April 5, 2016 Wrap Up
typographical errors i.e. affects civil
Rule 108
Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil
Registry
Like Rule 103, it has also been modified by
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.
Republic vs. Mercadera defines what correction
means. To correct, it presupposes a certain
error. That is why it is defined as to make or set
right to remove a false or error from. If there is
no error, then there is no basis to correct it.
Now, aside from the error, what may be
corrected would be under RA 9048 are clerical
error, not substantial errors. The law also allows
the change of first name. If you want to change
your surname, go to Rule 103. It cannot be done
administratively under Rule 108.
These are some of the amendments introduced
by this law to these rules.
RA9048, 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.
Rule 9048 Rule 108
Clerical or Substantial changes
and change of first status, citizenship,
name or nickname nationality and
Cancellation/
correction of
substantial errors
Summary procedure Adversarial
proceeding i.e.
opposing parties, as
distinguished from
ex parte application,
legal warning,
opportunity to
contest
Sec. 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.
Sec. 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) marriages;
(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.
It is important that you should implead the
required parties to the petition. Who are these
parties? The Civil Registrar is the indispensable
party. Failure to implead the civil registrar would
be fatal to the action. This was ruled in Republic
vs. Cagandahan.
In this case, although there was failure to
implead the Civil Registrar, the petitioner
nevertheless furnished a copy to the local
registrar. So the SC relaxed the rule as the
purpose of the law was already served by serving
copy with the local registrar.
Who else? All persons who have claims or
interests which would be affected by the
correction. So for instance, if you want to correct
the name of the father, you have to implead the
children that would be affected. So you have to
be conscious with that.
Who else? All possible parties that can be
considered as indispensable parties.
Failure to implead would result to the dismissal
of the petition.
In the case of Labayo-Rowe vs. Republic, the
petition involved the civil status and filiation of
the person. Very substantial! It is not just mere
typographical error. Failure to implead would
not vest the court with jurisdiction. The
judgment rendered by the court is considered
void. Include not only the recognized father, but
also the child itself, and all persons who are
deemed affected to make the petition
adversarial.
In Republic vs. Barco, the petitioners here had a
child, the name was sought to be corrected. The
mum filed a petition with the conformity of the
father to correct the birth record of their
daughter to the dad’s surname. The problem is,
the father also had another illegitimate daughter
who was not included as a party. Is the
illegitimate daughter represented by her mother
an indispensable party? The SC said the
illegitimate party is one of the parties mentioned
in Sec. 3 of Rule 108. Her successional rights
would be affected if the other daughter would
be named after the father.
But the SC ruled that the failure was not fatal as
to the compliance with Sec. 4 of Rule 108.
Sec. 3. Parties. When cancellation or correction
of an entry in the civil register is sought, the civil
registrar and all persons who have or claim any
interest which would be affected thereby shall
be made parties to the proceeding.
Sec. 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.
Even though Barco was not impleaded in the
petition, the defect was cured by compliance
with Sec. 4, Rule 108, which requires notice by
publication. The purpose of this section 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 Sec. 3, Rule 108, but were
inadvertently left out.
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. It is
validated essentially through publication which
serves as a 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.
In the case of Ceruila vs. Delantar, what
happened here is that Maria Roslyn Telin
Delantar was the child victim in the rape case
involving Romeo Jalosjos. After she was
involuntarily committed to the care and custody
of the DSWD, a petition for the cancellation of
her simulated birth certificate was filed by
spouses Platon and Librada Ceruila, without
impleading her or DSWD. Publication was made
and summons was sent to the Civil Registrar but
not to Rosilyn. The published petition may
interpose his/her comment or opposition
thereto on or before the scheduled hearing.
Valid?
Did the publication cure the failure to implead
and serve notice on Rosilyn? NO
It is not only the civil registrar but also all persons
who have or claim any interest which would be
affected by a proceeding concerning the
cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil
register must be made parties thereto. As
enunciated in Republic v. Benemerito, unless all
possible indispensable parties were duly notified
of the proceedings, the same shall be considered
as falling much too short of the requirements of
the rules. Here, it is clear that no party could be
more interested in the cancellation of Rosilyn's
birth certificate than Rosilyn herself. Her
filiation, legitimacy, and date of birth are at
stake.
