RULE 103 CHANGE OF NAME

Manila, for 3 consecutive weeks. Copies of the

order were sent to the OSG and the civil
registrar of Manila. During trial, Silverio
testified for himself. He also presented Dr.
Reysio-Cruz, Jr. and his American fianc,
Richard P. Edel, as witnesses. Trial court
rendered a decision in favor of Silverio and
ordered the Civil Registrar of Manila to change
the entries appearing in the Certificate of
Birth of Silverio, specifically for his first name
from
"Rommel
Jacinto"
to MELY and
petitioners gender from "Male" to FEMALE.

Valid Grounds

REPUBLIC vs CA, ET. AL.

G.R. No. 97906
(Villamin)

The Republic of the Philippines, thru the OSG,

filed a petition for certiorari in the CA. It
alleged that there is no law allowing the
change of entries in the birth certificate by
reason of sex alteration. CA ruled in favor of
the Republic. Hence, this petition.

SILVERIO vs REPUBLIC
G.R. No. 174689
(Zaragoza)
Facts:
Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio filed a petition
for the change of his first name and sex in his
birth certificate in the RTC of Manila. The
petition impleaded the civil registrar of Manila
as respondent. Silverio alleged that he was
born in the City of Manila to the spouses
Melecio Petines Silverio and Anita Aquino
Dantes on April 4, 1962. His name was
registered as "Rommel Jacinto Dantes
Silverio" in his birth certificate. His sex was
registered as "male." 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
himself with girls since childhood. Feeling
trapped in a mans body, he consulted several
doctors
in
the
US.
He
underwent
psychological
examination,
hormone
treatment and breast augmentation. He
underwent sex reassignment surgery in
Bangkok, Thailand. He was thereafter
examined by Dr. Marcelino Reysio-Cruz, Jr., a
plastic and reconstruction surgeon in the
Philippines, who issued a medical certificate
attesting that Silverio had in fact undergone
the procedure. From then on, Silverio lived as
a female and was in fact engaged to be
married. He then sought to have his name in
his birth certificate changed from "Rommel
Jacinto" to "Mely," and his sex from "male" to
"female."
An order setting the case for initial hearing
was published in the Peoples Journal Tonight,
a newspaper of general circulation in Metro

Special Proceedings

Silverios contention: The change of his name

and sex in his birth certificate is allowed
under Articles 407 to 413 of the Civil Code,
Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court and
RA 9048.
Issue:
Whether or not Silverios petition for the
change of his first name and sex in his birth
certificate is allowed by reason of sex
reassignment. No
Ruling:
I.

A Persons First Name Cannot

Be Changed On the Ground of
Sex Reassignment

The State has an interest in the names borne

by individuals and entities for purposes of
identification. A change of name is a privilege,
not a right. Petitions for change of name are
controlled by statutes.
RA 9048 governs the change of first name. It
vests the power and authority to entertain
petitions for change of first name to the city
or municipal civil registrar or consul general
concerned. Under the law, jurisdiction over
applications for change of first name is now
primarily lodged with the administrative
officers.
The intent and effect of the law is to exclude
the change of first name from the coverage of
Rules 103 (Change of Name) and 108
(Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the
Civil Registry) of the Rules of Court, until and
unless an administrative petition for change

Digests Rules 90-100

of name is first filed and subsequently denied.

It likewise lays down the corresponding
venue, form and procedure. In sum, the
remedy and the proceedings regulating
change
of
first
name
are
primarily
administrative in nature, not judicial.
RA 9048 likewise provides the grounds for
which change of first name may be allowed:
(1) The petitioner finds the first name or
nickname to be ridiculous, tainted with
dishonor or extremely difficult to write or
pronounce; (2) The new first name or
nickname
has
been
habitually
and
continuously used by the petitioner and he
has been publicly known by that first name or
nickname in the community; or (3) The
change will avoid confusion.
A change of name does not alter ones legal
capacity or civil status. RA 9048 does not
sanction a change of first name on the ground
of sex reassignment. Rather than avoiding
confusion, changing petitioners first name for
his declared purpose may only create grave
complications in the civil registry and the
public interest.
Before a person can legally change his given
name, he must present proper or reasonable
cause or any compelling reason justifying
such change. In addition, he must show that
he will be prejudiced by the use of his true
and official name. In this case, he failed to
show, or even allege, any prejudice that he
might suffer as a result of using his true and
official name.
The petition in the trial court in so far as it
prayed for the change of petitioners first
name was not within that courts primary
jurisdiction as the petition should have been
filed with the local civil registrar concerned,
assuming it could be legally done. It was an
improper remedy because the proper remedy
was administrative, that is, that provided
under RA 9048. It was also filed in the wrong
venue as the proper venue was in the Office
of 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.
II.

