. Labayu/Beatriz Labayo to Emperatriz Labayo, her civil status be affected by the entries are notified or represented, the door to fraud or
from "married" to "single," and the date and place of marriage from "1953- other mischief would be set open, the consequence of which might be
Bulan" to "No marriage." The Court modified the trial court’s decision by detrimental and far reaching.45
nullifying the portion thereof which directs the change of petitioner’s civil
status as well as the filiation of her child, because it was the OSG only that WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The
was made respondent and the proceedings taken was summary in nature Court of Appeals Decision dated February 18, 2011 and Resolution dated
which is short of what is required in cases where substantial alterations are July 27, 20011 in CA-G.R. CV No. 00238-MIN, are SET ASIDE.
sought. Consequently, the June 28, 2004 Order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch
27, Gingoog City, in Spl. Proc. No. 230-2004 granting the Petition for
Respondent’s birth certificate shows that her full name is Anita Sy, that she is Correction of Entry of Certificate of Live Birth filed by respondent Dr. Norma
a Chinese citizen and a legitimate child of Sy Ton and Sotera Lugsanay. In S. Lugsanay Uy, is NULLIFIED.
filing the petition, however, she seeks the correction of her first name and
surname, her status from "legitimate" to "illegitimate" and her citizenship from SO ORDERED.
"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. 37 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: one given to the persons named in the petition
and another given to other persons who are not named in the petition but
nonetheless may be considered interested or affected parties. 38 Summons
must, therefore, 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.39

While there may be cases where the Court held that the failure to implead
and notify the affected or interested parties may be cured by the publication
of the notice of hearing, earnest efforts were made by petitioners in bringing
to court all possible interested parties. 40 Such failure was likewise excused
where the interested parties themselves initiated the corrections
proceedings;41 when there is no actual or presumptive awareness of the
existence of the interested parties;42 or when a party is inadvertently left out.43

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 35 of 56
[8] G.R. No. 211435, April 10, 2019 School; (b) Certification from the Philippine Chung Hua School stating that
petitioner completed his kindergarten course therein; (c) Secondary Report
RAMON CORPUS TAN, PETITIONER, v. OFFICE OF THE LOCAL CIVIL Card from the Philippine Chung Hua School; (d) COMELEC Voter's
REGISTRAR OF THE CITY OF MANILA, AND THE NATIONAL Identification Card; (e) COMELEC Voter's Affidavit; (f) BIR Tax Identification
STATISTICS OFFICE OF QUEZON CITY (NOW PHILIPPINE STATISTICS Number and Identification Card (g) Community Tax Certificate issued by
AUTHORITY), RESPONDENTS. Quezon City; and (h) Certificate of Marriage to Maria Teresa Gatuz.

After finding the petition sufficient in form, the RTC set the case for hearing
DECISION
on November 23, 2011.
REYES, J. JR., J.: On November 23, 2011, petitioner and his counsel appeared for the hearing
of the case for purposes of the jurisdictional requirements of the petition. On
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 which seeks to set aside the the same day, petitioner testified through his judicial affidavit.
Decision2 dated September 27, 2013 and the Resolution 3 dated February 24,
2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 98952, which affirmed The petitioner was also cross-examined by the prosecutor who was
the Orders dated December 27, 20114 and May 18, 20125 of the Regional deputized by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
Trial Court of Manila, Branch 27 (RTC) in Spec. Proc. No. 11-126383, a
special proceeding for correction of entry in the civil registry under Rule 108 On November 24, 2011, petitioner, through counsel, filed a Formal Offer of
of the Revised Rules of Court filed by herein petitioner. Exhibits. Among the pieces of evidence offered in evidence in support of
petitioner's material allegations are: (1) Petitioner's Judicial Affidavit; 9 (2)
The Facts Certificate of Live Birth indicating petitioner's name as "Ramon Corpus Tan
Ko";10 (3) BIR Identification Card indicating petitioner's name as "Tan Ramon
On September 7, 2011, petitioner filed a Petition for Correction of Entry 6 Corpuz";11 (4) Firearm License Card indicating petitioner's name as "Tan,
before the RTC. Realizing that he failed to implead the Office of the Local Ramon Corpuz";12 (5) PhilHealth Identification Card indicating petitioner's
Civil Registrar of Manila (LCR Manila) and the National Statistics Office (now name as "Tan, Ramon Corpuz";13 (6) Certificate of Marriage;14 and (7)
Philippine Statistics Authority PSA), petitioner filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Certificates of Live Birth of petitioner's children. 15 The Republic of the
Admit Amended Petition7 and an Amended Petition for Correction of Entry 8 Philippines (Republic) did not interpose any objection to the offer.
on September 30, 2011, this time impleading the aforesaid offices as
respondents. On December 2, 2011, the RTC issued an Order 16 admitting the pieces of
evidence offered.
In his Amended Petition, petitioner alleged that he was born on November
13, 1965 at St. Paul Hospital in the City of Manila; that his birth was duly Ruling of the RTC
registered in the civil registry of Manila; that he had been using his real name
"Ramon Corpuz Tan" during his lifetime; that when he later secured a copy of In its assailed Order dated December 27, 2011, the RTC dismissed the
his Certificate of Live Birth, he discovered that his name was entered as subject petition for correction of entry. The RTC ratiocinated that the
"Ramon Corpus Tan Ko" instead of his true and correct name which is petitioner failed to comply with the requirements of an adversarial proceeding
"Ramon Corpuz Tan"; that the aforesaid material errors and mistakes in the noting that the correction sought for, is a substantial correction and is
entries of his Certificate of Live Birth were due to inadvertence and error of governed by Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, which is not summary, but an
the hospital personnel who prepared the subject certificate; that "Ko," which adversarial proceeding.
was the first name of his father, was inadvertently included in his last name;
and that the mistake was not immediately rectified because he only The trial court explained that Section 3, Rule 108, requires all interested
discovered the same, after having his own children. persons who may be affected by the petition to be made parties thereto. The
trial court noted that aside from the fact that in Entry No. 3, petitioner's last
In support of his claim and prayer, petitioner appended the following name was indicated as "Tan Ko," the name of petitioner's father was also
documents to his petition:, (a) Diploma from the Philippine Chung Hua indicated as "Tan Ko" in Entry No. 7. Moreover, in Entry No. 17, petitioner's

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 36 of 56
mother, Trinidad Corpuz, signed as "T.C. Tan Ko" over her printed name as that indeed their surname is "Tan" and not "Tan Ko." The dispositive portion
informant. Thus, noting that petitioner claimed that his father was already of the CA Decision provides:
dead, the trial court declared that petitioner's mother should have been made WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the appeal filed in this
a party to the case. Since his mother was not impleaded as a party, petitioner case is hereby DENIED and the December 27, 2011 Order and the May 18,
failed to comply with the requirements of an adversarial proceeding. The 2012 Order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, stationed in Manila in
dispositive portion of the RTC Order states: Spec. Proc. No. 11-126383 are hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.19
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is hereby
DISMISSED. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied by t CA in its
February 24, 2014 Resolution. Hence, this petition.
SO ORDERED.17
Aggrieved, petitioner moved for reconsideration, but the same was denied by The Issue
the RTC in its May 18, 2012 Order. WHETHER THE TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS ERRED WHEN THEY
RULED THAT THE PETITIONER FAILED TO OBSERVE THE
Not satisfied, the petitioner elevated an appeal to the CA. 18 REQUIREMENTS OF AN ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDING IN THIS CASE.
Petitioner insists that the error sought to be corrected is merely a clerical
Ruling of the CA
error which does not require a material or substantial alteration so as to
necessitate an adversarial proceeding. He argues that changing his surname
In its Decision dated September 27, 2013, the CA affirmed the December 27,
from "Tan Ko" to "Tan" would not materially affect his relationship with his
2011 and May 18, 2012 Orders of the RTC. The appellate court concurred
mother or his deceased father. The correction of his name would not involve
with the trial court that the error sought to be corrected is a substantial one
an alteration on his citizenship, legitimacy of paternity, filiation, or legitimacy
which requires an adversarial proceeding. It observed that the surname "Tan
of marriage.
Ko" consistently appeared in petitioner's Certificate of Live Birth, specifically
in the entries of his name, as well as in the names of both his parents. Thus,
Petitioner also claims that her mother could not be considered as a real
it opined that the alleged mistake was not only a misspelled surname but
party-in-interest in his petition for correction of entry by the mere fact that she
involves a deletion of a word which entails a change in the surname. It then
appears to be the informant in the subject Certificate of Live Birth. After all,
stressed that the correction of petitioner's surname from "Tan Ko" to "Tan"
whatever happens to his petition, whether it be granted or denied, his mother
would be an adjudication that indeed his father's first name is "Ko" and his
would not be affected as her surname would still remain as "Corpuz." He
surname is "Tan." In effect, the correction prayed for would entail not only a
further states that he was not even sure about the authenticity of the
substantial change in his name, but would also affect the identity of his
purported signature of his mother as appearing in his Certificate of Live Birth.
father. Hence, an adversarial proceeding is required.
Thus, petitioner asserts, it is clear that the error in the entry of his name was
committed by other persons who prepared his Certificate of Live Birth,
The appellate court ruled that the totality of the evidence presented by the
particularly, the personnel at St. Paul Hospital, Manila where he was born.
petitioner is insufficient to cause the change of his surname from "Tan Ko" to
"Tan." It stated that while the documentary evidence presented by the
Lastly, the petitioner claims that he properly impleaded the LCR Manila, and
petitioner may show that he had been using the surname "Tan," they do not
no other, considering that no other person would be affected by his petition.
prove that "Tan" is his correct surname.
He also stresses that the OSG, through the deputized prosecutor,
participated in the case. Thus, petitioner submits that the requirement of
The appellate court submitted that petitioner should have impleaded or at
adversarial proceeding, if any was required, has been substantially complied
least presented his mother to testify considering that she was the informant in
with. In sum, the petitioner prays for the Court to issue an order directing the
his Certificate of Live Birth, and is, therefore, the best person to testify on the
correction of his name to "RAMON CORPUS TAN."
details surrounding his birth. However, petitioner did not implead or present
his mother as a witness. Clearly, he failed to substantiate his claim that the
In its Manifestation20 dated July 18, 2014, the Republic, through the OSG,
"Ko" in his surname was erroneously entered. The appellate court further
adopted as its Comment the Appellee's Brief21 it filed before the CA. In its
noted that in petitioner's Certificate of Live Birth, it was stated that his mother
Appellee's Brief/Comment, the Republic submits that the petitioner has
gave birth to three children prior to petitioner's birth. However, not one of his
substantially complied with the procedural requirements of an adversary
siblings or even just their birth certificates were presented to bolster the claim
proceeding. Nevertheless, it contends that petitioner failed to prove his cause

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 37 of 56
of action by clear and substantial evidence. That petitioner has shown the other hand, substantial or contentious alterations may be allowed only in
reasonable cause and compelling reason for the correction of his name, is adversarial proceedings, in which all interested parties are impleaded and
immaterial to his case. The Republic points out that reasonable cause and due process is properly observed. 25 Substantial and controversial alterations
compelling reason are relevant only to a petition for change of name under include those which may affect the citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or
Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, and not to a petition for correction of entry filiation, or legitimacy of marriage.26
under Rule 108. Thus, the dismissal of the subject petition for correction of
entry is correct. Corrections in the name, whether of the owner of the Certificate of Live Birth
or any of the parents indicated therein, may also involve substantial and
The Court's Ruling controversial matters which would require an adversarial proceeding.