It cannot be said that this is just mere
inadvertence since the the birth certificate was
already attached and the very child named
therein was not impleaded.
Now, in Republic vs. Kho, what happened?
The birth certificates of minor children were
sought to be corrected to, among others, correct
the mother’s name from Maribel to Marivel and
the date of marriage. Likewise, birth records of
Kho siblings were also sought to be corrected to
change the citizenship of their mother (Epifania)
from Chinese to Filipino and to delete the word
“married.” Epifania as well as Marivel were not
impleaded nor served notice.
Held: Publication of the order of hearing under
Section 4 of Rule 108 cured the failure to implead
an indispensable party citing Barco vs. CA.
Bakit pa-iba iba ang Supreme Court? There are
several circumstances that the Court considered.
There is no dispute that the trial court's Order
setting the petition for hearing and directing any
person or entity having interest in the petition to
oppose it was posted as well as published for the
required period; that notices of hearings were
duly served on the Solicitor General, the city
prosecutor of Butuan and the local civil registrar;
and that trial was conducted on January 31, 2002
during which the public prosecutor, acting in
behalf of the OSG, actively participated by cross-
examining Carlito and Epifania.
It may not be amiss to mention, however, that
during the hearing on January 31, 2002, the city
prosecutor who was acting as representative of
the OSG did not raise any objection to the non-
inclusion of Marivel and Carlito's parents as
parties to the proceeding.
Parenthetically, it seems highly improbable that
Marivel was unaware of the proceedings to
correct the entries in her children's birth
certificates, especially since the notices, orders
and decision of the trial courtwere all sent to the
residence she shared with Carlito and the
children.
Date of marriage of Carlito and Marivel, their
certificate of marriage25 shows that indeed they
were married on January 21, 2000, not on April
27, 1989.
Explaining the error, Carlito declared that the
date "April 27, 1989" was supplied by his helper,
adding that he was not married to Marivel at the
time his sons were born because his previous
marriage was annulled only in 1999. Given the
evidence presented by respondents, the CA
observed that the minors were illegitimate at
birth, hence, the correction would bring about
no change at all in the nature of their filiation.
We also have the case of Republic vs. Lusagnay-
Uy. We have here the Republic questioning the
decision rendered in favor of Anita Sy. She is a
Chinese citizen and a legitimate child of Sy Ton
and Sotera Lusagnay. She filed a petition for
correction of her first name and surname, her
status from legitimate to illegitimate and her
citizenship from Chinese to Filipino. She,
however, only impleaded and notified the Local
Civil Registrar and failed to implead and notify
her parents and siblings.
The Supreme Court held that the fact that the
notice of hearing was published in a newspaper
of general circulation and notice thereof was
served upon the State will not change the nature
of the proceedings taken. A reading of Sections 4
and 5, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court shows that
the Rules mandate two sets of notices to
different potential oppositor --- one given to the
persons named in the petition and another given
to other persons who are not named in the
petition but nonetheless may be considered
interested or affected parties. Summons must,
therefore, be served not for the purpose of
vesting the courts with jurisdiction but to comply
with the requirements of fair play and due
process to afford the person concerned the
opportunity to protect his interest if he so
chooses.
It is clear from the foregoing discussion that
when a petition for cancellation or correction of
an entry in the civil register involves substantial
and controversial alterations, including those on
citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or
legitimacy of marriage, a strict compliance with
the requirements of Rule 108 of the Rules of
Court is mandated. If the entries in the civil
register could be corrected or changed through
mere summary proceedings and not through
appropriate action wherein all parties who may
be affected by the entries are notified or
represented, the door to fraud or other mischief
would be set open, the consequence of which
might be detrimental and far reaching.
Cases where the failure to implead and notify the
affected or interested parties may be cured by
the publication of the notice of hearing:
1. earnest efforts were made by petitioners in
bringing to court all possible interested parties;
(Case of Barco)
2. where the interested parties themselves
initiated corrections proceedings;
3. when there is no actual or presumptive
awareness of the existence of the interested
parties; or (Case of Barco)
4.when a party is inadvertently left out.
Only in these instances you can say that the
failure to implead the parties would be
excusable.