No Law Allows The Change of

Entry In The Birth Certificate As
To Sex On the Ground of Sex
Reassignment

Special Proceedings

RA
9048
involves clerical
or
typographical errors. The 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 correction of such
errors. Rule 108 now applies only to
substantial changes and corrections in entries
in the civil register. Under RA 9048, a
correction in the civil registry involving the
change of sex is not a mere clerical or
typographical error. It is a substantial change
for which the applicable procedure is Rule 108
of the Rules of Court.
The entries envisaged in Article 412 of the
Civil Code and correctable under Rule 108 of
the Rules of Court are those provided in
Articles 407 and 408 of the Civil Code. The
acts, events or factual errors contemplated
under Article 407 of the Civil Code include
even those that occur after birth. However, no
reasonable interpretation of the provision can
justify the conclusion that it covers the
correction on the ground of sex reassignment.
Article 407 of the Civil Code authorizes the
entry in the civil registry of certain acts (such
as
legitimations,
acknowledgments
of
illegitimate
children
and
naturalization), events (such
as
births,
marriages,
naturalization
and
deaths)
and judicial
decrees (such
as
legal
separations,
annulments
of
marriage,
declarations of nullity of marriages, adoptions,
naturalization, loss or recovery of citizenship,
civil interdiction, judicial determination of
filiation and changes of name). These acts,
events and judicial decrees produce legal
consequences that touch upon the legal
capacity, status and nationality of a person.
Their effects are expressly sanctioned by the
laws. In contrast, sex reassignment is not
among those acts or events mentioned in
Article 407. Neither is it recognized nor even
mentioned by any law, expressly or impliedly.
A persons sex is an essential factor in
marriage and family relations. It is a part of a
persons legal capacity and civil status. Article
413 of the Civil Code provides that, All other
matters pertaining to the registration of civil
status shall be governed by special laws. But
there is no such special law in the Philippines
governing sex reassignment and its effects.
Petition, denied.

Digests Rules 90-100

PEOPLE vs CAGANDAHAN
G.R. No. 166676
(Abad)
Republic vs. Cagandahan, GR No. 166676
FACTS:
Jennifer Cagandahan filed before the Regional
Trial Court Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna a
Petition for Correction of Entries in Birth
Certificate of her name from Jennifer B.
Cagandahan to Jeff Cagandahan and her
gender from female to male. It appearing that
Jennifer Cagandahan is suffering from
Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia which is a
rare medical condition where afflicted persons
possess both male and female characteristics.
Jennifer Cagandahan grew up with secondary
male characteristics. To further her petition,
Cagandahan presented in court the medical
certificate evidencing that she is suffering
from Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia which
certificate is issued by Dr. Michael Sionzon of
the Department of Psychiatry, University of
the Philippines-Philippine General Hospital,
who, in addition, explained that Cagandahan
genetically is female but because her body
secretes male hormones, her female organs
did not develop normally, thus has organs of
both male and female. The lower court
decided in her favor but the Office of the
Solicitor General appealed before the
Supreme Court invoking that the same was a
violation of Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of
Court because the said petition did not
implead the local civil registrar.
ISSUE:
The issue in this case is the validity of the
change of sex or gender and name of
respondent as ruled by the lower court.
HELD:
The contention of the Office of the Solicitor
General that the petition is fatally defective
because it failed to implead the local civil
registrar as well as all persons who have or
claim any interest therein is not without merit.
However, it must be stressed that private
respondent furnished the local civil registrar a
Special Proceedings

copy of the petition, the order to publish on

December 16, 2003 and all pleadings, orders
or processes in the course of the proceedings.
In which case, the Supreme Court ruled that
there is substantial compliance of the
provisions of Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules
of Court. Furthermore, the Supreme Court
held that the determination of a persons sex
appearing in his birth certificate is a legal
issue which in this case should be dealt with
utmost care in view of the delicate facts
present in this case.

