OTHER SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

RULE 103 CHANGE OF NAME

Section 1. Venue. — A person desiring to change his name shall present the petition to the Court of First
Instance of the province in which he resides, or, in the City of Manila, to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.

Section 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 on his behalf, and shall set forth: (BCN)

(a) That the petitioner has been a Bona fide resident of the province where the petition is filed for at least three
(3) years prior to the date of such filing;

(b) The Cause for which the change of the petitioner's name is sought;

(c) The Name asked for.

Section 3. Order for hearing. — If the petition filed is sufficient in form and substance, the court, by an order
reciting the purpose of the petition, shall fix a date and place for the hearing thereof, and shall direct that a copy of
the order be published before the hearing at least once a week for three (3) successive weeks in some newspaper of
general circulation published in the province, as the court shall deem best. The date set for the hearing shall not be
within thirty (30) days prior to an election nor within four (4) month after the last publication of the notice.

Section 4. Hearing. — Any interested person may appear at the hearing and oppose the petition. The Solicitor
General or the proper provincial or city fiscal shall appear on behalf of the Government of the Republic.

Section 5. Judgment. — Upon satisfactory proof in open court on the date fixed in the order that such order
has been published as directed and that the allegations of the petition are true, the court shall, if proper and
reasonable cause appears for changing the name of the petitioner, adjudge that such name be changed in accordance
with the prayer of the petition.

Section 6. Service of judgment. — Judgments or orders rendered in connection with this rule shall be
furnished by the civil registrar of the municipality or city where the court issuing the same is situated, who shall
forthwith enter the same in the civil register.

VALID GROUNDS

RULE 103
Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 97906, May 21, 1992

FACTS:
Private respondent Maximo Wong is the legitimate son of Maximo Alcala, Sr. and Segundina Alcala. When he was a
child and then known as Maximo Alcala, Jr., by court order, he was adopted by spouses Hoong Wong and Concepcion
Ty Wong. They decided to adopt him as they remained childless. Upon reaching 22 years old, Wong filed a petition to
change his name to Maximo Alcala, Jr. since his use of the surname Wong embarrassed and isolated him from his
relatives and friends, as the same suggests a Chinese ancestry, when in truth and in fact, he is a Muslim Filipino
residing in a Muslim community and he wants to erase any implication of alien nationality; that he is being ridiculed
for carrying a Chinese surname, thus hampering his business and social life; and that his adoptive mother does not
oppose his desire to revert to his former surname. The RTC and CA granted his petition.

ISSUE:

1|Page
Are there valid grounds to grant Wong’s petition for change of (sur)name?

HELD:
YES. A change of name is a special proceeding to establish the status of a person involving his relation with others,
that is, his legal position in, or with regard to, the rest of the community. It is a proceeding in rem and strict
compliance with all jurisdictional requirements, particularly on publication, is essential in order to vest the court with
jurisdiction. For this purpose, the only name that may be changed is the true or official name recorded in the civil
register. For clarification, the change of name under Article 376 of the Civil Code and Rule 103 of the Rules of Court
must not be confused with and cannot be effected through the summary proceeding proposed in Article 412 of the
Civil Code, as procedurally regulated by Rule 108 of the Rules, which refers only to correction of clerical errors, such
as those which are visible to the eye or obvious to the understanding, or an error made by a clerk or transcriber, or a
mistake in copying or writing, or some harmless or innocuous change, and not those which will involve substantial
changes.

To justify a request for change of name, petitioner must show not only some proper or compelling reason, 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, dishonourable, 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)
Having continuously used and been known since childhood by a Filipino name, unaware of her 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. Also, a change of name
does not define or effect a change in one's existing family relations or in the rights and duties. It does not alter one's
legal capacity, civil status or citizenship; what is altered is only the name.

Rommel Silverio v. Republic of the Philippines

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

FACTS:
Petitioner Rommel Silverio filed a petition for the change of his first name and sex in his birth certificate in RTC Manila
alleging that his name was registered as "Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio" in his certificate of live birth, 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 man’s
body, he consulted several doctors in the US and underwent psychological examination, hormone treatment and
breast augmentation. From then on, petitioner lived as a female and was in fact engaged to be married. He then
sought to have his name changed from "Rommel Jacinto" to "Mely," and his sex from "male" to "female."

During the hearing, jurisdictional requirements were established and no opposition to the petition was made. The
RTC granted his petition. However, the CA reversed the RTC holding that there is no law allowing the change of either
name or sex in the certificate of birth on the ground of sex reassignment through surgery.

ISSUE:
May the petitioner be allowed to change his name and gender by reason of surgery?

HELD:
NO. Under RA 9048, 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. In Section 4, it lays down the grounds for change of first name:
(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

2|Page
and he has been publicly known by that first name or nickname in the community; or (3) The change will avoid
confusion.

Petitioner’s basis in praying for the change of his first name was his sex reassignment. However, RA 9048 does not
sanction such ground. 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. In sum, the petition in the RTC was not within that court’s 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.

Republic of the Philippines v. Jennifer Cagandahan

G.R. No. 166676, September 12, 2008

FACTS:
Respondent Jennifer Cagandahan filed a Petition for Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate before RTC Laguna
alleging that she was born and registered as a female in the Certificate of Live Birth, but while growing up, she
developed secondary male characteristics and was diagnosed to have Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) which is a
condition where persons afflicted possess both male and female characteristics. She further alleged that she was
diagnosed to have clitoral hyperthropy, underwent an ultrasound where it was discovered that she has small ovaries
and has stopped growing and she has no breast or menstrual development. She then alleged that for all interests and
appearances as well 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 female to male and her first name be changed from
Jennifer to Jeff.

To prove her claim, respondent testified and presented the testimony of Dr. Michael Sionzon who issued a medical
certificate stating that respondent is female, but because her body secretes male hormones, her female organs did
not develop normally and she has two sex organs. He further testified that respondent’s condition is permanent and
recommended the change of gender because respondent has made up her mind, adjusted to her chosen role as male,
and the gender change would be advantageous to her. The RTC granted the petition.

ISSUE:
Was it proper to change his name and gender on the ground of her medical condition?

HELD:
YES. For respondent’s change of name under Rule 103, 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. 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, there is
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.

CAH is one of many conditions that involve intersex anatomy. Medicine adopted the term “intersexuality” to apply to
human beings who cannot be classified as either male or female. Philippine statutes compel that a person be
classified either as a male or as a female, but it cannot be controlled by mere appearances when nature itself
fundamentally negates such rigid classification. In the instant case, if respondent is determined to be a female, then
there is no basis for a change in the birth certificate entry for gender. Otherwise, based on medical testimony and

3|Page
scientific development showing the respondent to be other than female, then a change in the birth certificate entry is
in order.

PROCEDURE

Republic of the Philippines v. Judge Florendo Aquino

G.R. No. L-32779, May 25, 1979

FACTS:
Private respondent John Li Kan Wa filed a petition for change of his name to John Sotto, alleging (a) change of his
status from Chinese to Filipino as a result of his election of Filipino Citizenship; and (b) the previous confusion
resulting from being registered as John Li Kan Wa and using a different name since childhood which is John Sotto.
Finding the petition sufficient in substance, the court issued an order giving notice to all interested parties to appear
before the court and state their objections, and directed that the order be published in the Monday Post, a
newspaper of general circulation in Nueva Ecija. After due hearing, the court granted the petition for change of name.

ISSUE:
Did respondent judge acquire jurisdiction to hear the petition?

HELD:
NO. Under Section 2, Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, the petition for change shall set forth the name asked for. The
requirement is mandatory and compliance is essential, for it is by such means that the court acquires jurisdiction. In
Republic v. Reyes, failure to include the name sought to be adopted in the title of the petition and consequently in the
notices published in newspapers, is a substantial jurisdictional infirmity. As enunciated in Go Chill Beng v. Republic, for
publication to be effective, it must give correct information. To inform, the publication should recite, among others,
the following facts: (a) the name or names of applicant; (b) the cause for which the change of name is sought; and (c)
the new name asked for.

Respondent's exhibits 3-A and 3-B show that only the name Li Kan Wa was given in the title, and the name John Sotto
was not mentioned. Omission in the title of the petition of the name asked for is fatal, and the court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the case. Non-compliance with the rules did not vest the court with authority to act on the petition
and therefore, the questioned decision is null and void.