So what is the form of the petition? It must be
verified and therein attached is the certificate of
non-forum shopping.
So where do you file it? It should be filed in the
RTC of the province where the local civil registry
is located.
So if you’re in Davao and your record is
registered in Cebu, you file it in the RTC of Cebu
because you need to implead the LCR.
Going through the cases, you’ll see that Rule 108
has a lengthy history.
For correction of clerical or innocuous errors as
early as 1954, the SC decided in the case of Ty
Kong Tin vs. Republic that the nature of the
correction of clerical or innocuous errors under
Rule 108 proceedings is summary in nature for
correction of clerical, typographical errors lang.
If the proceeding is for correction of substantial
errors affecting civil status, citizenship or
nationality of a party, then it is adversarial. That
was ruled in the landmark case of Republic vs.
Valencia, it is no longer summary but adversarial
if the correction sought is substantial errors.
However, with the advent of RA 9048 as well as provided in Articles 407 and 408 of the New Civil
RA 10172, Congress had taken out the Summary Code.
Proceeding from R108 because typographical or
Specific matters covered by the said provision
clerical error is now removed from judicial
include not only status but also nationality. The
proceedings under R108 and is now vested in the
acts, events or factual errors envisaged in Article
LCR under the administrative correction of
407 of the New Civil Code include even those
clerical errors.
that occur after the birth of the petitioner.
What may be changed or corrected? However, in such cases, the entries in the
certificates of birth will not be corrected or
Article 407 Civil Code: Acts, events and judicial
changed. The decision of the court granting the
decrees concerning the civil status of persons
petition shall be annotated in the certificates of
shall be recorded in the civil register.
birth and shall form part of the civil register in
Act 408 Civil Code: (1) Births; (2) marriages; (3) the Office of the Local Civil Registrar.
deaths; (4) legal separations; (5) annulments of
To correct simply means to make or set aright; to
marriage; (6) judgments declaring marriages
remove the faults or error from. To change
void from the beginning; (7) legitimations; (8)
means to replace something with something else
adoptions; (9) acknowledgments of natural
of the same kind or with something that serves
children; (10) naturalization; (11) loss, or (12)
as a substitute. Article 412 of the New Civil Code
recovery of citizenship; (13) civil interdiction;
does not qualify as to the kind of entry to be
(14) judicial determination of filiation; (15)
changed or corrected or distinguished on the
voluntary emancipation of a minor; and (16)
basis of the effect that the correction or change
changes of name.
may be. Such entries include not only those
Another interesting case is Tan Co vs. Civil clerical in nature but also substantial errors.
Register of Manila. After all, the role of the Court under Rule 108 of
the Rules of Court is to ascertain the truths about
What happened here is that the children were the facts recorded therein.
born to a Chinese father. Obviously, their birth
records would show that their father is a So it actually falls under the enumeration of Art.
Chinese. However, after they were born, their 408(10) Naturalization.
father became a naturalized Filipino citizen. So it
SPOTLIGHT MOMENT ABOUT CLIENTS GAINED
is an after-birth event. Is that subject to
FROM AVID VIEWERS OF HER SUNDAY
correction?
MORNING SHOW.
The SC said yes. The petitioner’s recourse to Rule
Now, we will discuss if Rule 108 shall apply on
108 of the Rules of Court, as amended, is
change of gender. The Supreme Court, in the
appropriate. Under Article 412 of the New Civil
case of Republic vs. Cagandahan, ruled on the
Code, no entry in a civil register shall be changed
question on whether or not Rule 108 allow
or corrected without a judicial order. The law
change of sex or gender in the birth certificate by
does not provide for a specific procedure of law
reason of Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH)
to be followed. But the Court approved Rule 108
which is a condition where persons thus afflicted
of the Rules of Court to provide for a procedure
possess both male and female characteristics.
to implement the law. The entries envisaged in
Article 412 of the New Civil Code are those Yes. Under Rep. Act No. 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.
Ultimately, we are of the view that where the
person is biologically or naturally intersex the
determining factor in his gender classification
would be what the individual, like respondent,
having reached the age of majority, with good
reason thinks of his/her sex. Respondent here
thinks of himself as a male and considering that
his body produces high levels of male hormones
(androgen) there is preponderant biological
support for considering him as being male.