In deciding the case, the Supreme Court

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

The current state of Philippine statutes

apparently compels that a person be
classified either as a male or as a female, but
this Court is not controlled by mere
appearances when nature itself fundamentally
negates such rigid classification. That is,
Philippine courts must render judgment based
on law and the evidence presented. In the
instant case, there is no denying that
evidence points that respondent is male. In
determining respondent to be a female, there
is no basis for a change in the birth certificate
entry for gender. The Supreme Court held that
where the person is biologically or naturally
intersex the determining factor in his gender
classification would be what the individual,

Digests Rules 90-100

like respondent, having reached the age of

majority, with good reason thinks of his/her
sex. Sexual development in cases of intersex
persons makes the gender classification at
birth inconclusive. It is at maturity that the
gender of such persons, like respondent, is
fixed. The Court will not consider respondent
as having erred in not choosing to undergo
treatment in order to become or remain as a
female. Neither will the Court force
respondent to undergo treatment and to take
medication in order to fit the mold of a
female, as society commonly currently knows
this gender of the human species. Respondent
is the one who has to live with his intersex
anatomy. To him belongs the human right to
the pursuit of happiness and of health. Thus,
to him should belong the primordial choice of
what courses of action to take along the path
of his sexual development and maturation. In
the absence of evidence that respondent is an
incompetent and in the absence of evidence
to show that classifying respondent as a male
will harm other members of society who are
equally entitled to protection under the law,
the Supreme Court affirmed as valid and
justified the respondents position and his
personal judgment of being a male.
Procedure
REPUBLIC vs AQUINO
90 SCRA 172
(Alvarez)

REPUBLIC vs MARCOS
182 SCRA 223
(Andrade)

RA 9255 AN ACT ALLOWING

ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN TO USE THE
SURNAME OF THEIR FATHER
IN RE: PETITION OF JULIAN WANG
G.R. No. 159966
(Bacolod)

Special Proceedings

Facts:
On 22 September 2002, petitioner Julian Lin
Carulasan Wang, a minor, represented by his
mother Anna Lisa Wang, filed a petition dated
19 September 2002 for change of name
and/or correction/cancellation of entry in the
Civil Registry of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang.
Petitioner sought to drop his middle name and
have his registered name changed from Julian
Lin Carulasan Wang to Julian Lin Wang.
Julian Lin Carulasan Wang was born in Cebu
City on February 20, 1998 to parents Anna
Lisa Wang and Sing-Foe Wang who were then
not yet married to each other. When his
parents
subsequently
got
married
on
September 22, 1998, ...they executed a deed
of legitimation of their son so that the childs
name was changed from Julian Lin Carulasan
to
Julian
Lin
Carulasan
Wang.
the parents of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang plan
to stay in Singapore for a long time because
they will let him study there together with his
sister named Wang Mei Jasmine who was born
in Singapore. Since in Singapore middle
names or the maiden surname of the mother
are not carried in a persons name, they
anticipate that Julian Lin Carulasan Wang will
be discriminated against because of his
current registered name which carries a
middle name. Julian and his sister might also
be asking whether they are brother and sister
since they have different surnames. Carulasan
sounds funny in Singapores Mandarin
language since they do not have the letter R
but if there is, they pronounce it as L. It is for
these reasons that the name of Julian Lin
Carulasan Wang is requested to be changed
to
Julian
Lin
Wang
RTC:denied. The trial court found that the
reason given for the change of name sought
in the petition that is, that petitioner Julian
may be discriminated against when studies in
Singapore because of his middle namedid not
fall within the grounds recognized by law. The
trial court ruled that the change sought is
merely for the convenience of the child. Since
the State has an interest in the name of a
person, names cannot be changed to suit the
convenience of the bearers. Under Article 174
of the Family Code, legitimate children have
the right to bear the surnames of the father
and the mother, and there is no reason why
this right should now be taken from petitioner
Julian, considering that he is still a minor. The
trial court added that when petitioner Julian
reaches the age of majority, he could then
decide whether he will change his name by
dropping his middle name

Digests Rules 90-100

ISSUES:
(1) whether or not dropping the middle name
of a minor child is contrary to Article 174 of
the
Family
Code.
(2) Does the law allow one to drop the middle
name from his registered name?

best that the matter of change of his name be

left to his judgment and discretion when he
reaches the age of majority.As he is of tender
age, he may not yet understand and
appreciate the value of the change of his
name and granting of the same at this point
may just prejudice him in his rights under our
laws.