The petition utterly lacks merit. In Republic of the Philippines v. Benemerito (Benemerito),27 the respondent
Petronio L. Benemerito filed a petition for the correction of the entries in the
The correction sought by petitioner involves a substantial change, not Certificate of Live Birth of his son who was born on June 1, 1990. He claimed
a mere clerical error. that his name was incorrectly entered in the Certificate of Live Birth as "Peter
Laurente Benemerito." He also sought to change the date of his marriage to
At the onset, the Court notes that the change sought by petitioner in his his wife as entered in the birth certificate from September 1, 1989 to January
Petition for Correction of Entry before the RTC is inconsistent with the 25, 1998. The Republic argued that the changes sought by respondent are
correction he prays for in the present petition. In his Petition for Correction of substantial, and not innocuous. As such, an adversarial proceeding to fully
Entry before the trial court, petitioner prayed that his name be corrected from ventilate respondent's allegations is required.
"Ramon Corpus Tan Ko" to "Ramon CORPUZ Tan." This is consistent with
his government-issued identification cards and other supporting documents The Court agreed with the Republic and declared that the corrections sought
he submitted. by the respondent could hardly qualify as just clerical errors. The Court
explained that in order to effect the desired changes, it would be essential to
In the present petition, however, he prays that his name be rectified from establish that "Peter Laurente Benemerito" and the respondent Petronio L.
"Ramon Corpus Tan Ko" to "Ramon CORPUS Tan." The Court considers this Benemerito refer to the same person. Further, the intended alteration on the
variance as a result of a typographical error due perhaps to the ineptness of date of the marriage from September 1, 1989 to January 25, 1998 would, in
petitioner's counsel. Thus, for purposes of this petition, the Court considers effect, change the status of the child from legitimate to illegitimate
the correction to "Ramon CORPUZ Tan" as petitioner's proper prayer considering that his parents were not yet legally married at the time he was
considering that it is the one consistent with his supporting documents. born on June 1, 1990.

Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court governs the proceeding for the In Republic of the Philippines v. Lugsanay Uy,28 the respondent sought the
cancellation or correction of any entry concerning the civil status of persons "correction" of her name in her Certificate of Live Birth from "Anita Sy" to
which has been recorded in the civil register.22 "Norma S. Lugsanay." She claimed that she was born on February 8, 1952,
and the illegitimate daughter of Sy Ton and Sotera Lugsanay. She argued
In Republic of the Philippines v. Valencia,23 the Court declared that a petition that as an illegitimate child, her surname should follow that of her mother's.
for correction of entry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court covers not only She further alleged that she is known to her family and friends as "Norma
clerical errors, but also substantial changes. The difference lies only on the Lugsanay" and that her school records and other legal documents bear the
procedure which would govern the correction sought. "If the correction is name "Norma S. Lugsanay." She also contended that she is a Filipino citizen
clerical, then the procedure to be adopted is summary. If the rectification and not Chinese, and all her siblings bear the surname Lugsanay and are all
affects the civil status, citizenship or nationality of a party, it is deemed Filipinos.
substantial, and the procedure to be adopted is adversary." 24
The Court noted that the entries sought to be corrected are substantial
A clerical error is one which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the alterations, and not mere clerical errors, as they touched upon respondent's
understanding; an error made by a clerk or a transcriber; a mistake in filiation and citizenship. The Court reasoned that changing respondent's
copying or writing, or a harmless change such as a correction of name that is surname from "Sy" to "Lugsanay" would change her status from legitimate to
clearly misspelled or of a misstatement of the occupation of the parent. On illegitimate.

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 38 of 56
 These cases are Section 3, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court provides that the
In this case, the alleged error could not be considered a clerical error or a civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest which would be
readily apparent mistake. Contrary to petitioner's claim, the correction sought affected by the cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register, shall
would definitely have an effect on his filiation with the persons named in his be made parties to the proceeding.
Certificate of Live Birth.
In Barco, therein private respondent Nadina Maravilla (Nadina) filed a petition
As aptly observed by the appellate court, the name "Tan Ko" has been for correction of entry in order to change the person named as the father in
consistently used not only in the entries for petitioner's name, but also for that the birth certificate of her daughter. The local civil registrar that recorded the
of his parents. In entry No. 7, the name of petitioner's father was entered as subject birth certificate was impleaded along with Francisco Maravilla
"Tan Ko," while his mother's name was entered as "Trinidad Corpus Tan Ko" (Francisco), the person originally named as the father, and Armando Gustilo
in entry No. 12. Furthermore, his mother, as the informant for petitioner's (Armando), the person said to be the real father. Notably, Francisco and
birth certificate, signed as "T.C. Tan Ko" in entry No. 17. Armando interposed no objection to the correction. Eventually, the trial court
granted the petition for correction of entry.
Verily, the "correction" of petitioner's name from "Ramon Corpus Tan Ko" to
"Ramon Corpuz Tan" would necessarily affect not only his name, but also the A petition was later filed before the CA seeking the annulment of the RTC
names of his parents as entered in his Certificate of Live Birth. Order. Milagros Barco (Milagros) filed a petition-in-intervention before the CA
arguing that she and her daughter have legal interest in the annulment of the
As correctly explained by the appellate court, altering petitioner's surname RTC Order. She explained that her daughter is also the child and heir of
from "Tan Ko" to "Tan" would, in effect, be an adjudication that the first name Armando, the alleged real father in Nadina's petition for correction of entry.
of his father is indeed "Ko" and his surname "Tan." Clearly, the correction As such, she and her daughter should have been impleaded therein, failing
would affect the identity of petitioner's father. Moreover, there would be a which, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction. The CA, however, dismissed
need to correct his mother's name from "Trinidad Corpus Tan Ko" to the petition and petition-in-intervention.
"Trinidad Corpuz Tan." This would require deleting the word "Ko" from "Tan
Ko" and changing the letter "s" to "z" in "Corpus." Following Benemerito, to The Court concurred with the CA's conclusion that the failure to implead an
effect the correction, it would be essential to establish that "Trinidad Corpus indispensable party, such as Milagros, in the petition for correction of entry
Tan Ko" and "Trinidad Corpuz Tan" refer to the same person. A summary was cured by the compliance with the publication requirement under Section
proceeding would certainly be insufficient to effect such substantial 4 of Rule 108. The Court reasoned that it could not be established whether
corrections. Nadina knew of the existence of Milagros' daughter at the time the former
filed the petition for correction. The Court explained that doubt may always
Petitioner failed to comply with the procedural requirements of an be cast as to whether a petitioner under Rule 108 would know of all the
adversarial proceeding under Rule 108. parties whose interests may be affected by the granting of a petition. The
Court stated, thus:
Petitioner claims that even if the correction sought involves a substantial Undoubtedly, Barco is among the parties referred to in Section 3 of Rule 108.
change, he has substantially complied with the requirement of appropriate Her interest was affected by the petition for correction, as any judicial
adversarial proceeding when he impleaded LCR Manila and after he caused determination that June was the daughter of Armando would affect her
the publication of the notice setting his petition for hearing in accordance with ward's share in the estate of her father. It cannot be established whether
Section 4, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. The Republic, through the OSG, Nadina knew of Mary Joy's existence at the time she filed the petition for
submits that indeed the petitioner has substantially complied with the correction. Indeed, doubt may always be cast as to whether a petitioner
procedural requirement of an adversary proceeding. Both the petitioner and under Rule 108 would know of all the parties whose interests may be
the Republic mention the cases of Barco v. Court of Appeals (Barco) 29 and affected by the granting of a petition. For example, a petitioner cannot be
Republic of the Philippines v. Kho (Kho) 30 as authorities in support of their presumed to be aware of all the legitimate or illegitimate offsprings of his/her
submission that the failure to implead indispensable parties could be cured spouse or paramour. The fact that Nadina amended her petition to implead
by compliance with the publication requirement under Section 4 of Rule 108. Francisco and Gustilo indicates earnest effort on her part to comply with
Section 3 as quoted above.
Reliance on Barco and Kho is misplaced, inapplicable to the present petition.

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 39 of 56
Yet, even though Barco was not impleaded in the petition, the Court of the same residence with petitioner, unlike in Kho. Thus, there was no
Appeals correctly pointed out that the defect was cured by compliance with showing or, at the very least, reason to believe that her mother was even
Section 4, Rule 108, which requires notice by publication[.] aware of the subject proceeding for correction of entry.

On the other hand, in Kho, the private respondents who were siblings filed a Contrary to the submissions by the parties, it is Lugsanay Uy32 which finds
petition for correction of the entries in their respective birth certificates. They application to the present petition. In said case, the private respondent
prayed, among others, that the word "married" opposite the phrase "Date of sought the "correction" of her name in her Certificate of Live Birth from "Anita
marriage of parents" be deleted because their parents were not legally Sy" to "Norma S. Lugsanay," impleading the Local Civil Registrar of Gingoog
married. Private respondent Carlito Kho, one of the siblings, also sought the City as respondent. The Court ruled that respondent should have impleaded
correction of the entries in the birth certificates of his children, specifically, the her parents and siblings as the persons who have interest, and are affected
correction of the date of marriage between him and his wife from "April 27, by the changes or corrections she wanted to make. Simply put, impleading
1989" to "January 21, 2000," the latter date being the date appearing in their and notifying only the local civil registrar is not enough, to wit:
marriage certificate; and the correction of the name of his wife's first name The fact that the notice of hearing was published in a newspaper of general
from "Maribel" to "Marivel." 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 Republic opposed the corrections and contended that since the changes the Rules of Court shows that the Rules mandate two sets of notices to
prayed for were substantial in nature, they could only be granted through an different potential oppositors: one given to the persons named in the petition
adversarial proceeding in which indispensable parties, such as Marivel and and another given to other persons who are not named in the petition but
the private respondents' parents, should have been notified or impleaded. nonetheless may be considered interested or affected parties. Summons
must, therefore, be served not for the purpose of vesting the courts with
The Court, however, dismissed the Republic's contentions ruling that when jurisdiction but to comply with the requirements of fair play and due process
all the procedural requirements under Rule 108 are complied with, the to afford the person concerned the opportunity to protect his interest if he so
appropriate adversary proceeding is satisfied. The Court stressed that it is chooses.
highly improbable that Marivel was unaware of the proceedings to correct the
entries in her children's birth certificates considering that the notices, orders, While there may be cases where the Court held that the failure to implead
and decision of the trial court were all sent to the residence she shared with and notify the affected or interested parties may be cured by the publication
Carlito and their children. With respect to the private respondents' parents, of the notice of hearing, earnest efforts were made by petitioners in
the Court noted that their father died in 1959. On the other hand, their mother bringing to court all possible interested parties. Such failure was likewise
was presented as a witness and testified as to the material allegations of the excused where the interested parties themselves initiated the
petition for correction of entries. corrections proceedings; when there is no actual or presumptive
awareness of the existence of the interested parties; or when a party is
From the foregoing, it is clear that there are circumstances which impelled inadvertently left out.33
the Court to excuse the failure to implead indispensable parties in
proceedings for cancellation or correction of entry. In Barco, it is the Petitioner failed to prove his cause of action.
supposed lack of knowledge or awareness of the petitioner of the existence
of other persons who would be affected by the corrections she sought. In Even on the assumption that petitioner complied with the requirements of an
Kho, it is the affected persons' inferred notice and actual awareness of the adversarial proceeding under Rule 108, the corrections prayed for could not
proceedings for the correction of entries. be granted.