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.
This was before RA 10172 that took effect last
January 2013 which now allows changing the sex
provided there is no sex reassignment. In this
case, the petitioner is a hermaphrodite. It just so
happens that as he grew up, yung nag manifest
na dominant sex niya iba doon sa na-register sa
kanyang birth record. SC said that is allowed for
correction because there was no reassignment.
But had Cagandahan petition for his birth record
after the enactment of RA 10172, then that
would have been entertained kasi wala namang
sex reassignment.
Now eto ngayon, in the recent case of Republic
vs. Olaivar decided in 2014, here Olaivar wanted
to cancel all entries in the white portion of the
alleged contract entered into during a civil
wedding. The reason is that di naman talaga siya
nagpakasal.
She just found out that meron nap ala marriage
contract at kasal na pala siya sa isang Taiwanese
or Korea. So pina-cancel niya. So effect of that
petition if the nullification of marriage. Is that
allowed?
Yes, that is allowed since wala naman talagang
kasal. But as to the nullification, to be effected,
must be supported by proof or evidence.
So is this now an exception to the rule that Rule
108 may not be used to determine the nullity of
marriage?
The Supreme Court said no. Rule 108 cannot be
availed of to nullify the marriage. That is the rule
enunciated in the case of Braza vs. City Civil
Register.
The issue here is WON the petition for correction
of entry may include a prayer for declaration of
nullity of marriage and whether it DNA testing to
determine paternity and filiation is allowed.
SC said NO. Petition for Correction of Entries
prays as follows: (1) 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";
2) a directive to Leon, Cecilia and Lucille, all
surnamed Titular, as guardians of the minor
Patrick, to submit Parick to DNA testing to
determine his paternity and filiation; and
3) the declaration of nullity of the legitimation of
Patrick as stated in his birth certificate and, for
this purpose, the declaration of the marriage of
Lucille and Pablo as bigamous.
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.
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court vis a vis Article 412
of the Civil Code 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. 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.
However, the exact opposite happened in the
case of Concepcion vs. CA.
Can judicial recognition of foreign divorce extend
to the cancellation entry (of marriage) in the
Local Civil Registry? No. 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.
Must separate proceedings be instituted for
recognition of foreign of foreign divorce decree
and for cancellation of entry under Rule 108? No.
We hasten to point out, however, that this ruling
should not be construed as requiring two
separate proceedings for the registration of a
foreign divorce decree in the civil registry - one
for recognition of the foreign decree and
another specifically for cancellation of the entry
under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
Foreign divorce decree may be judicially
recognized under Rule 108.
Provided the basic jurisdictional requirements
under Rue 108 of the Rules of Court are complied
with, i. e, verified petition filed with the RTC of
the province where the corresponding civil
registry is located, the civil registrar and all
persons who have or claim any interest are made
parties to the proceeding, and publication of the
time and place for hearing in a newspaper of
general circulation.
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.
If your ultimate goal is to cancel the marriage
certificate by virtue of the foreign divorce
decree, you file a petition under Rule 108 with a
prayer for the court to recognize the foreign
judgment. The foreign decree of divorce. You
simply comply with the basic jurisdictional
requirements: Publication, proof of foreign law,
proof of foreign decree, proof of jurisdiction of
foreign court that granted the divorce, etc. Same
as reprobate proceedings in foreign country.
So when the court receives the petition under
Rule 108, what will happen?
Upon filing of the petition, court shall:
 Issue an order fixing the time and place
of hearing
 Cause service of notice on the persons
named in the petition
 Direct publication of the notice once a
week for 3 consecutive weeks in a
newspaper of general circulation in the
province (Section 4, Rule 108)
So in the case of Alba vs. CA, here Rogelio Alba
had all entries cancelled that the parents
appearing in the birth certificate are not
married, that the records are false. He
impleaded the RoD and the mother’s child.
Rosendo Herrera petitioned for cancellation of
entries in the birth record of Rosendo Alba
Herrera, Jr. i.e, (1) surname Herrera; (2) name of
Rosendo as father, (3) date of marriage of
parents, for being false. He impleaded the LCR,
Armi (the mother) and “all persons who have a
claim or any interest in the petition.” Petition,
not being opposed by the OSG, was granted.