Republic of the Philippines v. Judge Pio Marcos

G.R. No. L-31065, February 15, 1990

FACTS:
A petition was filed by private respondent Pang Cha Quen alleging that she is a citizen of Nationalist China, married to
Alfredo De la Cruz, a Filipino citizen and had resided in Baguio since her birth, By a previous marriage to Sia Bian, a
citizen of Nationalist China, she gave birth to a daughter, May Sia/Manman Huang. She caused her daughter to be
registered as an alien under the name of Mary Pang. When petitioner Pang Cha Quen married Alfredo De la Cruz, her
daughter has grown to love and recognize her stepfather. She desires to adopt and use his surname "De la Cruz" in
addition to her name. Alfredo gave his conformity to the petition by signing at the bottom of the pleading.

Respondent Judge issued an order setting the hearing of the petition and inviting all interested persons to file their
opposition. The order also directed that it be published at the expense of the petitioner in the Baguio and Midland
Courier, a newspaper of general circulation in Baguio. During the hearing, nobody opposed it, hence, respondent
Judge authorized the name of May Sia/Manman Huang to be changed to Mary Pang De la Cruz.

ISSUES:

4|Page
 a. Did the court acquire jurisdiction over the petition?
b. Was there a proper and reasonable cause for changing the name?

HELD:
a. NO. In Republic v. Zosa, the reason for the inclusion of the name sought to be adopted in the title of the
petition or in the caption of the published order is that the ordinary reader only glances fleetingly at the
caption of the published order or the title of the petition in a special proceeding for a change of name. Only if
the caption or the title strikes him because one or all of the names mentioned are familiar to him, does he
proceed to read the contents of the order. The probability is great that he will not notice the other names or
aliases of the applicant if they are mentioned only in the body of the order or petition.

The omission of her other alias "Mary Pang", in the captions of the court's order and of the petition defeats
the purpose of the publication. In view of that defect, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the
subject of the proceedings, i.e., the various names and aliases of the petitioner which she wished to change
to "Mary Pang De la Cruz."

b. NO. The following have been considered valid grounds for a change of name: (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) having continuously used and
been known since childhood by a Filipino name, unaware of his alien parentage; or (e) a sincere desire to
adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of former alienage all in good faith and not to prejudice anybody.

The reasons offered for changing the name of petitioner's daughter are: (1) that "her daughter grew up with,
and learned to love and recognize Alfredo de la Cruz as her own father; (2) to afford her daughter a feeling of
security; and (3) that Alfredo agrees to this petition. Clearly, these are not valid reasons for a change of
name. In Padilla v. Republic, laws do not authorize legitimate children to adopt the surname of a person not
their father, for to allow them to adopt the surname of their mother's husband, who is not their father, can
result in confusion of their paternity.

Also, only May Sia herself, when she shall have reached the age of majority, may file the petition to change
her name. It must be her personal decision on the reason that when she grows up, she may not want to use
her stepfather's surname, nor any of the aliases chosen for her by her mother.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RA 9255 AN ACT ALLOWING ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN TO USE THE SURNAME OF THEIR FATHER
FEBRUARY 24 2004

AN ACT ALLOWING ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN TO USE THE SURNAME OF THEIR FATHER, AMENDING FOR THE
PURPOSE ARTICLE 176 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 209, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "FAMILY CODE OF THE
PHILIPPINES"

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

SECTION 1. Article 176 of Executive Order No. 209, otherwise known as the Family Code of the Philippines, is hereby
amended to read as follows:

"Article 176. ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of their
mother, and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this Code. HOWEVER, illegitimate children may use the
surname of their father if their filiation has been expressly recognized by the father through the record of birth

5|Page
appearing in the civil register, or when an admission in a public document or private handwritten instrument is made
by the father. PROVIDED, the father has the right to institute an action before the regular courts to prove non-filiation
during his lifetime. THE LEGITIME OF EACH ILLEGITIMATE CHILD SHALL CONSIST OF ONE-HALF OF THE LEGITIME OF A
LEGITIMATE CHILD."

SECTION 2. Repealing Clause. – all laws, presidential decrees, executive orders, proclamations, rules and regulations,
which are inconsistent with the provisions of this act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

SECTION 3. Effectivity Clause. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days from its
publication in the Official Gazette or in two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

In Re: Petition for Change of Name of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang

G.R. No. 159966, March 30, 2005

FACTS:
Julian Lin Carulasan Wang was born to parents Anna Wang and Sing Foe Wang. When his parents subsequently got
married, they executed a deed of legitimation of their son so that the child’s name was changed from Julian Lin
Carulasan to Julian Lin Carulasan Wang. The parents plan to stay in Singapore because they will let him study there
together with his sister. Since in Singapore middle names are not carried in a person’s name, they anticipate that
Julian will be discriminated because of his current registered name. Hence, petitioner Julian, represented by his
mother, filed a petition for change of name to drop his middle name. The RTC denied it.

The reason given for the change of name did not fall within the grounds recognized by law since 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 be taken from
Julian. It added that when he reaches adulthood, he can decide whether he will change it.

ISSUE:
Is the dropping the middle name of a minor contrary to Article 174 of the Family Code?

HELD:
NO. The grounds for change of name 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.

Middle names serve to identify the maternal lineage or filiation of a person as well as further distinguish him from
others who may have the same given name and surname as he has. The use of surnames state that legitimate and
legitimated children shall principally use the surname of the father. The Family Code gives legitimate children the
right to bear the surnames of the father and the mother, while illegitimate children shall use the surname of their
mother. Applying these laws, an illegitimate child whose filiation is not recognized by the father bears only a given
name and his mother’s surname, and does not have a middle name.

In the case, 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. The continued use of his middle name would cause confusion and difficulty does not constitute proper

6|Page
and reasonable cause to drop it from his registered complete name. In addition, petitioner is only a minor and it is
best that the matter of change of his name be left to his judgment and discretion when he reaches the age of
majority.

In the Matter of the Adoption of Stephanie Nathy Astroga Garcia

G.R. No. 148311, March 31, 2005

FACTS:
Petitioner Honorato Catindig filed a petition to adopt his minor illegitimate child, Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia,
alleging that Stephanie was born to her mother, Gemma Astorga Garcia. Stephanie has been using her mother’s
middle name and surname. Petitioner, now a widower and qualified to be her adopting parent, he prayed that
Stephanie’s middle name Astorga be changed to Garcia, her mother’s surname, and that her surname Garcia be
changed to Catindig, his surname. The RTC granted the petition and changed her name to Stephanie Nathy Catindig.

Petitioner filed a motion for clarification and/or reconsideration praying that Stephanie should be allowed to use the
surname of her natural mother, Garcia, as her middle name. However, the trial court denied the motion holding that
there is no law or jurisprudence allowing an adopted child to use the surname of his biological mother as his middle
name.

ISSUE:
May an illegitimate child, upon adoption by her natural father, use the surname of her natural mother as her middle
name?

HELD:
YES. The name of an individual has two parts: (1) the given or proper name and (2) the surname or family name. The
given or proper name is that which is given to the individual at birth or at baptism, to distinguish him from other
individuals. The surname or family name is that which identifies the family to which he belongs and is continued from
parent to child. The given name may be freely selected by the parents for the child, but the surname to which the
child is entitled is fixed by law. Articles 364 to 380 of the Civil Code provides the substantive rules which regulate the
use of surname of an individual.

As correctly submitted by both parties, there is no law regulating the use of a middle name. Even Article 176 of the
Family Code is silent as to what middle name a child may use. The middle name is only considered in Article 375(1) in
case there is identity of names and surnames between ascendants and descendants, in which case, the middle name
shall be added. Notably, the law is likewise silent as to what middle name an adoptee may use. Article 365 of the Civil
Code merely provides that an adopted child shall bear the surname of the adopter. Also, Article 189 of the Family
Code, enumerating the legal effects of adoption, is likewise silent on the matter. Hence, since there is no law
prohibiting an illegitimate child adopted by her natural father, like Stephanie, to use, as middle name her mother’s
surname, there is no reason why she should not be allowed to do so.

Republic of the Philippines v. Trinidad Capote

G.R. No. 157043, February 2, 2007

FACTS:
Respondent Trinidad Capote was appointed guardian of minor Giovanni Nadores Gallamaso by virtue of a court order
authorizing her to file in court a petition for change of name of said minor in accordance with the desire of his
mother, who is residing and working abroad. Minor Giovanni Nadores Gallamaso is the illegitimate natural child of
Corazon Nadores and Diosdado Gallamaso. The father failed to take up his responsibilities on matters of financial,
physical, emotional and spiritual concerns. Giovanni is now fully aware of how he stands with his father and he
desires to have his surname changed to that of his mother’s surname. Giovanni’s mother might eventually petition

7|Page
him to join her in the US and his continued use of the surname Gallamaso may complicate his status as natural child.
The trial court rendered a decision ordering the change of name from Giovanni N. Gallamaso to Giovanni Nadores.