The circumstances in Barco and Kho are unavailing in this case. It could not It is well to stress that as a public document, a registered birth certificate,
be said that petitioner was unaware of the existence of other persons who duly recorded in the local civil registry, is prima facie evidence of the facts
may be affected by the corrections sought. It is his own mother who would be stated therein.34 While it may be true that as a mere prima facie evidence, the
affected by the proceeding for correction of entry which he filed. As already facts contained in a birth certificate are not conclusive and may still be
discussed, his mother's name in the subject birth certificate would rebutted, still, a high degree of proof is needed to overthrow the presumption
necessarily be changed if the correction prayed for is granted. Further, of the truth contained in such public document. 35
petitioner's mother has neither been shown nor alleged to have been living in

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 40 of 56
The petitioner utterly failed to overcome the presumption of truth contained in
his birth certificate.

As correctly observed by the appellate court, the pieces of evidence

presented by petitioner, consisting of government-issued identification cards
and other public documents, only prove that he had been using the surname
"Tan," but not the fact that his father's surname was indeed "Tan." Aside from
being insufficient for the purpose of rebutting the truth of the entries in his
birth certificate, these identification cards and documents are also immaterial
to his cause of action. As argued by the Republic, the evidence presented by
petitioner and his plea on the ground of reasonable cause and compelling
reason, are relevant only to a petition for change of name under Rule 103,
and not under a proceeding for cancellation or correction of entry under Rule
108.

The Court agrees with the observations of the appellate court that petitioner's
mother would be the best witness to testify on the alleged errors in her son's
birth certificate. In a similar vein, the birth certificates of petitioner's older
siblings showing the surname "Tan" instead of "Tan Ko" would greatly bolster
his claim. However, for reasons known only to petitioner, he refused to
present his mother or the birth certificates of his siblings. Thus, there would
be no basis to sustain his claim that his surname should be "Tan" instead of
"Tan Ko." Accordingly, the present petition must be denied.

WHEREFORE, the present Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED for

lack of merit. The Decision dated September 27, 2013 and the Resolution
dated February 24, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 98952,
are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 41 of 56
[9] G.R. No. L-49014             March 31, 1944 he first investigated the appellant while he was serving sentence in the
provincial jail for illegal possession of firearms, in the first week of February
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RICARDO 1943, when, witness affirmed, he readily admitted his guilt, but that he did not
TIPAY, ET AL., defendants.RICARDO TIPAY, appellant. take down his confession in writing then and only did so when he
investigated him for the second time on March 2, 1943.
OZAETA, J.:
It appears that the appellant is a 27-year-old rustic, engaged in farming as a
land tenant, completely illiterate and, of course, totally ignorant of the English
At or shortly before noon on August 25, 1942, in the cockpit of Gerona,
language, in which the affidavit Exhibit C was written. He swore during the
Tarlac, and in the presence of a large crowd of cockpit habitues, the ex-
trial as a witness in his own behalf that one day he was called to the
mayor of that town, Nicolas Garcia, was treacherously daggered to death.
headquarters of the Constabulary in Tarlac, where Inspector Fernandez
The assassin escaped unscathed and unidentified.
made him sign or thumbmark the said affidavit, without asking him questions
and without interpreting to him the contents of said document, but simply
More than six months later, to wit, on March 6, 1943, an inspector of the telling him that once he had signed it he would be permitted to go home. The
Bureau of Constabulary named Pablo Fernandez filed a complaint in the appellant's supposed affidavit, Exhibit C, is couched in almost the same
justice of the peace court of Gerona against Ricardo Tipay, Hipolito Ablan, words as his co-accused Hipolito Ablan's supposed affidavit, Exhibit E.
and Joaquin Tipay for the murder above mentioned, based upon three self- Exhibit C. begins and ends thus:
incriminating supposed affidavits written in English and signed or
thumbmarked respectively by the three accused.
Now comes Ricardo Tipay alias Ernesto Gapayan, married, 27 years
old, residing at San Juan de Mata, Tarlac, Tarlac, farmer by
When the case was called for trial in the Court of First Instance of Tarlac, the occupying and under oath deposes and says:
accused Joaquin Tipay pleaded guilty while the other two accused, Ricardo
Tipay and Hipolito Ablan, pleaded not guilty. The prosecution was not able to
That between the months of June, 1942, up to December 8, 1942, I
present a single eyewitness to the commission of the crime, and relied for the
was a member of the guerrilla band under Lieutenant Vicente Balbin
conviction of the accused solely upon their extrajudicial affidavits.
of Gerona, Tarlac. That on August 25, 1942, myself together with
other guerrilla members namely, Joaquin Tipay, Hipolito Ablan, and
The trial court convicted Joaquin Tipay upon his plea of guilty, which he three other fellows whose names I do not know, received an order
reiterated on the witness stand, declaring that he alone stabbed the ex-mayor from Lieutenant Balbin to go to the cockpit located in the poblacion of
to death because he had been ordered to do so by one Vicente Balbin, "a Gerona, Tarlac, to kill the mayor of that town, Nicolas Garcia. . . .
lieutenant of the soldiers who had fought in Bataan," who treatened to have
him killed also if he disobeyed the order. The accused Hipolito Ablan was
Further, the deponent sayeth not.
acquitted because the trial court found that his alleged extrajudicial
confession or affidavit, Exhibit E, had been extorted from him by Inspector
Pablo Fernandez by means of force and physical violence upon the said Exhibit E correspondingly reads as follows:
accused, aside from a promise to liberate him after signing it. The accused
Ricardo Tipay was convicted upon his supposed extrajudicial confession or Now comes Hipolito Ablang, married, 35 years of age, residing at
affidavit, Exhibit C, and, together with Joaquin Tipay, was sentenced to suffer San Juan de Valdez, Tarlac, Tarlac, farmer by occupation and under
"cadena (sic) perpetua," with the accessories of the law, and to indemnify the oaths deposes and says:
heirs of the deceased in the sum of P2,000. Ricardo Tipay alone has
appealed from the sentence. That between the months of June 1942 up to October 1942, I was a
member of the guerrilla band under Lt. Vicente Balbin of Gerona,
As already intimated, the only evidence against the appellant is his Tarlac. That on August 25, 1942, myself together with five other
extrajudicial supposed confession which Inspector Pablo Fernandez admitted guerrilla members, namely Joaquin Tipay, Ricardo Tipay and three
having dictated in English, altho he claimed that it was a translation of what other fellows whose names I can not remember were ordered by Lt.
appellant had declared before him in Ilocano. Fernandez further declared that Vicente Balbin to go to the cockpit located at the poblacion at

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 42 of 56
 Gerona, Tarlac, for the purpose of killing the mayor of that town, Exhibit C. It is true that Fernandez denied such testimony; but the moment he
Nicolas Garcia. . . . stands convicted in the one instance of committing a brutal and criminal act,
we can not believe that he acted regularly and lawfully in the other instance
Further, the deponent sayeth not. upon the same occasion and for the same purpose. We do not find it difficult
to believe that one who could torture a fellowman to extract a confession
from his lips could also make a false promise of liberty to another to achieve
On their face these two separate declarations could not have been
a similar end. If, notwithstanding Inspector Fernandez denial that he used
spontaneously made by two different individuals Assuming that the
force and violence upon Hipolito Ablan, the trial court found that he did resort
declarants spoke freely in their own mother tongue, the above quoted
to such a brutal and criminal act, we do not find it difficult to believe that he
declarations could not have been a faithful or accurate translation of what
also resorted to the unlawful promise of liberty to secure the appellant's
they expressed. No two persons will related the same experience or
affidavit, Exhibit C.
impression is exactly the same words and in the same manner. It is apparent
that the two affidavits were a composition of one single author. May such a
composition be relied upon to doom a man to perpetual incarceration? In this noonday of the twentieth century, when criminology and the
investigation of crimes have developed into a science in all civilized countries
abreast with the progress and the ever-increasing enlightenment of the
It will be remembered that Exhibit E was accorded no probative value by the
human race, to force or induce a suspect to incriminate himself thru violence,
trial court because it had been extorted by force and violence and promise of
torture, or trickery is a shameful disgrace — a reversion into the barbarism
liberty. Upon this point the trial court said:
and the inquisitorial practices of the Dark Ages; and the minions of the law
who would still resort to such crude and cruel methods are universally
. . . Hipolito Ablang alega que ha sido maltratado por el Inspector regarded as anachronistic blockheads, who should be immediately lopped off
Pablo Fernandez durante la investigacion, habiendo sufrido as a cancerous exerscene of the body politic.
contusiones en la frente y labio superior y una herida en la region
intercostal izquierda a consecuencia de dichos malostratos y fue de
It is interesting to note that in the affidavit Exhibit C the appellant is
este modo obligado por el referido Inspector Fernandez a declarar y
represented as being "armed with a caliber 45 revolver," but the only
suscribir su declaracion exhibito E ademas de haberle prometido
participation in the crime attributed to him was, in the words of the affidavit
libertad inmediata despues de que dicha declaracion fuera suscrita
itself, the following:
por el. El haber sufrido este acusado Ablang a consecuencia de los
malostratos, contusiones en la frente y en el labio superior y herida
en la region intercostal izquierda esta plenamente corroborado por el . . . Nicolas Garcia upon seeing me took hold of my both arms and
Dr. Lagade, actual alcalde del municipio de Gerona, Tarlac, y uno de we grappled together. While we were grappling together I saw
los testigos del Gobierno, quien manifesto que el dia 6 de marzo de Joaquin Tipay stabbed him on the left side of his stomach. After
1943 cuando el Inspector Fernandez de la Constabularia presento Joaquin Tipay stabbed him I was able to put him down. After putting
ante el, en ausencia del Juez de Paz, la querella contra estos him down Hipolito Ablan stabbed him twice in his breast and Nicolas
Garcia was not able to stand any more. Seeing this condition of his,
myself and the rest of my companions ran away. . . .
Exhibit C having been repudiated during the trial by the appellant, who swore
that he did not comprehend its contents but that he merely affixed his
thumbmark to it because he was told that if he did so he would be permitted Whether that statement was made by the supposed declarant or dictated by
to go home, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to impeach that the investigator as his own harvest, it sounds to us like a crude fabrication.
repudiation. It having been clearly shown to the satisfaction of the trial court Think of a guerrillero, commissioned to assassinate an unwary victim and
that Inspector Fernandez, in procuring Hipolito Ablan's signature to the armed for that purpose with a .45 caliber revolver, who attempts not to make
affidavit, Exhibit E. resorted not only to the reprehensible and unlawful tactics the slightest use of that powerful weapon but simply allows himself to be held
of promising liberty but to the brutal act of committing physical violence and in both arms by his intended victim, who apparently without knowing him or
force upon the person of the accused, we find no sufficient reason to his intention grapples with him immediately upon seeing him! We also note
disbelieve the testimony of the appellant Ricardo Tipay to the effect that the that the affidavits of the three accused disclose the theory that Lt. Vicente
said constabulary officer resorted to a similar but less violent method — Balbin commissioned no less than six persons to assassinate an
promise of immunity — in inducing him to affix his thumbmark to the affidavit unsuspecting and defenseless man in the cockpit, as if a squad or an excess
of personnel were required to accomplish the dastardly job and at the same