Three years later, Armi petitioned for the
annulment of judgment on the ground that she
was not notified of Rosendo’s petition as it
indicated her wrong address.
Here you have a situation where a person who
was named the father of the child in the birth
record was the one who filed a petition for the
cancellation of entries in that birth record.
He claimed that his name indicating to be the
father was falsely made and the date of marriage
with the mother was also false and that he was
not the father. He was impugning the validity of
the birth record where his name appears as the
father.
Because it was unopposed, the petition was
granted. The mother came to know about it later
and petitioned for the annulment of judgment
on the ground that she was not notified of the
petition because the petition indicated her old
address.
Held: In a proceeding in rem or quasi in rem,
jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is
not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the
court, provided that the latter has jurisdiction
over the res. Jurisdiction over the res is acquired
either (a) by the seizure of the property under
legal process, whereby it is brought into actual
custody of the law; or (b) as a result of the
institution of legal proceedings, in which the
power of the court is recognized and made
effective.
The service of summons or notice to the
defendant is not for the purpose of vesting the
court with jurisdiction but merely for satisfying
the due process requirements.
How was jurisdiction vested?
The filing with the trial court of the petition for
cancellation vested the latter jurisdiction over
the res. Substantial corrections or cancellations
of entries in civil registry records affecting the
status or legitimacy of a person may be effected
through the institution of a petition under Rule
108 of the Revised Rules of Court, with the
proper Regional Trial Court.
Being a proceeding in rem, acquisition of
jurisdiction over the person of petitioner is
therefore not required in the present case. It is
enough that the trial court is vested with
jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Sec. 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.
Who may oppose?
 Civil Registrar
 Any person having or claiming any
interest in the entry sought to be
cancelled or corrected
When to oppose?
 Within 15 days from notice of petition or
from the last date of publication
Even if what was sought was the correction of
the nationality and civil status of petitioners
minor’ children as stated in the records, i.e.
“Chinese” to “Filipino”, “legitimate” to
“illegitimate” which are not mere clerical errors,
such may be corrected as long as R108, Secs. 3-5
are complied with, and the aggrieved parties
have availed themselves of the appropriate
adversary proceedings
 Petition for correction is an action in rem
 Entries in Birth certificates relating to
citizenship of the father from “Chinese”
 to “Filipino” allowed under CA 473, Sec.
15 (extending Philippine citizenship to
minor children of those naturalized
under LOI 270)
Sec. 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.
Sec. 7. Order. After hearing, the court may either
dismiss the petition or issue an order granting
the cancellation or correction prayed for. In
either case, a certified copy of the judgment shall
be served upon the civil registrar concerned who
shall annotate the same in his record.
Now let’s go to correction clerical errors
provided under RA 9048 and RA 10172.
RA 9048 amended Articles 376 and 412 of the
Civil Code. RA 10172, on the other hand,
amended Sections 1, 2, 5 and 8 of RA 9048 to
include administrative correction of clerical
errors in the day and month of birth and in the
gender, provided that there is no sex change
involved.
Both of these laws provide for administrative
correction of clerical errors.
Who may correct clerical errors?
1. Concerned city/municipal registrar or
(Sec 1, RA 9048)
2. Consul general (Sec 1, RA 9048)
3. Clerk of the Sharia Court in his capacity
as District or Circuit Registrar of Muslim
Marriages, Divorces, Revocation of
Divorces and Conversions (Rule 1, IRR of
Rule 9048 A.O. No. 1, Series of 2001)
Scope of Administrative Correction under RA
9048
1. First Name
o A name or nickname given to a
person which may consist of one
or more names in addition to
middle and last names (Sec 2(6))
2. Clerical or typographical errors
o 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. (Sec 2 (3))
Scope of Administrative Correction under RA
10172
1. Clerical or typographical error/mistake
in the entry
 Only the day and month of the
date of birth. If it involves the
year itself, it will affect your age.
It is no longer allowed for
administrative correction. You
have to go to court. That is not
covered by RA 10172.