ISSUE:
May the minor Giovanni use his mother’s surname?

HELD:
YES. When Giovanni was born in 1982 (prior to the enactment and effectivity of the Family Code), Art. 366 of the Civil
Code, as regards his use of a surname, states that a natural child acknowledged by both parents shall principally use
the surname of the father. If recognized by only one of the parents, a natural child shall employ the surname of the
recognizing parent. Based on this provision, Giovanni should have carried his mother’s surname from birth. The
records do not reveal any act or intention on the part of Giovanni’s father to actually recognize him. Meanwhile,
according to Art. 176 of the Family Code which repealed, among others, Article 366 of the Civil Code, illegitimate
children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of their mother.

Giovanni availed of the proper remedy, a petition for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, and
complied with all the procedural requirements. After hearing, the trial court found that the evidence presented
established that, under Art. 176 of the Civil Code, Giovanni is entitled to change his name as he was never recognized
by his father, while his mother has always recognized him as her child. A change of name will erase the impression
that he was ever recognized by his father. It is also to his best interest as it will facilitate his mother’s intended
petition to have him join her in the US. It is noteworthy that cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry, a
proceeding separate and distinct from change of name. The nature of adversarial proceeding was made by posting in
a newspaper of general circulation notice of the filing of the petition. The lower court also furnished the OSG a copy.
Despite the notice, no one came forward to oppose the petition including the OSG. The fact that no one opposed the
petition did not deprive the court of its jurisdiction to hear the same nor does it make the proceeding less adversarial
in nature.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------

RA 9048 & 10172 CLERICAL ERROR LAW

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9048 March 22, 2001

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 A JUDICIAL ORDER, AMENDING FOR THIS PURPOSE ARTICLES 376 AND 412 OF THE
CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

Section 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or Typographical Error and Change of First Name or Nickname – No entry in a
civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order, EXCEPT for clerical or typographical errors and
change of first name or nickname 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.

Section 2. DEFINITION OF TERMS – As used in this Act, the following terms shall mean:

(1) "CITY OR MUNICIPAL CIVIL REGISTRAR" refers to the head of the local civil registry office of the city or
municipality, as the case may be, who is appointed as such by the city or municipal mayor in accordance with the
provisions of existing laws.

8|Page
(2) "PETITIONER" refers to a natural person filing the petition and who has direct and personal interest in the
correction of a clerical or typographical error in an entry or change of first name or nickname in the civil register.

(3) "CLERICAL OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR" refers to a mistake committed in the performance of clerical work in
writing, copying, transcribing or typing an entry in the civil register that is harmless and innocuous, such as misspelled
name or misspelled place of birth or the like, which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding, and can be
corrected or changed only by reference to other existing record or records: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That no correction
must involve the change of nationality, age, status or sex of the petitioner.

(4) "CIVIL REGISTER" refers to the various registry books and related certificates and documents kept in the archives
of the local civil registry offices, Philippine Consulates and of the Office of the Civil Registrar General.

(5) "CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL" refers to the Administrator of the National Statistics Office which is the agency
mandated to carry out and administer the provision of laws on civil registration.

(6) "FIRST NAME" refers to a name or nickname given to a person which may consist of one or more names in
addition to the middle and last names.

Section 3. WHO MAY FILE THE PETITION and WHERE. – ANY PERSON HAVING DIRECT AND PERSONAL INTEREST IN
THE CORRECTION OF A CLERICAL OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN AN ENTRY AND/OR CHANGE OF FIRST NAME OR
NICKNAME IN THE CIVIL REGISTER may file, in person, a verified petition WITH THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRY OFFICE OF
THE CITY OR MUNICIPALITY WHERE THE RECORD BEING SOUGHT TO BE CORRECTED OR CHANGED IS KEPT.

In case the petitioner has already migrated to another place in the country and it would not be practical for such
party, in terms of transportation expenses, time and effort to appear in person before the local civil registrar
keeping the documents to be corrected or changed, the petition may be filed, in person, with the local civil registrar
of the place where the interested party is presently residing or domiciled. The two (2) local civil registrars concerned
will then communicate to facilitate the processing of the petition.

Citizens of the Philippines who are presently residing or domiciled in foreign countries may file their petition, in
person, with the nearest Philippine Consulates.

The petitions filed with the city or municipal civil registrar or the consul general shall be processed in accordance with
this Act and its implementing rules and regulations.

ALL PETITIONS FOR THE CLERICAL OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS AND/OR CHANGE OF FIRST NAMES OR NICKNAMES
MAY BE AVAILED OF ONLY ONCE.

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: RHA

(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 by that first name or nickname in the community: or

(3) The change will Avoid confusion.

9|Page
Section 5. Form and Contents of the Petition. – The petition shall be in the form of an affidavit, subscribed and sworn
to before any person authorized by the law to administer oaths. The affidavit shall set forth facts necessary to
establish the merits of the petition and shall show affirmatively that the petitioner is competent to testify to the
matters stated. The petitioner shall state the particular erroneous entry or entries, which are sought to be corrected
and/or the change sought to be made.

THE PETITION SHALL BE SUPPORTED WITH THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: C2O

(1) A Certified true machine copy of the certificate or of the page of the registry book containing the entry or entries
sought to be corrected or changed.

(2) At least two (2) public or private documents showing the correct entry or entries upon which the correction or
change shall be based; and

(3) Other documents which the petitioner or the city or municipal civil registrar or the consul general may consider
relevant and necessary for the approval of the petition.

In case of change of first name or nickname, the petition shall likewise be supported with the documents mentioned
in the immediately preceding paragraph. In addition, the petition shall be published at least once a week for two (2)
consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation. FURTHERMORE, the petitioner shall submit a certification
from the appropriate law enforcement agencies that he has no pending case or no criminal record.

The petition and its supporting papers shall be FILED IN THREE (3) COPIES to be distributed as follows: first copy to
the concerned city or municipal civil registrar, or the consul general; second copy to the Office of the Civil Registrar
General; and third copy to the petitioner.

Section 6. DUTIES OF THE CITY OR MUNICIPAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OR THE CONSUL GENERAL. – The city or municipal
civil registrar or the consul general to whom the petition is presented shall Examine the petition and its supporting
documents. He shall Post the petition in a conspicuous place provided for that purpose for ten (10) consecutive days
after he finds the petition and its supporting documents sufficient in form and substance.

The city or municipal civil registrar or the consul general shall Act on the petition and shall render a decision not later
than five (5) working days after the completion of the posting and/or publication requirement. He shall Transmit a
copy of his decision together with the records of the proceedings to the Office of the Civil Registrar General within
five (5) working days from the date of the decision.

Section 7. DUTIES AND POWERS OF THE CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL. – The civil registrar general shall, within ten (10)
working days from receipt of the decision granting a petition, exercise the power to impugn such decision by way of
an objection based on the following grounds: ECB

(1) The Error is not clerical or typographical;

(2) The Correction of an entry or entries in the civil register is substantial or controversial as it affects the civil status
of a person; or

(3) The Basis used in changing the first name or nickname of a person does not fall under Section 4.

The civil registrar general shall immediately notify the city or municipal civil registrar or the consul general of the
action taken on the decision. Upon receipt of the notice thereof, the city or municipal civil registrar or the consul
general shall notify the petitioner of such action.

10 | P a g e
THE PETITIONER MAY SEEK RECONSIDERATION WITH THE CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL OR FILE THE APPROPRIATE
PETITION WITH THE PROPER COURT.

If the civil registrar general fails to exercise his power to impugn the decision of the city or municipal civil registrar
or of the consul general within the period prescribed herein, such decision shall become final and executory.

Where the petition is denied by the city or municipal civil registrar or the consul general, the petitioner may either
appeal the decision to the civil registrar general or file the appropriate petition with the proper court.

Section 8. Payment of Fees. – The city or municipal civil registrar or the consul general shall be authorized to collect
reasonable fees as a condition for accepting the petition. AN INDIGENT PETITIONER SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM THE
PAYMENT OF THE SAID FEE.

Section 9. Penalty Clause. - A person who violates any of the provisions of this Act shall, upon conviction, be penalized
by imprisonment of not less than six (6) years but not more than twelve (12) years, or a fine of not less than Ten
thousand pesos (P10,000.00) but not more than One Hundred Thousand pesos (P100,000.00), or both, at the
discretion of the court.