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 43 of 56
time increase the change of one or more of the participants being identified, what I know, if my memory does not fail, I think Ricardo Tipay was
caught, and made to squeal on the instigator. What is still more remarkable is here in the provincial jail to be taken for investigation."
that altho the complaint was based on said affidavits which denounced
Vicente Balbin as the principal and instigator of the crime, he was not The very synopsis of the record signed and forwarded by the justice of the
included as one of the accused, in flagrant disregard of the requirement of peace Patricio T. Rigor (folio 25) contains the following item:
the law that "all criminal actions must be commenced . . . against all persons
who appear to be responsible therefor." (Sec. 1, Rule 106.) In the annals of March 23, 1943 — The complaint read to the accused Hipolito
the Court we do not recall having come across such an amateurish Ablang and Joaquin Tipay, and they entered the plea of not guilty.
investigator as this one whom the trial court has found guilty of employing
physical violence to extort a confession from a suspect.
The supposed arraignment of the appellant, like that of his two coaccused,
bears the date March 23, 1943, and yet, altho said arraignment bears the
Nevertheless, the trial court gave probative value to the affidavit Exhibit C (a) signature of justice of the peace Patricio T. Rigor, it was not mentioned in his
because the record of the justice of the peace court (folio 17) shows that certification of the record. this fact, together with the lack of signature or
appellant pleaded guilty upon being arraigned there; (b) because the thumbmark of the appellant, tends to show that said justice of the peace must
statement in said affidavit that appellant grappled with the deceased in the have signed the intended arraignment been shown to the appellant during
cockpit of Gerona is corroborated by the finding of the cadaver in the very the trial, he could have declared whether or not he was really arraigned and
same cockpit; and (c) because said affidavit is further corroborated by the whether or not he pleaded guilty, and if necessary the justice of the peace
affidavit of Joaquin Tipay, Exhibit D. We find such reasons untenable. could and should have been called as a witness.

The supposed arraignment of the appellant before the justice of the peace As to the supposed corroboration of Exhibit C by the finding of the cadaver in
was never mentioned during the trial, the record of it was not shown to the cockpit, it seems to us patent that it cannot be considered a corroboration
appellant when he testified as a witness in his own behalf so that he could at all because at the time the affidavit was prepared, the body of the
affirm or deny that he really pleaded guilty, and if he did, to explain the deceased had been found at the scene of the crime, and it would have been
circumstances under which he made the plea, and was not offered and the height of carelessness and absurdity to state in said affidavit that the
admitted in evidence during the trial. We have held that a preliminary murder was perpetrated somewhere else.
investigation constitutes no part of the final proceedings in a cause unless it
is presented in evidence, and that the facts adduced therein are evidence
only for the purpose of testing the credibility of witnesses. (U.S. vs. Grant, 18 As to the alleged corroboration of Exhibit C by Joaquin Tipay's supposed
Phi., 122; U.S. vs. Laban, 21 Phil., 297; and U.S. vs. Lopez Quim Quinco, 33 confession Exhibit D, suffice it to say that the latter was admitted, and could
Phil., 239, 240-241.) The wisdom and necessity of that doctrine are only have been admitted, to rebut the testimony of Joaquin Tipay during the
exemplified in the instant case. It appears here that whereas the record of trial that he alone had killed Nicolas Garcia and that Ricardo Tipay had no
arraignment of the other two accused, Joaquin Tipay and Hipolito Ablan, was participation in the commission of the crime. That extrajudicial confession of
signed by each of them on the dotted line provided for the signature of the Joaquin Tipay was not admissible and could not be considered as evidence
accused, that of the appellant Ricardo Tipay does not appear to have been in chief against his coaccused, the herein appellant. As a rebuttal evidence,
signed or thumbmarked by him. We find the explanation for this is the fact proceeding as it did from the same vicious origin as the affidavits Exhibits C
that unlike his two coaccused who were detained in the municipal jail of and E, it can be accorded no probatory value. Moreover, we do not need to
Gerona after their arrest and, therefore, easily available for arraignment consider and accept the testimony of Joaquin Tipay in favor of the appellant
before the justice of the peace, the appellant Ricardo Tipay was at that time a in the absence of any valid proof against the latter.
prisoner in the provincial jail at the provincial capital and he, having
renounced the preliminary investigation, was not brought before the justice of It results from all the foregoing considerations that appellant's conviction by
the peace of Gerona, according to the testimony of the municipal mayor and the trial court rests upon incompetent and inadmissible evidence consisting
acting justice of the peace, Pacifico Lagade, who, to the question solely of extrajudicial affidavits which are shown to have been unlawfully
propounded by the court, responded as follows: procured by a constabulary investigator thru methods abhorrent to and
condemned by all courts of the civilized world.
P. — Este Ricardo Tipay, que le dijo a usted cuando le investigo
usted? — R. — I think Ricardo Tipay was not there, and according to

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 44 of 56
The judgment appealed from is reversed and the appellant Ricardo Tipay is Administrator and Civil [Registrar] General of the National Statistics Office,
hereby acquitted and ordered released forthwith from the custody of the law, Sta. Mesa, Manila. Further, the Bureau of Customs is also directed to effect
with costs de oficio. the correction of the date of birth of the petitioner in the latter's official records
in the Agency. SO ORDERED.8
[10] G.R. No. 239011, June 17, 2019 The decision became final and executory on October 8, 2015.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, PETITIONER, v. PACOL DISUMIMBA On January 21, 2016, respondent filed with the Civil Service Commission-
RASUMAN, RESPONDENT. National Capital Region (CSC-NCR) a request9 for correction of his date of
birth in his service records. In a letter10 dated March 3, 2016, the CSC-NCR
DECISION required respondent to submit certain documents. Respondent submitted the
following documents: the original copy of his Certificate of Live Birth issued
by the Philippine Statistics Authority with remarks that his date of birth was
PERALTA, J.:
corrected from February 12, 1952 to February 12, 1956 pursuant to the July
23, 2015 RTC Decision; his affidavits explaining the discrepancy in his date
Before us is a petition for review on certiorari1 which seeks to annul and set of birth and the fact that he was not baptized as it is not a Muslim practice;
aside the Decision2 dated October 25, 2017 and the Resolution 3 dated April affidavits of two witnesses attesting to the truthfulness of his claim that his
26, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 151017. date of birth was February 12, 1956; and the certified true copies of his
service records card and the Personal Data Sheet issued by the CSC Field
The facts are as follows: Office, Department of Public Works and Highways, indicating his birthdate as
February 12, 1952.
On April 16, 2014, respondent Pacol Disumimba Rasuman, a Senior
Executive Assistant in the Bureau of Customs (BOC), filed before the On June 27, 2016, the CSC-NCR issued Resolution No. 1601236 11 denying
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lanao del Sur, Branch 9, Marawi City, a respondent's request for correction. The decretal portion of which reads:
verified petition4 for correction of his date of birth from February 12, 1952 to WHEREFORE, the instant request is hereby DENIED. Accordingly, the
February 12, 1956, docketed as SPL. PROC. No. 2191-14, impleading as records of the Commission shall still reflect February 12, 1952 as the correct
respondent the Local Civil Registrar of Marantao, Lanao del Sur. The RTC date of birth of petitioner.
issued an Order5 setting the case for hearing and directing the publication of
the Order in a newspaper of general circulation in Marawi City and Iligan City Let copies of this Resolution be furnished [to] Pacol Disumimba Rasuman
for three consecutive weeks at the expense of respondent, and that the and [the] Civil Service Commission - National Capital Region, Department of
Order and the petition, as well as its annexes, be furnished the Local Civil Public Works and Highways Field Office at their known addresses. 12
Registrar of Marantao, Lanao del Sur, the Office of the Solicitor General, and It held that while respondent's Certificate of Live Birth (belatedly registered)
the Civil Registrar General which respondent complied with. Respondent supported his claim that his date of birth was February 12, 1956, however,
later filed an Amended Petition6 to implead the BOC. his employment and school records showed otherwise; that his personal data
sheet on file with the CSC Field Office showed that he attended elementary
In a Decision7 dated July 23, 2015, the RTC granted the petition for school from 1957 to 1962; thus, if his birthday was February 12, 1956, he
correction. The dispositive portion of which reads: was only one year old at the time he first attended elementary school.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Judgment is hereby rendered Respondent filed a petition for review with the CSC Proper.
GRANTING the petition, and therefore, it is hereby judicially declared that the
True and Correct date of birth of petitioner, Pacol Disumimba Rasuman, is On January 13, 2017, the CSC issued Decision No. 170058 dismissing the
February 12, 1956. petition for review. It held that it is not bound by the July 23, 2015 RTC
decision in the correction of respondent's birthdate because it was not
Consequently, the Local Civil Registrar of Marantao, Lanao del Sur is hereby
impleaded therein, although it was an indispensable party; that the RTC
directed to make marginal annotation of the x x x Decision to the Certificate
decision would have no effect insofar as the CSC is concerned, citing our
of Live Birth of petitioner on file in his office, relative to the latter's correct
decision in Police Senior Superintendent Macawadib v. The Philippine
date of birth, which is February 12, 1956 and, thereafter to forward the
corrected copy of the Certificate of Live Birth of the petitioner to the