RULE:
The State has an interest in the names borne
by individuals and entities for purposes of
identification, and that a change of name is a
privilege and not a right, so that before a
person can be authorized to change his name
given him either in his certificate of birth or
civil registry, he must show proper or
reasonable cause, or any compelling reason
which may justify such change. Otherwise, the
request should be denied
GROUNDS FOR CHANGE OF NAME: To justify a
request for change of name, petitioner must
show not only some proper or compelling
reason therefore but also that he will be
prejudiced by the use of his true and official
name. Among the grounds for change of
name which have been held valid are: (a)
when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or
extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (b)
when the change results as a legal
consequence, as in legitimation; (c) when the
change will avoid confusion; (d) when one has
continuously used and been known since
childhood by a Filipino name, and was
unaware of alien parentage; (e) a sincere
desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs
of former alienage, all in good faith and
without prejudicing anybody; and (f) when the
surname causes embarrassment and there is
no showing that the desired change of name
was for a fraudulent purpose or that the
change of name would prejudice public
interest
(2) In the case at bar, the only reason
advanced by petitioner for the dropping his
middle name is convenience. However, how
such change of name would make his
integration into Singaporean society easier
and convenient is not clearly established.
That the continued use of his middle name
would cause confusion and difficulty does not
constitute proper and reasonable cause to
drop it from his registered complete name.
In addition, petitioner is only a minor.
Considering the nebulous foundation on which
his petition for change of name is based, it is
Special Proceedings

REPUBLIC vs CAPOTE
G.R. No. 157043
(Danduan)
RA 9048 & 10172 CLERICAL ERROR LAW
BATBATAN vs OFFICE OF LOCAL CIVIL
REGISTRAR
118 SCRA 745
(De Guzman)

Facts:
Eligia Batbatan, filed before the CFI a petition
for the correction of entries in the civil registry
of Pagadian, Zamboanga del Sur as regards
the names of her two illegitimate(spurious)
children, Jorge Batbatan Ang and Delia
Batbatan Luy, who were clearly identified as
illegitimate in their certificates of live birth
and whose surnames were taken from the
name and alias of their father, Ang Kiu Chuy
aka Sioma Luy, a married man with whom
petitioner (Eligia) lived in common-law
relationship. The trial court denied the
petition on the ground that the corrections
sought are not clerical but substantial which
should be threshed out in a proper action.
Hence this appeal.
Held:
SC reversed and set aside the appealed
judgment holding that the petition to strike
out the surnames Ang and Luy should have
been granted since the said entries are
contrary to Article 368 of the Civil Code which
requires that spurios or adulterous children
should bear the mother's surname.

Digests Rules 90-100

LEE vs CA
367 SCRA 110
(De Leon)

REPUBLIC vs KHO
GR No. 170340
(Diego)
Facts:
Sometime in 2001, Carlito and his
siblings Michael, Mercy Nona and Heddy Moira
filed before the RTC of Butuan City a verified
petition for correction of entries in the civil
registry of Butuan City to effect changes in
their respective birth certificates. Carlito also
asked the court in behalf of his minor children,
Kevin and Kelly, to order the correction of
some entries in their birth certificates. The
Local Civil Registrar of Butuan City was
impleaded as respondent.
The trial court directed the LCR to
correct the entries in the record of birth of
Carlito, as follows: (1) change the citizenship
of his mother from Chinese to Filipino; (2)
delete John from his name; and (3) delete the
word married opposite the date of marriage of
his parents.
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 Marivel Dogmoc
(Marivel) as January 21, 2000, instead of April
27, 1989, and the name Maribel as Marivel.
With respect to the marriage certificate
of Carlito and Marivel, the corrections ordered
pertained to the alteration of the name of
Carlitos father from John Kho to Juan Kho and
the latters citizenship from Filipino to
Chinese.
Petitioner, Republic of the Philippines,
appealed the RTC Decision to the CA, faulting
the trial court in granting the petition for
correction of entries in the subject documents
despite the failure of respondents to implead
the
minors
mother,
Marivel,
as
an
indispensable party.
Issue:
Whether or not the changes sought by
respondents were substantial in nature and
they could only be granted through an
adversarial proceeding in which indispensable
parties such as Marivel and respondents
parents should have been notified or
impleaded.
Held:

Special Proceedings

The changes sought can only be

granted in an adversary proceeding. This
Court adheres to the principle that even
substantial errors in a civil registry may be
corrected
and
the
true
facts
established provided the parties aggrieved by
the error avail themselves of the appropriate
adversary proceeding. Blacks Law Dictionary
defines adversary proceeding as One having
opposing parties; contested, as distinguished
from an ex parte application, one of which the
party seeking relief has given legal warning to
the other party, and afforded the latter an
opportunity to contest it.

The enactment in March 2001 of

Republic Act No. 9048, otherwise known as AN
ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OR MUNICIPAL
CIVIL REGISTRAR OR THE CONSUL GENERAL
TO CORRECT A CLERICAL OR TYPOGRAPHICAL
ERROR IN AN ENTRY AND/OR CHANGE OF
FIRST NAME OR NICKNAME IN THE CIVIL
REGISTER WITHOUT NEED OF JUDICIAL
ORDER, has been considered to lend
legislative
affirmation
to
the
judicial
precedence that substantial corrections to the
civil status of persons recorded in the civil
registry may be effected through the filing of
a petition under Rule 108. The obvious effect
of Republic Act No. 9048 is to make possible
the administrative correction of clerical or
typographical errors or change of first name
or nickname in entries in the civil register,
leaving to Rule 108 the correction of
substantial changes in the civil registry in
appropriate adversarial proceedings.
The purpose precisely of Section 4,
Rule 108 is to bind the whole world to the
subsequent judgment on the petition. The
sweep of the decision would cover even
parties who should have been impleaded
under Section 3, Rule 108, but were
inadvertently left out.
Verily, a petition for correction is an
action in rem, an action against a thing and
not against a person. The decision on the
petition binds not only the parties thereto but
the whole world. An in rem proceeding is
validated
essentially
through
publication. Publication is notice to the whole
world that the proceeding has for its object to
bar indefinitely all who might be minded to
make an objection of any sort against the
right sought to be established. It is the
publication of such notice that brings in the

Digests Rules 90-100

whole world as a party in the case and vests

the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide
it.
Given the above ruling, it becomes
unnecessary to rule on whether Marivel or
respondents parents should have been
impleaded as parties to the proceeding.
KILOSBAYAN FOUNDATION vs ONG
G.R. No. 177721
(Dizon)
FACTS:
Petitioners
are
peoples
and/or
nongovernmental organizations engaged in public
and civic causes aimed at protecting the
peoples rights to self-governance and justice
allege that, respondent Executive Secretary,
in representation of the Office of the
President, announced an appointment in favor
of respondent Gregory S. Ong as Associate
Justice of the Supreme Court to fill up the
vacancy created by the retirement of
Associate Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. The
appointment was reported the following day
by the major daily publications.
Later on, the major daily publications reported
that the appointment was "recalled" or "held
in abeyance" by Malacaang in view of the
question relating to the citizenship of
respondent Gregory S. Ong.
Petitioners
further
contend
that
the
appointment extended to respondent Ong
through respondent Executive Secretary is
patently unconstitutional, arbitrary, whimsical
and issued with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioners claim that respondent Ong is a
Chinese citizen, that this fact is plain and
incontestable, and that his own birth
certificate indicates his Chinese citizenship.
They maintain that even if it were granted
that eleven years after respondent Ongs birth
his father was finally granted Filipino
citizenship by naturalization, that, by itself,
would not make respondent Ong a naturalborn Filipino citizen. And, that the Department
of Justice (DOJ) does not have the power or
authority to alter entries in a birth certificate;
that respondent Ongs old Identification
Certificate did not declare that he is a naturalborn Filipino; and that respondent Ongs
Special Proceedings