In addition, if the offender is a government official or employee he shall suffer the penalties provided under civil
service laws, rules and regulations.

Section 10. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - The civil registrar general shall, in consultation with the
Department of Justice, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Office of the Supreme Court Administrator, the
University of the Philippines Law Center and the Philippine Association of Civil Registrars, issue the necessary rules
and regulations for the effective implementation of this Act not later than three (3) months from the effectivity of this
law.

Section 11. Retroactivity Clause. - This Act shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair
vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code and other laws.

Section 12. Separability Clause. - If any portion or provision of this Act is declared void or unconstitutional, the
remaining portions or provisions thereof shall not be affected by such declaration.

Section 13. Repealing Clause - All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations, other issuances, or parts thereof
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

Section 14. Effectivity Clause. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in at least two
(2) national newspapers of general circulation.

Approved: March 22, 2001

RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10172 (An Act Further
Authorizing the City or Municipal Civil Registrar or the Consul General to Correct Clerical or Typographical Errors in
the Day and Month in the Date of Birth or Sex of a Person Appearing in the Civil Register Without Need of a Judicial
Order, Amending for this Purpose Act Numbered Ninety Forty-Eight.)
Pursuant to Section 2 of Act No. 3753, the Office of the Civil Registrar General (OCRG) hereby promulgates the
following rules and regulations of Republic Act No. 10172 which was approved on August 15, 2012 for the
information, guidance and compliance of all concerned parties.

11 | P a g e
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Commonwealth Act No. 591 mandates the National Statistics Office (NSO) through the OCRG to carry out and
administer the provisions of Act No. 3753 otherwise known as the “Civil Registry Law”.
This Order shall be suppletory to Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2001 (Implementing Rules and Regulations,
Republic Act No. 9048).
Republic Act No. 10172 amended Sections 1, 2, 5 and 8 of Republic Act No. 9048. Section 1 of this Amendatory Law
provides, “No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order, except for clerical or
typographical errors and change of first name or nickname, the day and month in the date of birth or sex of a person
where it is patently clear that there was a clerical or typographical error or mistake in the entry, which can be
corrected or changed by the concerned city or municipal civil registrar (C/MCR) or consul general in accordance with
the provisions of this Act and its implementing rules and regulations.”
IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS

Rule 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or Typographical Error

The duly appointed C/MCR in accordance with the provisions of the existing laws, including the Consul General, are
hereby authorized to correct clerical or typographical errors in the day and month (date of birth) or sex of a person in
the civil register for birth.
Rule 2. Definition of Terms
As used in these rules, the following terms shall mean:
2.1. Clerical or typographical error - Refers to a mistake committed in the performance of clerical work in writing,
copying, transcribing or typing an entry in the civil register on the entry of day and month in the date of birth or the
sex of the person, which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding, and can be corrected or changed only
by reference to other existing record or records: Provided, however, that no correction must involve the change of
nationality, age (refers to the correction on the year of birth), or legitimacy status of the petitioner/document owner.
2.2. Sex – Refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women.
2.3. Day and Month of Birth – Refers to the entry in the month and/or day of birth of the petitioner/document owner
which is sought to be corrected.
2.4. Accredited Government Physician – Refers to a licensed doctor of medicine who is registered with the
Professional Regulations Commission (PRC) and is employed in any government hospitals, health institutions, or
public health offices.
2.5. Medical Certification – Refers to the certification issued by the accredited government physician attesting to the
fact that the petitioner/document owner has not undergone sex change or sex transplant.
Rule 3. Who may file the petition.
3.1. For correction of entry on the day and/or month in the date of birth:

Any person of legal age, having direct and personal interest in the correction of a clerical or typographical error in
the day and/or month in the date of birth of a person in the civil register for birth, may file the petition.

A person is considered to have direct and personal interest when he is the owner of the record, or the owner's
spouse, children, parents, brothers, sisters, grandparents, guardian, or any other person duly authorized by law or

12 | P a g e
by the owner of the document sought to be corrected; PROVIDED; HOWEVER, that when a person is a minor or
physically or mentally incapacitated, the petition may be filed on his/her behalf by his/her spouse, or any of his/her
children, parents, brothers; sisters; grandparents, guardians, or persons duly authorized by law.

3.2. For correction of a clerical or typographical error in sex:

The petitioner affected by such error shall personally file the petition with the civil registry office where the birth
certificate is registered.
Rule 4. Where to file the petition
4.1. For correction of clerical and typographical error in the entry of the day and/or month in the date of birth.
The verified petition may be filed with the C/MCR of the city or municipality or the Philippine Consulate, as the case
may be, where the birth record containing the day and/or month in the date of birth to be corrected is registered.
When the petitioner has migrated to another place within the Philippines and it is not practical for such party, in
terms of transportation expenses, time and effort to appear before the C/MCR of the place of birth, the petition
may be filed with the C/MCR of the place where the petitioner is residing or domiciled.
Any person whose birth record was reported abroad and presently residing in the Philippines, the petition may be
filed with the C/MCR of the place of residence following the procedures of migrant petition.
Any person whose birth record was registered in the Philippines, or in any Philippine Consulate, BUT who is presently
residing or domiciled in a foreign country, may file the petition with the nearest Philippine Consulate.
4.2. For correction of clerical and typographical error in the entry of sex
The verified petition shall be filed, in person, with the C/MCR of the city or municipality or the Philippine
Consulate, as the case may be, where the record containing the entry of sex in the birth certificate to be corrected
is registered.

Rule 5. Processing of the petition

Insofar as applicable, Rule 5 of Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2001, shall be observed.

Rule 6. Form and content of the petition

Insofar as applicable, Rule 8 of Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2001 shall be observed. In addition, as supporting
documents to the petition, the following shall be submitted:
6.1. Earliest school record or earliest school documents;
6.2. Medical records;
6.3. Baptismal certificate and other documents issued by religious authorities;
6.4. A Clearance or a certification that the owner of the document has no pending administrative, civil or criminal
case, or no criminal record, which shall be obtained from the following:

13 | P a g e
6.4.1. Employer, if employed;
6.4.2. National Bureau of Investigation; and
6.4.3. Philippine National Police.
6.5. The petition for the correction of sex and day and/or month in the date of birth shall include the affidavit of
publication from the publisher and a copy of the newspaper clipping; and
6.6. In case of correction of sex, the petition shall be supported with a medical certification issued by an accredited
government physician that the petitioner has not undergone sex change or sex transplant.
Rule 7. Posting and publication of the petition.
Insofar as applicable, Rule 9 of Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2001 shall be observed.
Rule 8. Duties of the C/MCR
Insofar as applicable, Rule 10 of Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2001 shall be observed.
In addition, the C/MCR shall issue a certification on the authenticity of the certification issued by the accredited
government physician certifying that the petitioner/document owner has not undergone sex change or sex
transplant.
Rule 9. Duties and powers of the CRG
Insofar as applicable, Rule 11 of Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2001 shall be observed.
Rule 10. Authority to collect filing and other fees
The C/MCR is hereby authorized to collect from every petitioner three thousand pesos (P3,000.00) for petition to
correct the day and/or month in the date of birth or sex. An indigent petitioner shall be exempt from paying the
required payment, provided that the petition is supported by a certification from the City/Municipal Social Welfare
Office that the petitioner/document owner is indigent.
In the case of a petition filed with the CG, a filing fee of one hundred fifty U.S. dollars ($150.00) or its equivalent
value in local currency for the correction of clerical or typographical error is required.
In the case of a migrant petition, there shall be a service fee of one thousand pesos (P1,000.00) to be collected by the
PRCR.
When a petitioner/document owner files petition for correction of clerical error under R.A. 9048, simultaneously,
with a petition for correction of clerical error under R.A. 10172, and the same document is involved, the
petitioner/document owner shall pay only the amount of P3,000.00 corresponding to the fee under R.A. 10172.
All fees collected by the C/MCR or the consul general pursuant to this Law shall accrue to the funds of the Local
Civil Registry Office concerned or the Office of the Consul General for modernization of the office and hiring of new
personnel and procurement of supplies, subject to government accounting and auditing rules.
The local legislative body shall ratify the fees herein prescribed upon effectivity of this Order. Prior to ratification by
the local legislative body, all fees collected in connection with this Order shall go to the LCRO trust fund, PROVIDED,
HOWEVER, that the fees prescribed therein shall be uniform in all cities and municipalities in the country, and in all
Philippine Consulates.
Rule 11. Retroactivity clause
This Order shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in
accordance with the Civil Code and other laws.
Rule 12. Separability clause

14 | P a g e
If any portion or provision of this Order is declared void or unconstitutional, the remaining portions or provisions
thereof shall not be affected by such declaration.
Rule 13. Repealing clause.
All circulars, memoranda, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Order are
hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
Rule 14. Effectivity clause.
This Order shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two newspapers
of general circulation.
Approved this 24th day of October 2012.