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 45 of 56
National Police Directorate for Personnel and Records Management.13 The The CSC, however, contends that it is an indispensable party to the petition
dispositive portion of the decision reads: for correction of respondent's date of birth filed in the RTC; and for not having
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review of Pacol Disumimba Rasuman, Senior been impleaded, it is not bound by the RTC decision granting the petition, so
Executive Assistant, Bureau of Customs (BoC), Manila is DISMISSED. it properly denied respondent's request for correction of his date of birth in his
Accordingly, Resolution No. 1601236 dated June 27,2016 of the Civil Service service records. We find merit in the petition.
Commission National Capital Region (CSC NCR), Quezon City, denying Petition for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry is governed
Rasuman's request for correction of personal information is AFFIRMED. The by Rule 108 of the Rules of Court which provides, among others:
date of birth of Rasuman appearing in the records of the Commission shall SEC. 3. Parties. - When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil
remain as February 12, 1952. 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
Copies of the Decision shall be furnished [to] the Bureau of Customs (BoC) proceeding.
and the CSC NCR for their reference and appropriate action. 14
Respondent's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CSC in its SEC. 4. Notice and Publication. - Upon the filing of the petition, the court
Resolution No. 170084715 dated May 8, 2017. 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
Respondent filed a petition for review with the CA. The parties filed their petition. The court shall also cause the order to be published once a week for
respective pleadings, and the case was submitted for decision. three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the
province.
On October 25, 2017, the CA issued its assailed decision, the dispositive
portion of which reads: SEC. 5. Opposition. - The civil registrar and any person having or claiming
WHEREFORE, the instant petition for review is GRANTED. Accordingly, the any interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought may,
January 13, 2017 Decision No. 170058 and May 8, 2017 Resolution No. within fifteen (15) days from notice of the petition, or from the last date of
1700847 of the Civil Service Commission in NDC-2016-07025 are hereby publication of such notice, file his opposition thereto.
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Civil Service Commission is DIRECTED The essential requirement for allowing substantial correction of entries in the
to comply with the July 23, 2015 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of civil registry is that the true facts be established in an appropriate adversarial
Lanao del Sur, Branch 9, Marawi City in SPL. PROC. No. 2191-14. SO proceeding.18 Section 3 requires that all persons who have or claim any
ORDERED.16 interest which would be affected thereby shall be made parties to the
proceeding. Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 108 provide for two sets of notices to
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which the CA denied in a two different potential oppositors, i.e., (1) notice to the persons named in the
Resolution dated April 26, 2018. petition; and (2) notice to other persons who are not named in the petition,
but, nonetheless, may be considered interested or affected parties. 19 The two
Petitioner filed the instant petition for review on the ground that: sets of notices are mandated under the above-quoted Section 4 and are
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN validated by Section 5, also above-quoted, which provides for two periods
RULING THAT PETITIONER ERRED WHEN IT DENIED RESPONDENT'S (for the two types of "potential oppositors") within which to file an opposition
REQUEST FOR THE CORRECTION OF HIS SERVICE RECORD.17 (15 days from notice or from the last date of publication). 20 Summons must,
The CA found that a petition directed against the thing itself or the res, which therefore, be served not for the purpose of vesting the courts with jurisdiction,
concerns the status of a person, like correction of entries in the birth but to comply with the requirements of fair play and due process to afford the
certificate, is an action in rem and which jurisdiction over the person of the person concerned the opportunity to protect his interest if he so chooses. 21
defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court, provided the
latter has jurisdiction over the res. The service of summons or notice to the In De Pedro v. Romasan Development Corporation,22 we held:
defendant is not for the purpose of vesting the court with jurisdiction, but Jurisdiction over the parties is required regardless of the type of action -
merely for satisfying the due process requirements. Being a proceeding in whether the action is in personam, in rem, or quasi in rem.
rem, the decision in the correction of entry case binds not only the parties,
but the whole world; and that an in rem proceeding is validated essentially In actions in personam, the judgment is for or against a person directly.
through publication. Jurisdiction over the parties is required in actions in personam because they
seek to impose personal responsibility or liability upon a person.

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 46 of 56
 aforementioned government agencies are, thus, required to be made parties
Courts need not acquire jurisdiction over parties on this basis in in rem and to the proceeding. They are indispensable parties, without whom no final
quasi in rem actions. Actions in rem or quasi in rem are not directed against determination of the case can be had. An indispensable party is defined as
the person based on his or her personal liability. one who has such an interest in the controversy or subject matter that a final
adjudication cannot be made, in his absence, without injuring or affecting that
Actions in rem are actions against the thing itself. They are binding upon the interest. In the fairly recent case of Go v. Distinction Properties Development
whole world. Quasi in rem actions are actions involving the status of a and Construction, Inc., the Court had the occasion to reiterate the principle
property over which a patty has interest. Quasi in rem actions are not binding that:
upon the whole world. They affect only the interests of the particular parties. Under Section 7, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, "parties in interest without
whom no final determination can be had of an action shall be joined as
However, to satisfy the requirements of due process, jurisdiction over the plaintiffs or defendants." If there is a failure to implead an indispensable
parties in in rem and quasi in rem actions is required. party, any judgment rendered would have no effectiveness. It is "precisely
'when an indispensable party is not before the court (that) an action should
The phrase, "against the thing," to describe in rem actions is a metaphor. It is be dismissed.' The absence of an indispensable party renders all subsequent
not the "thing" that is the party to an in rem action; only legal or natural actions of the court null and void for want of authority to act, not only as to
persons may be parties even in in rem actions. "Against the thing" means the absent parties but even to those present." The purpose of the rules on
that resolution of the case affects interests of others whether direct or joinder of indispensable parties is a complete determination of all issues not
indirect. It also asstm1es that the interests - in the form of rights or duties - only between the parties themselves, but also as regards other persons who
attach to the thing which is the subject matter of litigation. In actions in rem, may be affected by the judgment. A decision valid on its face cannot attain
our procedure assumes an active vinculum over those with interests to the real finality where there is want of indispensable parties.
thing subject of litigation.
In the instant case, there is a necessity to implead the PNP, NAPOLCOM
Due process requires that those with interest to the thing in litigation be and CSC because they stand to be adversely affected by petitioner's petition
notified and given an opportunity to defend those interests. Courts, as which involves substantial and controversial alterations in petitioner's service
guardians of constitutional rights, cannot be expected to deny persons their records.25 (Citations omitted.)
due process rights while at the same time be considered as acting within In this case, respondent sought from the RTC the correction of his birthdate
their jurisdiction.23 (Citations omitted.) from February 12, 1952 to February 12, 1956. He impleaded in his petition
In Police Senior Superintendent Macawadib v. The Philippine National Police for correction the BOC, the agency where he was working at so as to update
Directorate for Personnel and Records Management,24 we already held that his service records, but did not implead the CSC. It bears stressing that one
there is a necessity to implead the CSC in petitions for correction of entries of the CSC's mandated functions under Executive Order No. 292 is to keep
that would affect a government employee's service records. In that case, and maintain personnel records of all officials and employees in the civil
petitioner therein, Police Senior Superintendent Dimapinto Macawadib, filed service. Therefore, the CSC has an interest in the petition for correction of
with the RTC of Marawi City a Petition for Correction of Entry in his birth respondent's birth certificate since the correction entails a substantial change
certificate which the RTC granted; and the Philippine National Police (PNP), in its public record, i.e., he would have an additional four years before
the National Police Commission, and the CSC were ordered to make the reaching his compulsory retirement age. To reiterate, Section 3 of Rule 108
necessary correction in their records of Macawadib's date of birth. The RTC mandatorily requires that the civil registrar and the interested parties who
decision had become final and executory. The PNP filed a petition for would be affected by the grant of a petition for correction should be made
annulment of judgment with the CA on the ground that the RTC failed to parties. Considering that the CSC is an indispensable party, it should have
acquire jurisdiction over it, an unimpleaded indispensable party. The CA been impleaded in respondent's petition, and sent a personal notice to
nullified and set aside the RTC decision and barred Macawadib from comply with the requirements of fair play and due process, before it could be
continuing and prolonging his tenure with the PNP beyond the mandatory affected by the decision granting the correction of his date of birth. The CSC
retirement age of fifty-six (56) years. We affirmed the CA decision and held: should have been afforded due process before its interest be affected, no
[I]t is the integrity and correctness of the public records in the custody of the matter how the proceeding was classified. Thus, the CSC correctly denied
PNP, National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) and Civil Service respondent's request for correction of his date of birth on the basis of the
Commission (CSC) which are involved and which would be affected by any RTC decision granting the correction.
decision rendered in the petition for correction filed by herein petitioner. The

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 47 of 56
The CA's reliance on our decision in Civil Service Commission v. Magoyag26 of the notice of hearing, such as earnest efforts were made by petitioners in
- that since the petition for correction of entry filed in the RTC was a bringing to court all possible interested parties, the interested parties
proceeding in rem, the decision therein binds not only the parties thereto but themselves initiated the correction proceedings, there is no actual or
the whole world and that an in rem proceeding is validated essentially presumptive awareness of the existence of the interested parties, or when a
through publication - is misplaced. party is inadvertently left out,27 none of them applies in respondent's case.

In Magoyag, the respondent therein, Madlawi Magoyag, then Deputy In this case, while respondent impleaded the BOC when he amended his
Collector of the BOC in Cagayan de Oro City, filed with the RTC of Lanao del petition for correction of entry, he did not implead the CSC. To stress, the
Sur, Marawi City, a petition for correction of his birthdate from July 22, 1947 CSC is the central personnel agency of the government and, as such, keeps
to July 22, 1954 which was granted. The RTC then ordered the Government and maintains the personal records of all officials and employees in the civil
Service Insurance System, and the BOC to effect a correction in his date of service. Notwithstanding that respondent knew that the correction of his date
birth. The RTC subsequently issued an amended decision by further directing of birth would have an effect on the condition of his employment, he still did
the Local Civil Registrar and the CSC to immediately effect a correction of not exert earnest efforts in bringing to court the CSC, and there is no showing
the entry of Magoyag's date of birth. Magoyag requested the CSC to correct that the CSC was only inadvertently left out. We, therefore, find no basis for
his date of birth appearing in his employment records. The CSC denied the CA's ruling that respondent's case falls under the exceptional
Magoyag's request since based on the official transcript of records issued by circumstances where the failure to implead indispensable parties was
Liceo de Cagayan University, he graduated from college in November 1967, excused.
which was highly improbable if he was born on July 22, 1954 as it would
mean that he graduated from college at the age of thirteen (13), from high WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED. The
school at the age of nine (9), and from elementary at the age of five (5). Decision dated October 25, 2017 and the Resolution dated April 26, 2018 of
Respondent then filed a petition for review with the CA which granted the the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 151017 are hereby REVERSED and
petition and ordered the CSC to comply with the RTC decision. The CSC SET ASIDE. The January 13, 2017 Decision No. 170058 and May 8, 2017
filed a petition for review with us which we denied. We found, among others, Resolution No. 1700847 of the Civil Service Commission in NDC-2016-
that the CSC's concern should have been brought up in the RTC 07025 are hereby REINSTATED. SO ORDERED.
proceedings.

Notably, the CSC, in the Magoyag case, had been particularly directed by the
RTC to immediately effect a correction of the entry of respondent's birth
certificate in their records. In effect, the CSC had knowledge of the RTC
decision, and could have raised its opposition thereto. In this case, the CSC
was not impleaded at all in respondent's petition for correction of his date of
birth filed with the RTC, and it was never specifically ordered to make the
correction in respondent's records, as his amended petition only prayed for
the BOC to effect correction on his employment records to reflect his true and
correct date of birth. The CSC was not at all apprised of the proceedings in
the RTC and not bound by such decision.