 Sex or gender of person
2. Clerical error that is patently clear
 Can you consider an error
pertaining to nationality, age,
status, or sex as merely
clerical/typo? Not under RA
9048. But under RA 10172, sex
of persons are now included.
RA 9048 now 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, therefore, jurisdiction
over applications for change of first name is now
primarily lodged with the aforementioned
administrative officers.
The intent and effect of the law is to exclude the
change of first name from the coverage of Rules
103 (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 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. (Silverio vs. Republic)
In Lee vs. CA, the Supreme Court explained that
RA 9048 is Congress' response to the confusion
wrought by the failure to delineate as to what
exactly is that so-called summary procedure for
changes or corrections of a harmless or
innocuous nature as distinguished from that
appropriate adversary proceeding for changes or
corrections of a substantial kind. For we must
admit that though we have constantly referred
to an appropriate adversary proceeding, we
have failed to categorically state just what that
procedure is.
Republic Act No. 9048 now 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 Republic Act No. 9048 which has
prospective application. Hence, the necessity for
the preceding treatise.
What are the grounds for the 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 and he has been
publicly known by that by that first name
or nickname in the community; or
3. The change will avoid confusion.
Nota Bene: Sex reassignment is an invalid
ground.
In Silverio vs. Republic, petitioner’s basis in
praying for the change of his first name was his
sex reassignment. He intended to make his first
name compatible with the sex he thought he
transformed himself into through surgery.
However, a change of name does not alter one’s
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 petitioner’s first name for
his declared purpose may only create grave
complications in the civil registry and the public
interest.
Who may file the petition?
For change of name, clerical error in day and
month of birth, and other clerical errors:
 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 the petition (Sec 3,
RA 9048, Rule 3 IRR)
 When a person is a minor or physically
and mentally incapacitated, the petition
may be filed on his behalf by his spouse,
or any of his children, parents, brothers,
sisters, grandparents, guardians or
persons duly authorized by law.
 Person having direct and personal
interest
 o Owner of the record; or -
Owner’s spouse, children,
parents, brothers, sisters,
grandparents, guardians or
persons duly authorized by law;
or - Owner of the document
sought to be corrected. (Sec 3,
RA 9048; Rule 3, IRR)
o Person affected by the error
(Rule 3.2 IRR) Hindi pwede ang
spouse, anak, relative,
grandparents, etc.
What is the form of the petition?
1. In the form of an affidavit: subscribed
and sworn to before any person
authorized by the law to administer
oaths. - 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.
2. State the particular erroneous entry or
entries, which are sought to be
corrected and/or the change sought to
be made. (Sec 5, RA 9048; Rule 8, IRR)
What is the manner of filing?
 It is Personal filing as provided under Sec
3, RA 9048; Rule 8 IRR
Where should petition be filed?
1. Change of first name, error in day and
month of birth
 Resident petitioner With the
LCRO of the city or municipality
or with the Office of the Clerk of
the Sharia Court, as the case
may be, where the record is
registered (Sec 3, RA 9048; Rule
4, IRR)
 Migrant petitioner (transferred
residence) with the petition
receiving civil registrar of the
place where the migrant
petitioner is residing or
domiciled.
 Non-resident petitioner
(residing abroad) With the
nearest Philippine Consulate for
persons whose civil registry
record was registered in the
Philippines, or in any Philippine
Embassy
2. Error in sex
 With the C/MCR of the city or
municipality or the Philippine
Consulate, as the case may be,
where the record is registered
(Rule 4.2 IRR)
What are the attachments to the petition?
1. Certified machine copy of the certificate
containing the alleged erroneous entry
or entries
2. Not less than 2 public or private
documents upon which the correction
shall be based
3. Notice and Certificate of Posting -
Certified machine copy of Official
Receipt of the filing fee - Other
documents as may be required by the
City/Municipal Civil Registrar (C/MCR)
(Sec 5, RA 9048, Rule 8, IRR)
What are the additional attachments for the
change of name (RA 9048, Rule 8, 8.2 IRR)?