RAs 9048 & 10172 (Clerical Error Law)

 RA 9048 originally dealt w/ clerical/typo errors; changes in first names & nicknames; RA 10172 added
changes of sex, & in month/day of birth
Clerical error, defined: mistake committed in the performance of clerical work in writing/copying/transcribing/typing
an entry in the civil register that [is]:
1. HARMLESS & INNOCUOUS (e.g. misspelled name, place of birth, mistake in the entry of day & month in the
DOB, or mistake in the sex of the person, etc.);
2. VISIBLE TO THE EYES or OBVIOUS TO THE MISUNDERSTANDING; &
3. Correctible ONLY BY REFERENCE TO OTHER EXISTING RECORD(S)…
… provided that no correction must involve the change of nationality/age/status of the petitioner

CAN A PERSON HAVE AN ENTRY IN A CIVIL REGISTER CHANGED?

GR: No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected w/o judicial order
XPN: 1. Clerical/typographical errors
2. Change of first name/nickname … where it is patently clear that there was
3. Change of day & month in the DOB  a clerical/typographical error/mistake in
4. Change of sex of a person the entry
… which can be corrected/changed by the concerned city/municipal civil registrar or consul
general in accordance w/ the provisions of RA 9048 as amended by RA 10172 & the IRR (Sec. 1, as
amended)

HOW CAN AN ENTRY IN A CIVIL REGISTER BE CHANGED, AND BY WHOSE INITIATIVE?

1. Any [natural (Sec. 2(2))] person having direct & personal interest in the correction of a clerical/typographical
error in an entry and/or change of first name/nickname may file, in person, a verified petition w/ the
city/municipal civil register or consul general.
2. Any person of legal age, having direct and personal interest in the correction of a clerical or typographical
error in the day and/or month in the date of birth of a person in the civil register for birth, may file the
petition.
└ A person is considered to have direct and personal interest when [s]he is the:
 Owner of the record; or
 The owner's spouse, child, parent, brothers, sister, grandparent, guardian; or
 Any other person duly authorized by law or by the owner of the document sought to be
corrected…

15 | P a g e
 … provided that when a person is a minor or physically or mentally incapacitated, the petition may be filed on
his/her behalf by his/her spouse, or any of his/her children, parents, brothers, sisters, grandparents,
guardians, or persons duly authorized by law. (IRR, Rule 3)
3. For correction of a clerical or typographical error in sex, the petitioner affected by such error shall personally
file the petition with the civil registry office where the birth certificate is registered. (IRR, Rule 3)

+ a certification from the appropriate law enforcement agencies that he has no pending case or no criminal record.
(Sec. 3) Note that all petitions may be availed of only once. (Sec. 5, as amended)
└ RE: change of name –
 Change shall be reflected in the birth certificate by way of marginal annotation
 In case there are other civil registry records of the same person which are affected by such change,
the decision of approving the change of first name in the birth certificate, upon becoming final and
executory, shall be sufficient to be used as basis in changing the first name of the same person in his
other affected records w/o need for filing a similar petition; successful petitioner need only file a
written request/ the concerned C/MCR, CG or D/CR to make such marginal annotation, attaching
thereto a copy of the decision. (2001 IRR, Rule 12)

WHERE CAN IT BE DONE?

For correction of clerical/typographical error in an entry and/or change of first name or nickname, or in the entry of
the day and/or month in the date of birth:

… w/ the local civil registry office of the

If petitioner resides/is domiciled in the
city/municipality where the record is kept…
If petitioner has already migrated to another place
in the country & it would not be practical for
him/her, in terms of transportation expenses, time,
& effort, to appear in person…
If petitioner is presently residing/domiciled in a
foreign country…
city/municipality where the record sought to be
corrected/changed is kept
… w/ the local civil registrar of the place where the
interested party is presently residing/domiciled;
the two local civil registrars concerned will then
communicate to facilitate the processing of the
petition
… w/ the nearest Philippine Consulate (Sec. 5, as
amended)

For correction of clerical and typographical error in the entry of sex:

The verified petition shall be filed, in person, with the civil register of the city or municipality – or the Philippine
Consulate, as the case may be – where the record containing the entry of sex in the birth certificate to be corrected is
registered. (IRR, Rule 4)

IN WHAT FORM MUST THE PETITION BE? WHAT SHOULD IT CONTAIN?

The petition must be in the form of an affidavit, subscribed and sworn to before any person authorized by law to
administer oaths, and is to:

1. Set forth facts necessary to establish the merits of the petition;

2. Show affirmatively that the petitioner is competent to testify to the matters stated; &
3. State the particular erroneous entry/entries to be corrected and/or the change to be made. (Sec. 5, as
amended)

Petitions for change of first name/nickname must be based on the following grounds:

16 | P a g e
 1. Petitioner finds the first name/nickname to be ridiculous, tainted with dishonor, or extremely difficult to
write or pronounce;
2. New first name/nickname = habitually used by petitioner, and he has been publicly known by that first
name/nickname in the community; or
3. Change will avoid confusion. (Sec. 4)

The petition shall be supported w/ the following documents:

1. Certified true machine copy of the certificate/page of the registry book containing the entry/entries to be
corrected/changed;
2. At least two (2) public/private documents showing the correct entry/entries upon w/c the correction/change
shall be based; &
3. Other documents w/c may be considered relevant and necessary (by the petitioner or the civil registrar) for
the approval of the petition. (Sec. 5, as amended)

… + above requirements + clearance/certification

If petition is for change of first name/nickname…
If petition is for correction of erroneous entry
concerning DOB…
If petition is for correction of erroneous entry
concerning sex…
that the owner of the document has no pending
administrative/civil/criminal case, or no criminal
record, w/c shall be obtained from the: (a)
employer, if employed; (b) NBI; (c) PNP + affidavit
of publication from the publisher and a copy of the
newspaper clipping (2001 IRR, Rule 8)
… above requirements + earliest school
record/documents, medical records, baptismal
certificate and other documents issued by religious
authorities + affidavit of publication from the
publisher and a copy of the newspaper clipping
(IRR, Rule 6)
… above requirements + earliest school
record/documents, etc. + a certification issued by
an accredited government physician attesting to
the fact that the petitioner has not undergone a
sex change/transplant procedure (Sec. 5, as
amended) + affidavit of publication from the
publisher and a copy of the newspaper clipping
(IRR, Rule 6)

The petition + supporting papers must be filed in three (3) copies:

1. First copy = concerned city/municipal civil registrar, or consul general

2. Second copy = Office of the Civil Registrar General
3. Third copy = petitioner (Sec. 5, as amended)

The petition shall be published at least once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
circulation. (Sec. 5, as amended) [see also posting requirement c/o C/MCR in later pages]
└ RE: migrant petitioners – petition to be posted first at the office of the PRCR for ten (10) consecutive days
before sending it to the RKCR, who shall, upon receipt, post same at his office for another ten (10)
consecutive days; when the petition is for change of first name, migrant petitioner shall publish the
petition in a newspaper of general & national circulation.

17 | P a g e
 └ RE: petitioner in foreign country – Posting and/or publication, as the case may be, shall be done in the
place where the petition is filed & in the place where the record sought to be corrected is kept. (2001 IRR,
Rule 9)

The city/municipal registrar (or the consul general, as the case may be) is authorized to collect reasonable [filing] fees
as a condition for accepting the petition. An indigent petitioner shall be exempt therefrom. (Sec. 8, as amended)
└ Fees = to accrue to –
└ Funds of the Local Civil Registry Office concerned; or
└ Office of the Consul General
… for modernization of the office, hiring of new personnel, and procurement of supplies; subject to
government accounting & auditing rules. (Sec. 8, as amended)

For petitions to correct a clerical/ typographical P1,000; indigent petitioner = exempt

error…
For petitions for change of first name/nickname…
For petitions filed with the Consul General…
For migrant petitions…
For petitions to correct the day and/or month in the
DOB and for change of sex…
For petitions filed with the Consul General…
For migrant petitions…
When petitioner/document owner files a petition
under RA 9078 simultaneously w/ one under RA
10172, involving the same document…
└ (2001 IRR, Rule 18; IRR, Rule 10)
P3,000; indigent petitioner = exempt
 Correction of clerical/typographical error: $50 or
its equivalent value in local currency in petitions
 change of first name/nickname: $150 or its
equivalent value in local currency
 Correction of clerical/typographical error: P500
service fee (+ filing fee in the form of postal
money order or other form of payment to be
transmitted to the RKCR)
 change of first name/nickname: P1,000 service
fee (+ filing fee in the form of postal money
order or other form of payment to be
transmitted to the RKCR)
P3000; indigent petitioner = exempt, provided the
petition is supported by a certification from the
City/Municipal Social Welfare Office that the
petitioner/document owner is indigent
$150 or its equivalent value in local currency
P1,000 service fee collected by the PRCR
P3,000, corresponding to the fee under RA 10172

WHAT HAPPENS UPON SUBMISSION OF THE PETITION?