The CA found that the CSC was only inadvertently left out since respondent
even amended his petition for correction of entries by impleading the BOC
which indicated his earnest efforts to comply with the requirement of the
rules, thus the failure to implead the CSC was cured by the publication of the
notice of hearing, and it is legally bound to give effect to the RTC decision
granting the correction of his date of birth.

While there may be cases where the Court held that the failure to implead
and notify the affected or interested parties may be cured by the publication

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 48 of 56
[11] G.R. No. L-14400 August 5, 1960 hearing and consideration of the amended inventory was, in an order dated
April 29, 1957, postponed until further assignment.
FELICISIMO GATMAITAN, administrator, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs.
GORGONIO D. MEDINA, co-administrator, Defendant-Appellee. On April 2, 1957, the heirs of the deceased, through counsel, filed a "Motion
for Partial Partition and Distribution," stating that the estate had no debts and
REYES, J.B.L., J.: the heirs were all of legal age; that some of them were necessitous and in
need of cash; and praying that the share corresponding to each of the heirs
in the palay produce for the agricultural year 1956-1957, as well as the cash
Appeal from the order dated April 5, 1957 of the Court of First Instance of
deposit in the different banks, be ordered partially distributed among the heirs
Nueva Ecija in Special Proceedings No. 972, which reads as follows:
pending the final distribution of the estate. The court heard counsel for
administrator Gatmaitan and for the heirs or oppositors, but without receiving
This is a motion for partial partition and distribution. The parties having any evidence whatsoever, promulgated on April 5, 1957 the order subject-
agreed that only the heirs Dominica Medina and Gorgonio Medina be given matter of the instant appeal. On April 26, 1957, the administrator, Gatmaitan,
an advance payment of P1,000.00 from the cash deposit, and they, as well filed a motion for reconsideration, calling attention to the fact that, contrary to
as the other heirs twenty-five cavans of palay each for their subsistence, to what the order states, "he has not agreed to the partial distribution of the
be included in the final distribution of the residue of the estate, the estate in the manner contained in the order", and urging that "the sums
administrator is hereby ordered to advance to Dominica Medina and ordered to be partially distributed are not warranted by the circumstances
Gorgonio Medina the amount of P1,000.00, each, from the cash deposit of obtaining" in the case and that, moreover, "the manner of distribution will
the estate, and twenty-five cavans each to all the five heirs for their work difficulties to the estate and to the heirs themselves". As previously
subsistence, pending the liquidation of the said estate, provided that the indicated, this motion was denied by Judge Agustin P. Montesa for lack of
same shall be collated in the final distribution of shares among the heirs; and merit.
from the order of April 29, 1957, denying for lack of merit appellant's motion
for reconsideration.
Gatmaitan filed a notice of appeal from the foregoing orders. On May 17,
1957, appellant filed a record on appeal and notified counsel for the
The records disclose that the following proceedings were had in the lower oppositors of the date he would move for the approval thereof by the court.
court: The order of Judge Felix Makasiar, dated July 15, 1957, approving the record
on appeal presented by appellant, states that counsel for the oppositors had
On March 10, 1956, Felicisimo Gatmaitan filed a petition, seeking his failed to file written opposition thereto as required in the order of the court
appointment as administrator of the property of his wife, Veronica Medina, dated June 12, 1957, notwithstanding the length of time that had already
who died intestate. On April 2, 1956, Gorgonio Medina and Dominica elapsed. In his brief, appellant only made one assignment of error, and it
Medina, as heirs of the deceased (she being their full-blooded sister), filed an reads thus:
opposition, praying that Gorgonio Medina, or a neutral third party, or
Felicisimo Gatmaitan and Gorgonio Medina, jointly, be appointed as The lower court gravely abused its discretion in directing a partial distribution
administrator or administrators of the estate. In an order dated July 18, 1956, of the intestate estate of the deceased Veronica Medina in favor of appellees,
the court appointed Felicisimo Gatmaitan as administrator of the estate with a under its order of April 5, 1957, without requiring the distributees to file the
bond in the amount of P2,000.00 and Gorgonio Medina as co-administrator proper bonds pursuant to the provisions of Rule 91, Section 1 of the Revised
without compensation and bond. Rules of Court.

On March 14, 1957, administrator Gatmaitan filed an amended inventory of This appeal was originally taken to the Court of Appeals, but, since there is
the estate left by the deceased consisting of an undivided half of the conjugal no serious issue of fact involved in the case, the same was certified to us
partnership properties and amounting all in all to P31,336.60. An opposition pursuant to the appellate court's resolution of August 28, 1958.
to the admission of said inventory was registered by the oppositors on the
ground that the same did not represent the true and faithful list of the
The lower court, we believe, erred in rendering the order appealed from. A
properties left by the deceased, and, particularly, that a parcel of twenty-two
partial distribution 1 of the decedent's estate pending the final termination of
(22) hectares of land, more or less, was left out. In view of the opposition, the

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 49 of 56
the testate or intestate proceedings should as much as possible be executor or administrator, or of a person interested in the estate, and after
discouraged by the courts and, unless in extreme cases, such form of hearing upon notice, shall assign the residue of the estate to the person
advances of inheritance should not be countenanced. The reason for this entitled to the same, naming them and the proportions, or parts, to which is
strict rule is obvious - courts should guard with utmost zeal and jealousy the entitled, and such persons may demand and recover their respective shares
estate of the decedent to the end that the creditors thereof be adequately from the executor or administrator, or any other person having the same in
protected and all the rightful heirs assured of their shares in the inheritance. his possession.

Why the appealed order is unwarranted is evident on three counts. Firstly, to No distribution shall be allowed until the payment of the obligations above
our mind, the partial distribution was prematurely ordered by the lower court. mentioned has been made or provided for, unless the distributees or any of
It appears that at the time the questioned order was rendered, the amended them, give a bond, in the sum to be fixed by the court, conditioned for the
inventory and appraisal filed by the administrator-appellant was not yet even payment of said obligations within such time as the courts directs.
accepted, and it was still under consideration by the court, in view of an
opposition to the admission thereof by some of the heirs. Moreover, it seems Appellees contend that the order of partial distribution having been issued
that notices for the presentation of claims by possible creditors of the estate pursuant to an agreement of the parties, the same could not now be assailed
had not yet been published, so that the period for the presentation of claims by the appellant. While the wording of the appealed order seem to indicate
had not as yet elapsed. Consequently, it cannot be safely said that the court that it was rendered with the conformity of the heirs, there is reason to
had a sufficient basis upon which to order a partial distribution of the believe that it was just a mistaken impression on the part of the court. Soon
properties, having in mind the adverse effects that it might have on the rights after the order was rendered, the administrator-appellant filed a motion for
of the creditors and the heirs alike. 2 As pointed out by the appellant, there reconsideration, among other things, calling the attention of the court that he
are indications that the fruits and cash amounts ordered to be partially never agreed to the partial distribution of the estate in the manner ordained in
distributed would be in excess of the distributees' full inheritance from the the appealed order. Although said motion was denied for lack of merit, the
estate. The inventory, as filed, showed a total sum of P31,336.60 that court did not deny categorically appellant's imputation, which could have
actually represents the conjugal partnership assets, half of which belongs to been easily averred to by it; nor did the appellees at any time prior to this
the surviving spouse. Said inventory does not embody any deductions for appeal controvert the aforesaid allegation of the administrator. There is
such expenses as funeral charges, inheritance taxes, expenses for plausibility in appellant's statement that the agreement referred to in the
administration or an estimate of probable debts of the estate. It is worthwhile order was actually one between the appellees among themselves.
to state in this connection that besides the appellant, as the surviving spouse
of the decedent, there are about eight others, all claiming to be lawful heirs It should be noted, furthermore, that the bond required by the Rules is not
and seeking respective shares in the estate, five of whom are alleged full- solely for the protection of the heirs then appearing, but also for the benefit of
blood brothers and sisters and three half-blood brothers 3 of the deceased creditors and subsequent claimants who have not agreed to the advances.
Medina. It should be noted that appellees, being brothers and sisters of the
deceased, are not entitled to allowances for support, such as the court is
authorized to provide, under Section 3 of Rule 84 of the Rules of Court, for As to the argument, that the order in question is merely interlocutory and
the widow and the children 4 of the deceased during the settlement of the therefore not appealable, We find that the objection was not seasonably
estate proceedings, to be deducted from the respective shares of the interposed by the appellees. In Salazar vs. Salazar, G.R. No. L-5823, April
participants. 29, 1953, it was held, and we quote:

Second, and more important, no bond was fixed by the court as a condition The motion to dismiss filed by appellee during the pendency of this appeal on
precedent to the partial distribution ordered by it, a bond which, because of the ground that the order appealed from is not appealable because it is
the reasons already adduced, becomes all the more imperative. merely interlocutory, cannot be entertained. While an order denying or
granting alimony pendente lite is interlocutory and consequently non
appealable . . ., however, if appeal is taken therefrom, and no timely
Rule 91, Section 1 of the Rules of Court, specifically provides as follows: objection is interposed thereto, the objection is deemed waived. Thus, when
the objection is founded on the ground that the judgment appealed from is
When the debts, funeral charges, and expenses of administration, the interlocutory, but the appellee, before making such objection, has allowed the
allowances to the widow, and inheritance tax, if any, chargeable to the estate record on appeal to be approved and printed, and has allowed the appellant
in accordance with law, have been paid, the court, on the application of the

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 50 of 56
to print his brief, such objection is too late and is deemed waived (Slade- they were consulted. Hence, the bond offered could not affect the merits of
Perkins vs. Perkins, 57 Phil., 223, 225; Linguengo and Martinez vs. Herrero, this appeal, although the Court below is not precluded for approving a new
17 Phil., 29; Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, Vol. 1, 1952, ed., p. bond. Wherefore, the order of partial distribution appealed from is set aside,
987). without prejudice to the issue of another order after strict compliance with the
Rules of Court. The records are ordered remanded to the lower court for
Lastly, appellees urged that this appeal was prematurely taken in that further proceedings. Costs against appellees.
appellant has not as yet formally objected to the proffered bond as mentioned
in an alleged order of the court, dated May 16, 1957, which appellees have
quoted in their brief, as follows:

Atty. Cesar Francisco, counsel for the administrator, is hereby given one
week from today within which to file his manifestation as to whether the
administrator is willing to withdraw his appeal from the order dated April 5,
1957, provided Atty. V.M. Ruiz files a bond in the amount of P2,000.00 and
the value of 25 cavanes of palay granted to each of the two heirs Dominica
Medina and Gorgonio Medina in the aforesaid order of the Court to
guarantee the refund of the said amount and the value of the palay should
the same be found to be in excess of what is due to the said two heirs upon
the final distribution of the estates; and upon which, they (appellees) filed the
following manifestation dated May 23, 1957:

CONSIDERING that up to the present, the Court has not as yet ruled upon
counsel's opposition or objection to the administrator's appeal, nor have the
administrator or that of his counsel rejected the heir's offer of a bond to
answer for whatever excess they might receive as advance inheritance, the
undersigned counsel for the heirs above-named respectfully prays the Court
to hold in abeyance whatever action it shall take towards the approval or non-
approval of the Record on Appeal, until such time as it shall have ruled upon
their opposition or until the administrator shall have rejected formally the offer
of a bond aforesaid. Counsel shall then in time file his corresponding
opposition to the Record on Appeal.