remedy is an action to correct his citizenship

as it appears in his birth certificate.
Respondent Executive Secretary accordingly
filed his Comment, stating that the
appointment of respondent Ong as Associate
Justice of this Court was made by the
President pursuant to the powers vested in
her. The President appointed respondent Ong
from among the list of nominees who were
duly screened by and bore the imprimatur of
the JBC.
Respondent Ong submitted his Comment with
Opposition, maintaining that he is a naturalborn Filipino citizen.
He subsequently
obtained from the Bureau of Immigration and
the DOJ a certification and an identification
that he is a natural-born Filipino citizen under
Article IV, Sections 1 and 2 of the
Constitution, since his mother was a Filipino
citizen when he was born.
Petitioners reiterate that respondent Ongs
birth certificate, unless corrected by judicial
order in non-summary proceedings for the
purpose, is binding on all and is prima facie
evidence of what it states, namely, that
respondent Ong is a Chinese citizen. The
alleged naturalization of his father when he
was a minor would not make him a naturalborn Filipino citizen.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the citizenship of Respondent
Ong in his birth certificate may be corrected
thru a non-summary proceeding.
RULING:
NO.
The SC once ruled that changes which affect
the civil status or citizenship of a party are
substantial in character and should be
threshed out in a proper action depending
upon the nature of the issues in controversy,
and wherein all the 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.
Republic Act No. 9048 provides in Section 2
(3) that a summary administrative proceeding
to correct clerical or typographical errors in a

Digests Rules 90-100

birth certificate cannot apply to a change in

nationality. Substantial corrections to the
nationality or citizenship of persons recorded
in the civil registry should, therefore, be
effected through a petition filed in court under
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
In this case, respondent Ong has the burden
of proving in court his alleged ancestral tree
as well as his citizenship under the time-line
of three Constitutions. Until this is done,
respondent
Ong
cannot
accept
an
appointment to this Court as that would be a
violation of the Constitution. For this reason,
he can be prevented by injunction from doing
so.
RULE 108 CANCELLATION OR
CORRECTION OF ENTRIES IN THE CIVIL
REGISTRY

different requirements that must be satisfied

in order to avail of any one of them.
In a Decision of the trial court, with
respondent
Judge
Feliciano
Belmonte
presiding therein, ruled in favor of the
petitioner. The petitioner was allowed to
change her name form ANITA PO to VERONICA
PAO. The court also allowed the correction of
the names of her parents as prayed in the
petition in the registry of birth.
On behalf of the Republic of the Philippines,
the Office of the Solicitor General elevated the
Case to the Supreme Court by way of the
instant Petition.
ISSUE:
Can a petition for a change of name and the
correction of certain entries in the civil
registry be joined in the same proceeding?

REPUBLIC vs. BELMONTE

158 SCRA 173
(Doran)

HELD:
FACTS:
Private respondent ANITA PO alias VERONICA
PAO, a resident of Baguio City, filed with the
then Court if First Instance of Baguio and
Benguet a Petition for the change of her name
from Anita Po to Veronica Pao. For this
purpose, she also sought court permission to
have her birth records corrected in that her
fathers name appearing as PO YU be
corrected to PAO YU and her mothers name
recorded as PAKIAT CHAN be changed to
HELEN CHAN. She assigns these alleged
errors to the common misunderstandings of
Chinese names.
At the hearing scheduled by the trial court,
the Office of the Solicitor General presented
its Opposition to the Petition and sought the
dismissal of the same on the ground that the
petitioner cannot be allowed by the mere
submission of the said petition because a
petition for a change of name filed under Rule
103 of the Rules of Court and a petition for
correction or cancellation of entries in the
Civil Register is filed under Rule 108 of the
same rules. The two rules are separate and
distinct from each other and each provides for

Special Proceedings

The procedure recited in Rule 103 regarding

change of name and in Rule 108 concerning
the cancellation or correction of entries in the
civil registry, are separate and distinct. They
may not be substituted one for the other for
the sole purpose of expediency. To hold
otherwise
would
render
nugatory
the
provision of the Rules of Court allowing the
change of ones name or the correction of
entries in the civil registry only upon
meritorious grounds. If both reliefs are to be
sought in the same proceedings, all the
requirements of Rules 103 and 108 must be
complied with.
The corrections sought by the petitioner
involve the identity of her parents. Surely the
propriety of such corrections should first be
determined in a different proceeding more
adversary in character than the summary
case instituted by the petitioner with the trial
court. Aside from the change of her name, the
petitioner seeks a correction of entries in the
civil registry for the benefit of her parents.
This, she may not do to a summary
proceeding. The summary procedure for
correction of the civil register under Rule 108
is confined to innocuous or clerical errors and