The civil registrar/consul general to whom the petition is presented must (in order):

1. Examine the petition + supporting documents;

2. Post the petition in a conspicuous place provided for the purpose for ten (10) consecutive days after finding
the petition + supporting documents sufficient in form & substance;
3. Act on the petition and render a decision not later than five (5) working days after the completion of the
posting and/or publication requirement;
└ Grounds for denying a petition for correction of clerical/typographical error:
 Supporting documents = not authentic and genuine;

18 | P a g e
  C/MCR has personal knowledge that a similar petition is filed or pending in court or in any
other LCRO;
 Petition involves the same entry in the same document, w/c was previously corrected or
changed;
 Petition involves the change of the status/sex/age/nationality of petitioner/any person
named in the document; and
 Such other grounds as the C/MCR may deem not proper for correction. (2001 IRR, Rule 5)
└ Grounds for denying a petition for change of first name/nickname:
 First name/nickname sought to be changed is neither ridiculous, nor tainted with dishonor
nor extremely difficult to write or pronounce;
 New first name or nickname sought to be adopted has not been habitually & continuously
used by the petitioner, & he has not been publicly known by that first name/nickname in the
community; and
 No confusion to be avoided or created. (2001 IRR, Rule 5)
4. Transmit a copy of the decision + records of the proceedings to the Office of the Civil Registrar General w/in
five (5) working days from the date of the decision. (Sec. 6)

FAVORABLE DECISION UNFAVORABLE DECISION

The Civil Registrar General shall, w/in ten (10)
working days from receipt of the decision granting
the petition, exercise the power to impugn such
decision by way of an objection based on the
following grounds:
1. The error is not clerical/typographical;
2. The correction of an entry/entries in the civil
register is substantial/controversial as it
affects the civil status of persons; or
3. The basis used in changing the first
name/nickname does not fall under those
mentioned in Sec. 4 (Sec. 7)
In case the petition is denied by the city/municipal
civil registrar or the consul general, petitioner may:
1. Appeal same to Civil Registrar General within
ten (10) working days after the receipt of the
city/municipal civil registrar’s decision; or
2. File the appropriate petition w/ the proper
court. (Sec. 7)
Grounds of appeal:
1. New evidence is discovered that may
affect/alter/modify/reverse the decision of
the C/MCR when presented;
2. Denial of the C/MCR is erroneous/not
supported w/ evidence; or
3. Grave abuse of authority or discretion on the
part of the C/MCR. (2001 IRR, Rule 14)

Rules on appeal:

1. The C/MCR shall, within five (5) working days

after the receipt of the notice of appeal from
the petitioner, submit the petition and all
supporting documents to the CRG;
2. The CRG shall render decision on the appeal
within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt
thereof;
3. The decision of the CRG shall be transmitted
to the concerned C/MCR within ten (10)
working days after the date of the decision;
and

19 | P a g e
 4. Within ten (10) working days after receipt of
the decision, the C/MCR shall notify the
petitioner and shall carry out the decision.
(2001 IRR, Rule 14)

Rule on failure to seasonably appeal:

When the petitioner fails to seasonably file the

appeal, the decision of the C/MCR disapproving the
petition shall become final and executory, & the only
option left for the petitioner shall be to file the
appropriate petition with the proper court. (2001
IRR, Rule 14)

The Civil Registrar General shall immediately notify the city/municipal civil registrar or consul general of the action
taken on the decision. Upon receipt of the notice thereof, the latter shall notify the petitioner of such action. The
petitioner may either seek reconsideration w/ the Civil Registrar General or file the appropriate petition w/ the
proper court. (Sec. 7)

If the Civil Registrar General fails to exercise his power to impugn the decision of the city/municipal civil registrar or of
the consul general within the 10-day period, the decision becomes final & executory. (Sec. 7)

Republic Act No. 9048 & 10172: Clerical Error Law

Jorge Batbatan and Delia Batbatan v. Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Zamboanga
G.R. No. L-33724, November 29, 1982

FACTS:
Petitioner Eligia Batbatan, mother of Jorge Batbatan Ang and Delia Batbatan Luy whose surnames were taken from
the name and the alias of their father Ang Kiu Chuy, alias Sioma Luy., filed a petition for the correction of entries as
regards the names of the children, Eligia and Ang were never married at least up to the time the former testified in
court. According to the petitioner, Ang was married to another woman at the times their children were born. An elder
daughter carried the name Jane Batbatan without the father's surname.

Eligia wanted the "Ang" and the "Luy" surnames dropped from her children's names such that their corrected names
would be Jorge Batbatan and Delia Batbatan. The trial court denied the petition since the Office of the local civil
registrar are allowed only to correct clerical errors. Corrections are not allowed when the effect is to change status,
citizenship, or any substantial alterations, which should be decided in an appropriate proceeding.

ISSUE:
May such petition be granted for correction of their names in the birth certificate?

HELD:
YES. In Lim v. Republic, a clerical error implies mistakes by the clerk in copying or 'writing, the making of wrong entries
in the public records contrary to existing facts. In De Castro v. Republic, an error is not clerical and does not fall under
the summary procedure contemplated in Article 412 of the Civil Code if it affects substantial matters, if its correction
will bring about a substantial change. However, where justice and equity dictate it and where no such change is
contemplated, its use must be sustained.

20 | P a g e
The corrections in this petition do not go so far as to affect citizenship or status. The errors committed by the clerk
have resulted in entries contrary to law. The changes sought, if granted, would bring about a compliance with Article
363 of the Civil Code which provides: "Illegitimate children referred to in Article 287 shall bear the surnames of the
mother." Since the petitioner children were born of a married man with a woman not his legitimate spouse and are
thus "spurious or adulterous", they should bear the petitioner’s surname. The petitioner prayer to strike out the
surnames not sanctions by the Civil Code should have been granted by the lower court.

Marcelo Lee v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 118387, October 11, 2001

FACTS:
Two sets of children are sired by one and the same man but begotten of 2 different mothers. One set, the private
respondents who are the children of Lee Tek Sheng and his lawful wife, Keh Shiok Cheng. The other set, the
petitioners who are allegedly children of Lee Tek Sheng and his concubine, Tiu Chuan. Private respondents filed 2
petitions for the cancellation and/or correction of entries in the records of birth of petitioners for the false and
erroneous entries in all pertinent records of birth of petitioners by deleting and/or canceling therein the name of Keh
Shiok Cheng as their mother, and by substituting the same with the name Tiu Chuan, who is allegedly the petitioners’
true birth mother. Every time Tiu Chuan gave birth, Lee Tek Sheng falsified the entries in the records of birth of
petitioners by making it appear that petitioners’ mother was Keh Shiok Cheng.

Petitioners filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that resort to Rule 108 is improper where the ultimate objective is
to assail the legitimacy and filiation of petitioners. However, the motion was denied. Hence, the case.

ISSUE:
May Rule 108 be used to corrections which are summary in nature?

HELD:
NO. Changes which may affect the civil status from legitimate to illegitimate, as well as sex, are substantial and
controversial alterations which can only be allowed after appropriate adversary proceedings. Changes affecting civil
status or citizenship are substantial and should be made in a proper action. The basis for the pronouncement that
extending the scope of Rule 108 to substantial corrections is unconstitutional. Hence, under RA 9048, clerical or
typographical errors in entries of the civil register are now to be corrected and changed without need of a judicial
order and by the city or municipal civil registrar or consul general. The effect is to remove from the ambit of Rule 108
the correction or changing of such errors in entries of the civil register. What is left for the scope of operation of Rule
108 are substantial changes and corrections in entries of the civil register.