The tenor of the order of May 16, 1957, as well as the fact that neither said
order nor the "constancia" of appellees are included in the Record on Appeal,
indicates that the belated offer to file a bond amounted to no more than an
attempt of appellees to settle the particular issue between the parties that
was rejected by the appellant. That the record on appeal was approved much
later, on July 15, 1957, and yet without the written opposition . . . required in
the order of this Court dated June 12, 1957, notwithstanding the length of
time that has already elapsed (R.A. p. 23), and the absence of proof that the
bond offered was ever filed and approved by the Court, fortify that
conclusion. Anyway, since the purpose of the bond required by section 1,
paragraph 2, of Rule 91 is to protect not only the appellant but also the
creditors and subsequent claimants to the estate, in order that they may not
be prejudiced by the partial distribution, the amount of the bond could not be
fixed without hearing such interested parties, and there is no showing that

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 51 of 56
[12] G.R. No. L-68873 March 31, 1989 It is claimed by all the oppositors that they are entitled to 213 portion of
the estate of Victorina Durana considering that their predecessors-in-
LUCILDA DAEL, EVERGISTO DAEL, DOMINGO DAEL, JR., CONRADO interest are the brother and sister of Victorina Durana; while the remaining
DAEL, FEDERICO DURANA, JR., FREDISVINDA DURANA, 1/3 portion should devolve to the petitioner and the intervenors who
FLEURDELIZADA DURANA, FABIAN DURANA and FE PATRICIO represent their mother Bienvenida Durana and the other sister of Victorina
DURANA, petitioners, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, Durana.
CARMENCITA CABUTIHAN, NONILON CABUTIHAN, ROMULO
CABUTIHAN, LERMO CABUTIHAN, and BIENVENIDO CABUTIHAN, There is, therefore, no dispute concerning the relationship of the
respondents. petitioner, oppositors and the intervenors to the decedent Victorina
Durana; there is neither any question concerning the right of all the parties
REGALADO, J.: in this case to inherit from the deceased Victorina Durana; 3

The reversal of the decision of the then Intermediate Appellate Court Likewise established is the fact that during the second marriage of Cesario
promulgated on February 29, 1984 in AC-G.R. CV No. 69711, 1 which and Victorina, they were engaged in a copra business and a public
affirmed in toto the decision, dated December 3, 1980, of the quondam Court transportation business, with Victorina managing the former. After the demise
of First Instance of Quezon, Branch II, in Special Proceeding No. 4374 of Cesario, Victorina and the private respondents entered into a extra-judicial
thereof, 2 as well as the former's resolution of September 14, 1984 denying settlement of his estate on December 30, 1973. Part of the properties
the motion for reconsideration of the oppositors-appellants therein, are the adjudicated to Victorina include the copra business abovementioned, as well
twin objectives of the present appeal by certiorari. as some of the vehicles used in the transportation business. 4 Subsequently,
however, the vehicles were transferred to the private respondents by virtue of
a "deed of sale" dated July 24, 1978. 5
The assailed decision of the court a quo sets out the revelant background
facts and the dramatis personae in this controversy, thus:
This case was commenced in the aforementioned Court of First Instance of
Quezon by Carmencita Cabutihan, one of the private respondents herein,
It is not disputed that Victorina Durana died intestate on August 1, 1977 in
who filed a petition for the settlement of the intestate estate of Victorina
Manila; she was the wife of the deceased Cesario Cabutihan who died
Durana, wherein she also prayed for her appointment as administratrix. 6
earlier on June 9, 1972; Cesario Cabutihan was first married to
Petitioners herein filed an opposition, asking that the letters of administration
Bienvenida Durana in February, 1942; the latter died on May 2, 1957; it
be issued instead to herein petitioner Lucilda Dael. 7 The other private
was less than a year thereafter or particularly on April 6, 1958 that
respondents, on their motion, intervened in the case. 8
Cesario Cabutihan married Victorina Durana, sister of his first wife,
Bienvenida Durana.
On December 22, 1977, Honesto Cabutihan, Democrito Cabutihan and David
Cabutihan filed their claim against the estate for the payment of the harvest
The first marriage of Cesario Cabutihan produced the following legitimate
of their property which had been entrusted to Victorina Durana for purposes
children: Nonilon Carmencita, Romulo, Lermo and Bienvenido all
of her copra business but which obligation she failed to pay due to her
surnamed Cabutihan and who are the intervenors in this case although
untimely death. 9 Said claim, in the amount of P70,350.82, was approved by
Carmencita Cabutihan instituted the case as petitioner; the second
the probate court on December 2, 1980. 10
marriage of Cesario Cabutihan with Victorina Durana did not produce any
issue; however, the latter's heirs are the children of her two sisters and a
brother namely: Bienvenida Durana, Soledad Durana and Federico Meanwhile, the court below appointed Amado Zoleta as special administrator
Durana Sr.; the latter is the father of the oppositors, Federico, Jr., of the estate of the late Victorina Durana on May 24, 1978. 11 Said special
Flordelizada (sic), Fredizvinda, Fabian and Fe Patricio, all surnamed administrator, upon order of the probate court, submitted an inventory of the
Durana; while Soledad Durana is the mother of the other oppsitors, properties of the estate on August 30, 1978, consisting of twenty (20) parcels
Evaristo, Domingo Jr., Lucilda and Conrado, all surnamed Dael; the other of land valued at P69,340.00, cash in bank amounting to P140,079.41, cattle
heirs of Vitorina Durana are the petitioner herself and the intervenors who and livestock valued at P7,200.00, furniture valued at P5,120.00, fixtures in
are all the children of Bienvenida Durana. the amount of P1,300.00, equipment worth P11,863.00, and other

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 52 of 56
miscellaneous items valued at P3,038.00. The total value of the properties of the First Marriage, the conjugal estate of Cesario Cabutihan and
included in this inventory is P237,940.41. 12 Bienvenida Durana must be settled or liquidated first; one-half of the
conjugal estate shall be inherited by Cesario Cabutihan and his five (5)
On January 16, 1979, a "Supplementary Inventory" was filed by the special children, namely: Nonilon Carmencita, Romulo, Lermo and Bienvenido, all
administrator covering other real properties of the estate of Victorina, surnamed CABUTIHAN, share and share alike; the inheritance of Cesario
consisting of the undivided shares in the inheritance of Cesario Cabutihan Cabutihan in the Estate of Bienvenida Durana in addition to the other one
from his parents, Bartolome Cabutihan and Natividad Daelo. The total value (1/2) half which is his share in the conjugal partnership with his wife
of the properties listed in the supplementary inventory is P4,700.82. 13 It may Bienvenida shall constitute Cesario's estate which shall be inherited by his
be mentioned that the properties that were adjudicated to Victorina in the heirs, namely: Victorina Durana, his second wife, and his legitimate
extrajudicial settlement of the estate of Cesario were included in the children by his first wife, namely: Nonilon Carmencita, Romulo, Lermo and
inventory submitted by the special administrator. 14 Bienvenido, all surnamed CABUTIHAN, share and share alike.

Private respondents moved for the disapproval of said inventories claiming Hence, the extent of the Estate of Victorina Durana shall consist only of
that the properties listed therein were either acquired during the first marriage her share in the inheritance of the Estate of Cesario Cabutihan.
of Cesario Cabutihan or were merely the products or fruits of the properties
of said first union or otherwise acquired through the funds thereof. 15 Unless any of the properties listed in Exhibits 'A-SPA' and B-SPA'
exclusively belong to Bienvenida Durana, all of said properties shall be
In due course, the trial court rendered a decision holding that Victorina presumed to be the conjugal (sic) and/or the fruits and income of said
Durana had no paraphernal properties brought or contributed to her marriage partnership or of the copra business of said partnership; therefore, the
with Cesario Cabutihan; that the copra business was formed in 1949 during properties in said inventories shall be computed, divided and partitioned
the first marriage; that Victorina used the same facilities, credit and capital in as follows: five (5/12) twelve over the one (1/2) half thereof to be
managing the business; and that the main source of income not only of adjudicated to Nonilon Carmencita, Romulo, Lermo and Bienvenido, all
Cesario Cabutihan and also of Victorina during their respective lifetimes was surnamed CABUTIHAN as their shares in the inheritance of their mother;
the copra business. 16 the one (1/6) sixth portion out of the one (1/2) half of said properties shall
pertain to Cesario Cabutihan as his share in the inheritance of his first
wife; this share and the remaining one (1/2) half of the properties in the
On such factual findings, the lower court came up with the following
Inventories which comprise his estate shall be inherited by his second
conclusions:
wife Victorina Durana with (whom he had no child) and his five children by
his first marriage, Nonilon Carmencita, Romulo, Lermo and Bienvenido,
Not having any personal property which she brought to her marriage with all surnamed CABUTIHAN, at the proportion of one (1/6) sixth each of the
Cesario Cabutihan and the copra business not being her own or of her said properties over the seven (7/12) twelfth thereof; therefore, one (1/6)
conjugal partnership with her husband, the conclusion is inescapable; that sixth out of the said seven (7/12) twelfth of the said properties (Estate of
all the properties listed in the inventories in her name or jointly with Cesario) shall be the extent of the Estate of Victorina Durana which she
Cesario Cabutihan do not belong to her exclusively; these properties in inherited from her husband; this (1/6 of 7/12) portion shall be inherited by
Exhibits 'A- SPA' and 'B-SPA' are either the assets of Bienvenida Durana Durana's heirs; one (1/3) third thereof to be adjudicated to petitioner and
as her paraphernal property or as the conjugal partnership assets of the Intervenors and the remaining two (2/3) thirds thereof to the
spouses Cesario Cabutihan (sic) or the latter's capital inasmuch as the oppositors. 17
properties in the name of Victorina a Durana or those jointly with her
husband were acquired or purchased out of the fruits or produce of the
The probate court thereby disapproved both inventories and annulled the
properties of Bienvenida Durana and/or Cesario Cabutihan or out of the
extrajudicial settlement and deed of sale (Exhibit 1 Dael and Exhibit 3-Dael)
income of the copra business of the first marriage which was merely
mentioned earlier. The latter two were annulled for being simulated or
managed and administered by Victorina Durana after the owners' deaths.
fictitious and for involving conjugal properties of the first marriage, including
properties of Bienvenida, to which Victorina is not an heir. 18
To determine, therefore, the extent of the estate of Victorina Durana from
the list of properties, real and personal, enumerated in the Inventories
As a consequence, petitioners appealed to the former Intermediate Appellate
(Exhibits 'A-SPA' and B-SPA') which erroneously include even the Estate
Court on December 8, 1980. 19 On the same day, respondent Carmencita

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 53 of 56
Cabutihan filed a "motion for authority to withdraw funds" from the estate, in income of the other half of the property of the conjugal partnership would
the amount of P90,000.00 to be partitioned among the heirs in accordance exclusively belong to Cesario.
with the proportion provided for in the aforesaid decision of the probate court.
20 On December 11, 1980, this motion was granted, 21 despite opposition The marriage of Cesario and Victorina on April 6, 1952 also produced the
thereto. 22 corresponding legal consequences. From that moment on, the fruits or
income of the separate properties of the spouses would be conjugal,
Thereafter, on December 12, 1980, petitioners herein filed a motion asking including those acquired through their industry. 26 Hence, the fruits and
the lower court to order the return of the amount of P70,350.82 allegedly paid income of Cesario's share in the inheritance from Bienvenida and of his
to the claimants Democrito Honesto and David Cabutihan, submitting as conjugal share in the property of the first conjugal partnership would form
proof a receipt allegedly signed on December 30, 1980 by Democrito part of the conjugal partnership properties of the second marriage. The fruits
Cabutihan in behalf of all said claimants and assisted by their counsel, and income derived or acquired through these last-mentioned properties
Euclides A. Abcede. would likewise be conjugal in nature.