Digests Rules 90-100

not to a material change in the spelling of the

surname as prayed for by the petitioner. The
petitioner seeks more than just the correction
of a clerical error.
TAN CO vs CIVIL REGISTER
G.R. No. 138496
(Esperacion)
FACTS:
Petitioners birth certificate states that their
parents CO BOONPENG AND LOURDES
VIHONG K. TAN are CHINESE CITIZENS. Their
father, CO BOON PENG filed an application for
his naturalization as a citizen of the
Philippines with the Special Committee on
Naturalization under LOI no. 270. His
application was granted and he was
conferred Philippine citizenship under PD
1055.
On August 27, 1998, petitioners
filed with the RTC Manila a petition
under Rules of Court for correction of
entries in the certificate of birth specifically
change of citizenship from Chinese to Filipino
as
a
consequence
of
their
fathers
naturalization. According to the petitioners,
the naturalization of their father during their
minority is an act or event affecting their civil
status that must be recorded in the Civil
Register pursuant to Article 407 of the Civil
Code and Rule 108. Said petition was denied.
Opposing said petition, Solicitor General
asserts that the correction sought and allowed
under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court must be
one that reflects a fact existing before or at
the time of birth. In the petitioners case, the
naturalization of their father in 1977 took
place long after they were born. Moreover,
according to the Solicitor General, under LOI
No. 270 and its amendatory laws, the
naturalization of a father did not ipso facto
render his children also naturalized. The
petitioners thus cannot invoke Article 407 of
the Civil Code and Rule 108 of the Rules of
Court to avoid strict compliance with the
naturalization laws.
ISSUE: Whether or not the court erred in
dismissing the petition in view of Rule 108 of
the Rules of Court.

Special Proceedings

HELD:
Yes, the court erred in dismissing the petition.
SC grants the petition and the trial court is
directed to reinstate the petition in Special
Proceedings NO. 98-90470 in the court
docket, and ORDERED to continue with the
proceedings in the said case under Rule 108
of the Rules of Court, as amended.
Under Article 412 of the New Civil Code, no
entry in a civil register shall be changed or
corrected without a judicial order. Specific
matters covered by the said provision include
not only status but also nationality. The acts,
events or factual errors envisaged in Article
407 of the New Civil Code include even those
that occur after the birth of the petitioner.
However, in such cases, the entries in the
certificates of birth will not be corrected or
changed. The decision of the court granting
the petition shall be annotated in the
certificates of birth and shall form part of the
civil register in the Office of the Local Civil
Registrar.
Rule 108 provides for a procedure to
implement such changes as enumerated in
Art. 412. The proceedings in Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court are summary if the entries in
the civil register sought to be corrected are
clerical or innocuous in nature. However,
where such entries sought to be corrected or
changed are substantial: i.e., the status and
nationality of the petitioners or the citizenship
of their parents, the proceedings becomes
adversarial in nature. In such a proceeding,
the parties to be impleaded as respective
defendants are (a) the local civil registrar;
and, (b) all persons who have claims any
interest which would be affected thereby. The
present case falls under this, hence, the trial
court becomes duty bound to cause notice
and publication under Sec.4, Rule 108 which
provides that, Upon the filing of the petition,
the court shall, by an order, fix the time and
place for the hearing of the same, and cause
reasonable notice thereof to be given to the
person named in the petition. The court shall
also cause the order to be published once a
week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a

Digests Rules 90-100

newspaper
province.

of

general

circulation

in

the

Only upon complying with such can it hear the

petition and subsequently rule to grant or
deny it. In this case, the trial court dismissed
the petition outright in violation of Rule 108 of
the Rules of Court.

Special Proceedings

BRAZA, ET. AL. vs CIVIL REGISTRAR, ET.

AL.
607 SCRA 638
(Escobar)

GERBERT CORPUZ vs STO. TOMAS

G.R. No. 186571
(Fumera)

Digests Rules 90-100

10