RA 9048 embodies that summary procedure while Rule 108 is that appropriate adversary proceeding. Be that as it
may, the case at bar cannot be decided on the basis of RA 9048 which has prospective application. Hence, the
necessity for the preceding treatise.

Republic of the Philippines v. Carlito Kho

G.R. No. 170340, June 29, 2007

FACTS:
Carlito and his siblings filed a petition for correction of entries in the civil registry to effect changes in their respective
birth certificates. He requested the correction in his birth certificate of the citizenship of his mother to Filipino instead
of Chinese, as well as the deletion of the word married opposite the phrase Date of marriage of parents because his
parents, Juan Kho and Epifania Inchoco, were allegedly not legally married. Carlito filed an Amended Petition praying
that Carlito’s second name of John be deleted from his record of birth; and that the name and citizenship of Carlito’s

21 | P a g e
father in his marriage certificate be corrected from John Kho to Juan Kho and Filipino to Chinese. The RTC granted the
petition.

ISSUE:
Was there a need for an adversarial proceeding since the nature of the petition is substantial?

HELD:
NO. In Republic v. Valencia, even substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected through a petition filed under
Rule 108. It is true that if the subject matter of a petition is not for the correction of clerical errors of a harmless and
innocuous nature, but one involving nationality or citizenship, which is indisputably substantial as well as
controverted, affirmative relief cannot be granted in a proceeding summary in nature. However, it is also true that a
right in law may be enforced and a wrong may be remedied as long as the appropriate remedy is used. The 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.

The enactment of RA 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. When all the procedural requirements under Rule
108 are thus followed, the appropriate adversary proceeding necessary to effect substantial corrections to the entries
of the civil register is satisfied. Publication of the order of hearing under Section 4 of Rule 108 cured the failure to
implead an indispensable party required under RA 9048.

Kilosbayan Foundation v. Exec. Sec. Eduardo Ermita

G.R. No. 177721, July 3, 2007

FACTS:
Respondent Executive Secretary announced an appointment in favor of respondent Gregory Ong as Associate Justice
of SC to fill up the vacancy created by the retirement of AJ Callejo. The appointment was reported by the major daily
publications. However, it was later reported that the appointment was "recalled" or "held in abeyance" by
Malacañang in view of the question relating to the citizenship of respondent Gregory Ong. But there is no indication
that the appointment has been cancelled. Petitioners now 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. The birth certificate
reveals that at the time of respondent Ong’s birth, his father was Chinese and his mother was also Chinese, which is
contrary to Section 7(1) of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.

ISSUE:
Is respondent Ong a natural-born Filipino citizen?

HELD:
YES. Under Labayo-Rowe v. Republic, no substantial change or correction in an entry in a civil register can be made
without a judicial order, and, under the law, a change in citizenship status is a substantial change. RA 9048 provides in
Section 2(3) that a summary administrative proceeding to correct clerical or typographical errors in a 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.

The series of events and long string of alleged changes in the nationalities of respondent Ong’s ancestors, by various
births, marriages and deaths, all entail factual assertions that need to be threshed out in proper judicial proceedings
so as to correct the existing records on his birth and citizenship. The chain of evidence would have to show that Dy
Guiok Santos, respondent Ong’s mother, was a Filipino citizen, contrary to what still appears in the records of this
Court. Respondent Ong has the burden of proving in court his alleged ancestral tree as well as his citizenship under

22 | P a g e
the timeline 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.

RULE 108 CANCELLATION OR CORRECTION OF ENTRIES IN THE CIVIL

Section 1. WHO MAY FILE PETITION. — Any person interested in any act, event, order or decree concerning the civil
status of persons which has been recorded in the civil register, may file a verified petition for the cancellation or
correction of any entry relating thereto, with the Court of First Instance of the province where the corresponding civil
registry is located.

Section 2. ENTRIES SUBJECT TO CANCELLATION OR CORRECTION. — Upon good and valid grounds, the following
entries in the civil register may be cancelled or corrected: (a) Births: (b) Marriage; (c) Deaths; (d) Legal separations; (e)
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;
(l) Civil interdiction; (m) Judicial determination of filiation; (n) Voluntary emancipation of a minor; and (o) Changes of
name.

Section 3. Parties. — When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register is sought, the civil registrar and
all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby shall be made parties to the proceeding.

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

Section 5. Opposition. — The civil registrar and any person having or claiming any interest under the entry whose
cancellation or correction is sought may, within fifteen (15) days from notice of the petition, or from the last date of
publication of such notice, file his opposition thereto.

Section 6. Expediting proceedings. — The court in which the proceeding is brought may make orders expediting the
proceedings, and may also grant preliminary injunction for the preservation of the rights of the parties pending such
proceedings.

Section 7. Order. — After hearing, the court may either dismiss the petition or issue an order granting the
cancellation or correction prayed for. In either case, a certified copy of the judgment shall be served upon the civil
registrar concerned who shall annotated the same in his record.

RULE 108
Republic of the Philippines v. Judge Feliciano Belmonte
G.R. No. L-32600, February 26, 1988

FACTS:
Private respondent Anita Po @ Veronica Pao filed a Petition for the change of name from Anita Po to Veronica Pao.
For this purpose, she also sought court permission to have her birth records corrected in that her father's name
appearing as Po Yu be corrected to Pao Yu and her mother's name recorded as Pakiat Chan be changed to Helen
Chan. The petitioner alleged that the maiden name of her mother is Helen Chan and that the given name “Pakiat”
written on her birth certificate is actually the given name of her maternal grandmother. The petitioner also asserted
that the name of her father is Pao Yu and not Po Yu as erroneously written in her birth certificate and as such her real
surname is Pao. She assigns these alleged errors to the common misunderstanding of Chinese names. The petitioner
also averred that she had been baptized by a Catholic priest and that she was christened as Veronica Pao, the first

23 | P a g e
being her Christian given name and the latter being the correct spelling of her surname; that since her childhood up
to the present, she had always been known and referred to as Veronica Pao and not Anita Po.

Respondent Judge Feliciano Belmonte ruled in favor of the petitioner and was allowed to change her name from Anita
Po to Veronica Pao. The court also allowed the correction of the names of her parents as prayed for in the Petition in
the registry of birth.

ISSUE:
May the names Po Yu and Pakiat Chan appearing in the birth certificate of Anita Po can be changed in the same
proceeding for the change of name of Anita Po?

HELD:
NO. Under Section 3 of Rule 108, 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 should be made parties to
the proceeding.

An inspection of all the pleadings filed by the petitioner with the trial court shows that the local civil registrar
concerned was never made a party to the proceeding. Said civil registrar being an indispensable party, a final
determination of the case cannot be made. 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 is 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
provisions of the Rules of Court allowing the change of one's 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.

Hubert Tan Co v. The Civil Registrar of Manila

G.R. No. 138496, February 23, 2004

FACTS:
Hubert Tan Co and sister Arlene Tan Co were born to their parents Co Boon Peng and Lourdes Vihong K. Tan who are
Chinese citizens. Co Boon Peng filed an application for his naturalization as a citizen of the Philippines and was
granted. In the meantime, Hubert and Arlene finished college and earned their respective degrees. They filed with the
RTC a petition under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court for correction of entries in their certificates of birth as to the
citizenship of their father Co Boon Peng, from Chinese to Filipino. The RTC dismissed the petition on the ground that
their father applied for naturalization under LOI No. 270 and was conferred Philippine citizenship by naturalization
under PD No. 1055 and not under CA No. 473.

The petitioners sought reconsideration arguing that LOI No. 270 and CA No. 473 were designed to grant citizenship to
deserving aliens; hence, should be construed together. They averred that the benefit of Section 15 of CA No. 473
should also be granted to the petitioners whose father was granted naturalization under LOI No. 270.

ISSUE:
May the petition under Rule 108 for correction of entries in their certificates of birth as to the citizenship of their
father be entertained?

HELD:
YES. LOI No. 270 and CA No. 473 are laws governing the naturalization of qualified aliens residing in the Philippines.
While they provide for different procedures, CA No. 473 governs naturalization by judicial decree while LOI No. 270
governs naturalization by decree. Absent any express repeal of Section 15 of CA No. 473 in LOI No. 270, the said
provision should be read into the latter law as an integral part thereof, not being inconsistent with its purpose. Thus,

24 | P a g e
Section 15 of CA No. 473, which extends the grant of Philippine citizenship to the minor children of those naturalized
thereunder, should be similarly applied to the minor children of those naturalized under LOI No. 270, like the
petitioners in this case.