On February 9, 1984, respondent court promulgated its decision which, as It would have been ideal had there been a liquidation of the conjugal
already stated, affirmed the decision of the lower court, hence this petition partnership properties of the first marriage between Cesario and Bienvenida.
assigning four errors which we will resolve seriatim. Unfortunately, We cannot determine from the records the amount of such
properties at the time of Bienvenida's demise. There is a dearth of proof on
1. Petitioners submit that both the respondent and lower courts erred in this matter. What appears evident, however, is that, considering the
concluding that the copra business, as well as the properties listed in the continuity in the operation of the two businesses during the marital coverture
inventories as acquired during the second marriage, are assets of the between Cesario and Victorina which spanned a period of fourteen (14)
conjugal partnership of the first marriage between Cesario and Bienvenida. years, and the fact that after Cesario's death Victorina still actively engaged
They argued that to so hold would, in effect, maintain the theory that the in the same business until her own death five (5) years later, the properties
marital community of proprietary interest continued to exist even after the enumerated in the aforesaid inventories submitted to the probate court could
Cesario-Bienvenida conjugal partnership had been dissolved by the death of not all have been properties of the first marriage.
Bienvenida.
Inevitably, the problem is how to apportion the properties involved between
It may be conceded that the factual findings of the trial court were based on the two conjugal partnerships. On this score, guidance should be sought from
substantial documentary and testimonial evidence and are entitled to the the provisions of the Civil Code to the effect that whenever the liquidation of
corresponding weight and respect. the partnership of two or more marriages contracted by the same person
should be carried out at the same time and there is no evidence to show the
capital or the conjugal property belonging to each of the partnerships to be
Such established facts notwithstanding, We are not as equally disposed to
liquidated, the total mass of the partnership property shall be divided
yield assent to the conclusions drawn by both the court a quo and the
between the different partnerships in proportion to the duration of each and to
respondent court which Would so simplistically adjudicate and consider the
the property belonging to the respective spouses. 27
properties involved as belonging in their entirety to the first marriage.

The first marriage existed for approximately fifteen (15) years (1942 to 1957),
When Bienvenida Durana died on May 2, 1957, the first conjugal partnership
while the second marriage lasted for about fourteen (14) years (1958 to
was automatically dissolved. 23 That conjugal partnership was then
1972). Applying the aforestated rule, the first conjugal partnership will be
converted into an implied ordinary co-ownership. 24 It was also at this point
prorated a share of fifteen twenty-ninths (15/29) of the properties included in
in time that the inheritance was transmitted to the heirs of Bienvenida. 25
the inventory submitted on August 30, 1978, while the second conjugal
Thus, her heirs, Cesario, Nonilon Carmencita Romulo, Lermo and
partnership will get fourteen twenty-ninths (14/29) thereof. Not to be included,
Bienvenido, acquired respective and definite rights over one-half (1/2) of the
however, are the real properties listed in the supplementary inventory filed on
conjugal partnership property which pertained to Bienvinida. Consequently,
January 16, 1979, because they definitely belong to the estate of Cesario as
whatever fruits or income may thereafter be derived from the properties,
the latter's inheritance from his parents, Bartolome Cabutihan and Natividad
including the copra business, would no longer be conjugal but would belong
Daelo.
in part to the heirs in proportion to their respective shares. The fruits and

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 54 of 56
One-half (1/2) of the properties that pertain to the first conjugal partnership It is true that "partial distribution of the decedent's estate pending the final
belong to Cesario as his conjugal share therein, while the other half shall be termination of the testate or intestate proceedings should as much as
considered as inherited by him and his five children as the heirs of possible be discouraged by the courts and, unless in extreme cases, such
Bienvenida. form of advances of inheritance should not be countenanced. The reason for
this strict rule is obvious courts should guard with utmost zeal and jealousy
The properties pertaining to the second partnership shall also be equally the estate of the decedent to the end that the creditors thereof be adequately
divided, one-half (1/2) to belong to Cesario and the other to Victorina as their protected and all the rightful heirs assured of their shares in the inheritance."
respective shares in their conjugal partnership properties. The share of
Cesario should then be divided among his heirs, namely, Victorina and his Nevertheless, after duly considering the foregoing rules, We sustain the
five (5) children. validity of the questioned order. The respondent court correctly held than "(i)f
oppositors would stand to share more in the inheritance than what was fixed
To recapitulate, the estate of Victorina for distribution to her heirs shall for them in the appealed judgment, We believe the estate has sufficient
consist of her one-half (1/2) share in the conjugal properties of the aforesaid assets to ensure an equitable distribution of the inheritance in accordance
second marriage and her one-sixth (1/6) share in the estate of Cesario as an with law and final judgment in the proceedings." 31 Also, it does not appear
heir. that there are unpaid obligations, as contemplated in Rule 90, for which
provisions should have been made or a bond required. It is clear that the
provisions of the Rules of Court, as well as the jurisprudence thereon, were
2. Petitioners also question the approval of the claims of Democrito Honesto
followed in this particular incident.
and David Cabutihan. Petitioners' effete opposition is anchored on their
allegation that said claim "was approved primarily on the basis of the
testimony of claimant Democrito Cabutihan" which, according to them, is 4. With respect to the propriety of the alleged payment of the claims of the
inadmissible under the Dead Man's Statute or the survivorship Cabutihan brothers before the decision is this case became final and
disqualification rule. 28 While petitioners' arguments may have a juris tantum executory, We are not in a position to rule on such issue because this Court
plausibility if considered alone, We see no reason to dwell on this issue. It is not a trier of facts. Such issue requires the prior resolution of basic factual
would be pointless since, as correctly observed by the trial court, "even questions, that is, whether or not such payment had actually been made to
assuming the applicability of the dead man's rule concerning the testimony of the claimants and the circumstances under which the same was effected.
Democrito Cabutihan, the testimony of Urbano Prado and Tirso Linosa are
more than sufficient to establish the claim and to bolster the documentary The probate court had not yet ruled on petitioners' "Motion to Order the
evidence in support thereof as indicated on Exhibits 'B', 'B-1', to 'B-82-claim', Return of the Amount Paid for Claim", when the instant petition was filed.
'C' and 'C-1' inclusive." 29 Based on the records of this appeal, the last action taken in the lower court
was its order that the private respondents comment on said motion, but no
3. Also challenged by petitioners is the order of the court below, dated response thereto or any subsequent development on this matter is reflected
December 11, 1980, allowing the withdrawal of funds for distribution to the or reported. If the petitioners have sufficient basis to complain on this matter,
heirs as advance inheritance. Said order is, however, within the the same should consequently be pursued and threshed out in the court
contemplation and authority of Rule 109, Section 2 whereof provides that below.
"(n)otwithstanding a pending controversy or appeal in proceedings to settle
the estate of a decedent, the court may, in its discretion and upon such terms WHEREFORE, the decision of respondent court, which affirmed and adopted
as it may deem proper and just, permit that such part of the estate as may in toto the decision of the court a quo, is MODIFIED and judgment is hereby
not be affected by the controversy or appeal be distributed among the heirs rendered as follows:
or legatees, upon compliance with the conditions set forth in Rule 90 of these
rules'. Said Rule 90, on the other hand, provides in part that "(n)o distribution 1. So much of the judgments of both lower courts as declare that all the
shall be allowed until the payment of the obligations above mentioned has properties listed in the two inventories, marked as Exhibits "A-SPA"and "B-
been made or provided for, unless the distributees or any of them, give a SPA" in Special Proceeding No. 4374 of the court of origin, are conjugal
bond, in a sum to be fixed by the court, conditioned for the payment of said partnership assets of the deceased spouses Cesario Cabutihan and
obligations within such time as the court directs." Bienvenida Durana are hereby SET ASIDE;

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 55 of 56
2. The properties therein enumerated shall be divided in the following
manner: (a) Seven-twelfths (7/12) of fifteen twenty-ninths (15/29), and one-
half (1/2) of fourteen twenty-ninths (14/29), of the properties listed in the
inventory dated August 30, 1978, as well as all the properties listed in the
supplementary inventory dated January 16, 1979, shall constitute the estate
of Cesario Cabutihan. This estate shall be divided equally among his six (6)
heirs, namely, his second wife, Victorina, and his five (5) children, Nonilon
Carmencita, Romulo, Lermo and Bienvenido, all surnamed Cabutihan; and
(b) The remaining five-twelfths (5/12) of fifteen twenty-ninths (15/29) of the
properties in said inventory of August 30, 1978 shall belong to the said five
(5) children, share and share alike, as their respective participations in their
mother's inheritance;

3. The estate of Victorina Durana, which shall be the subject of settlement

and distribution in said Special Proceeding No. 4374, shall consist of one-half
(1/2) of the other portion constituting fourteen twenty-ninths (14/29) of the
properties in the inventory of August 30, 1978, which represents her share in
the conjugal properties of the second marriage, and one-sixth (1/6) of the
estate of Cesario Cabutihan as fixed herein, and said properties shall be
divided among her heirs enumerated and in the proportion allotted by the
probate court as qouted at the outset of this decision;

4. The other pronouncements in the dispositive portion of the appealed

judgment of the court below and adopted by the respondent court, insofar as
the are not inconsistent with the foregoing dispositions; the order of the said
lower court, dated December 2, 1980, approving the claims of Honesto,
Democrito and David Cabutihan; and its order of December 11, 1980
allowing the withdrawal of funds for distribution among the heirs are
AFFIRMED; and

5. All other incidents not otherwise disposed of herein shall be pursued by

the parties in and shall be resolved by the court a quo in accordance with the
terms of this judgment.

SO ORDERED.

₯Special Proceedings (Rule 108- Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) Page 56 of 56