However, it is not enough that the petitioners adduce in evidence the certificate of naturalization of their father and
of his oath of allegiance to the Philippines, to entitle them to Philippine citizenship. They are likewise mandated to
prove the following material allegations in their petition: (a) that they are the legitimate children of Co Boon Peng; (b)
that they were born in the Philippines; and, (c) that they were still minors when Co Boon Peng was naturalized as a
Filipino citizen. The petitioners’ recourse to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is appropriate. Under Article 412 of the
New Civil Code, no entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order. The Court approved
Rule 108 to provide for a procedure to implement the law.

Ma. Cristina Torres-Braza v. The City Civil Registrar of Himamaylan City, Negros Occ.
G.R. No. 181174, December 4, 2009
DOCTRINES: In a special proceeding for correction of entry under Rule 108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the
Original Registry), the trial court has no jurisdiction to nullify marriages and rule on legitimacy and filiation.

Doctrinally, validity of marriages as well as legitimacy and filiation can be questioned only in a direct action
seasonably filed by the proper party, and not through collateral attack. An action seeking the declaration of marriage
as void for being bigamous and one impugning a child’s legitimacy are governed not by Rule 108 but by A.M. No. 02-
11-10-SC and Art. 171 of the Family Code, respectively, and the petition should be filed in a Family Court

Facts: Petitioner Ma. Cristina Torres Braza is the wife of Pablo Sicad Braza Jr., the latter died in a vehicular accident in
Bandung, West Java, Indonesia.
During the wake following the repatriation of his (Pablo’s) remains in the Philippines, Respondent Lucille Titular and
her son, Patrick Alvin Titutar showed up and introduced themselves as the wife and son respectively, of the deceased.
Petitioner Cristina thereupon made inquiries and in the course of which she obtained Patrick Alvin’s birth certificate
from the Local Civil Registrar of Negros Occidental which had states that:

1. Pablo S. Braza as the father of Patrick Alvin; the latter was acknowledged by the father on January 13, 1997;
2. Patrick Alvin was legitimated by virtue of the subsequent marriage of his parents. Therefore, his name is changed
to Patrick Alvin Titular Braza.
Cristina likewise obtained a copy of a marriage contract showing Pablo and Lucille were married.

Cristina and her co-petitioner filed before the RTC of Negros a petition to correct the entries in the birth certificate
record of Patrick in the Local Civil Registry. They contended that Patrick could not have been legitimated by the
supposed subsequent marriage between Lucille and Pablo because said marriage is bigamous on account of a valid
and subsisting marriage between her (Cristina) and Pablo. Petitioner prayed for the:

 Correction of the entries in Patrick’s birth record with respect to his legitimation, the name of the father and his
acknowledgment and the use of the last name “BRAZA”;

25 | P a g e
 A directive to Leon, Cecilia and Lucille, all surnamed Titular, as guardians of the minor Patrick, to submit Patrick to
DNA testing to determine his paternity and filiation;
 The declaration of nullity of the legitimation of Patrick as stated in his birth certificate and, for this purpose, the
declaration of the marriage between Lucille and Pablo as bigamous.
Respondent filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

RTC: Trial Court dismissed the petition without prejudice, holding that in a special proceeding for correction of entry,
the court, which is not acting as a family court, has no jurisdiction over an action to annul the marriage of Lucille and
Pablo, impugn the legitimacy of Patrick, and order Patrick to be subjected to a DNA test, hence, the controversy
should be ventilated in an ordinary adversarial action.
MR: denied.
Hence, this petition for review.

Issue: Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the subject case?
Decision: Petition is dismissed. Petition to correct the entries (Rule 108) is a wrong remedy in this case because the
trial court herein has no jurisdiction to nullify marriages and rule on legitimacy and filiation.
The allegations of the petition filed before the TC clearly show that petitioners’ seek to nullify the marriage between
Pablo and Lucille on the ground that it is bigamous and impugn Patrick’s filiation in connection with which they ask
the court to order Patrick to be subjected to a DNA test.

It is well settled doctrine that validity of marriages as well as legitimacy and filiation can be questioned in a direct
action seasonably filed by the proper party, and not through a collateral attack such as the petition filed before the
court a quo.

RULE 108 OF THE RULES OF COURT (vis a vis Art. 412 of the Civil Code)
 It charts the procedure by which an entry in the civil registry may be cancelled or corrected. The proceeding
contemplated therein may generally be used ONLY TO CORRECT CLERICAL, SPELLING, TYPOGRAPHICAL AND
OTHER INNOCUOUS ERRORS IN THE CIVIL REGISTRY.
CLERICAL ERROR/SUBSTANTIAL ERROR
 A clerical error is one which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding; an error made by a clerk or a
transcriber; a mistake in copying or writing; or a harmless change such as a correction of name that is clearly
misspelled or of a misstatement of the occupation of the parent.
 Substantial or contentious alterations may be allowed only in adversarial proceedings, in which all interested
parties are impleaded and due process is properly observed.

Gerbert Corpuz v. Daisylyn Tirol-Sto.Tomas

G.R. No. 186571, August 11, 2010

26 | P a g e
FACTS: Petitioner Corpuz, a naturalized Canadian citizen married respondent Sto. Tomas but subsequently filed for
divorce in Canada which was granted by the Court Justice of Windsor, Ontario, Canada. Two years later, Corpuz fell in
love with another Filipina. He went to Civil Registry Office of Pasig City to register the Canadian divorce decree on his
marriage certificate with Sto. Tomas. However, despite the registration, an official of National Statistics Office
informed Corpuz that the former marriage still subsists under the Philippine law until there has been a judicial
recognition of the Canadian divorce decree by a competent judicial court in view of NSO Circular No. 4, series of 1982.

Consequently, he filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and/or declaration of dissolution of
marriage with the RTC. However, the RTC denied the petition reasoning out that Corpuz cannot institute the action
for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce decree because he is a naturalized Canadian citizen. It was provided
further that Sto. Tomas was the proper party who can institute an action under the principle of Article 26 of the
Family Code which capacitates a Filipino citizen to remarry in case the alien spouse obtains a foreign divorce decree.
Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE ENTRY OF DIVORCE DECREE AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE DECREE BY THEMSELVES IN
CIVIL REGISTRY IPSO FACTO AUTHORIZE DECREES REGISTRATION

HELD: NO. There must first be a judicial recognition of the foreign judgment before it can be given res judicata effect;
THE REGISTRATION OF THE FOREIGN DIVORCE DECREE WITHOUT THE REQUISITE JUDICIAL RECOGNITION IS PATENTLY
VOID AND CANNOT PRODUCE ANY LEGAL EFFECT.

The recognition that the Regional Trial Court (RTC) may extend to the Canadian divorce decree does not, by itself,
authorize the cancellation of the entry in the civil registry. A petition for recognition of a foreign judgment is not the
proper proceeding, contemplated under the Rules of Court, for the cancellation of entries in the civil registry. Article
412 of the Civil Code declares that “NO ENTRY IN A CIVIL REGISTER SHALL BE CHANGED OR CORRECTED, WITHOUT
JUDICIAL ORDER.” The Rules of Court supplements Article 412 of the Civil Code by specifically providing for a special
remedial proceeding by which entries in the civil registry may be judicially cancelled or corrected. RULE 108 OF THE
RULES OF COURT SETS IN DETAIL THE JURISDICTIONAL AND PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE COMPLIED
WITH BEFORE A JUDGMENT, AUTHORIZING THE CANCELLATION OR CORRECTION, MAY BE ANNOTATED IN THE CIVIL
REGISTRY. It also requires, among others, that the verified petition must be filed with the RTC of the province where
the corresponding civil registry is located; that the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest must
be made parties to the proceedings; and that the time and place for hearing must be published in a newspaper of
general circulation. As these basic jurisdictional requirements have not been met in the present case, we cannot
consider the petition Gerbert filed with the RTC as one filed under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

The recognition of the foreign divorce decree may be made in a Rule 108 proceeding itself, as the object of special
proceedings (such as that in Rule 108 of the Rules of Court) is precisely to establish the status or right of a party or a
particular fact. Moreover, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court can serve as the appropriate adversarial proceeding by
which the applicability of the foreign judgment can be measured and tested in terms of jurisdictional infirmities, want
of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.

WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition for review on certiorari, and REVERSE the October 30, 2008 decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Laoag City, Branch 11, as well as its February 17, 2009 order. We order the REMAND of the
case to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with our ruling above. Let a copy of this Decision be
furnished the Civil Registrar General. No costs.
SO ORDERED.

27 | P a g e