1. Clearance or certification that owner of
document has no pending
administrative, civil or criminal case, or
no criminal record, by the following:
a. Employer, if employed
b. National Bureau of Investigation
c. Philippine National Police
2. Affidavit of publication from the
publisher and a copy of the newspaper
clipping. In petition for change of First
Name, publication in newspaper of
 general circulation is required. In other a. File it abroad, 2 publications
cases, posting in conspicuous public where petition is filed and
places is required. where record is kept

What are the additional attachments for the What are the duties of the Civil Registrar?
change of name (RA 10172)?
1. Examine the petition and conduct
1. Medical records investigation
2. Baptismal certificate or other 2. Post petition in a conspicuous place for
documents issued by religious 10 consecutive days after finding it and
authorities its supporting documents sufficient in
3. For correction of sex – Certification form and substance
by a government physician attesting 3. Act on the petition and render decision
to the fact of non-sex transplant or not later than 5 working days after
non-sex change completion of posting and/or
publication requirement
What are the posting and publication
4. Transmit copy of decision together with
requirements?
records the proceedings to the Office of
For Posting Requirement Civil Registrar General within 5 working
days after the date of decision
i. Resident Petitioner 5. Perform such other duties and functions
a. In a conspicuous place provided as may be necessary to carry out the
for that purpose provisions of RA 9048 (Sec 6, RA 9048;
b. For 10 consecutive days after Rule 10, IRR)
favorable assessment
ii. Migrant Petitioner The Decision shall become final and executory if
a. Office of the PRCR for 10 not impugned by the Civil Registry General.
consecutive days Changes shall be reflected in the birth certificate
b. Office of the RKCR for another by way of marginal annotation.
10 days
Final decision approving change of first name
iii. Non-resident Petitioner
sufficient basis in changing the first name of the
a. Where petition is filed and
same person in his other affected records
where record is kept
without need for filing a similar petition.
For Publication Requirement
Petitioner needs only to file a request with the
i. Resident petitioner concerned civil registrar to make such marginal
a. Once a week for 2 successive annotation attaching thereto a copy of the
newspaper circulation weeks in decision (Rule 12 IRR).
of general
What are the grounds for the denial of the
ii. Migrant Petitioner
petition?
a. Publication is made in a national
newspaper 1. The supporting documents are not
iii. Non-resident Petitioner authentic and genuine.
 2. The C/MCR has personal knowledge that
a similar petition is filed or pending in
court or in any other
3. LCRO.
4. The petition involves the same entry in
the same document, which was
previously corrected or changed under
this Order.
5. The petition involves the change of the
status, sex, age or nationality of the
petitioner or of any person named in the
document.
6. Such other grounds as the C/MCR may
deem not proper for correction.
7. In the case of petition for change of first
name or nickname, any of the grounds
provided in Sec 4 of RA 9048 are not
present in addition to the
abovementioned (Rule 5, 5.8 IRR).
What are the remedies upon denial of the
petition?
1. Appeal the decision to the CRG within
ten (10) working days from the receipt of
the decision on the following grounds:
 Newly discovered evidence
which shall materially affect,
alter, modify or reverse the
decision of the C/MCR
 Denial of the C/MCR is
erroneous or not supported
with evidence
 Denial of the C/MCR is done
with grave abuse of authority or
discretion
 CRG shall render a decision
within 30 calendar days after
receipt of the appeal and shall
furnish the C/MCR, CG or D/CR a
copy of the decision not later
than 10 working date after date
of decision
2. File the appropriate petition with the
proper court
 May be filed even beyond
period to appeal (Rule 13 and 14
IRR)
When can decision be impugned?
 Within 10 working days from receipt of
decision granting decision
Who may impugn the decision?
 The Civil Registrar General (CRG)
What is the effect of failure to impugn the
decision?
1. File MR within 15 working days from
receipt of decision on the ground of
newly discovered evidence
 CRG shall resolve the MR within
30 working days, thereafter the
decision becomes final and
executory
2. File separate petition in court
In Re: Judicial Audit RTC 67 AM No 06-7-414-RTC,
October 19, 2007
May the court apply RA 9048 for petitions for
name change or correction of entries, without
hearing and publication requirements?
No. Since R.A. No. 9048 refers specifically to the
administrative summary proceeding before the
local civil registrar it would be inappropriate to
apply the same procedure to petitions for the
correction of entries in the civil registry before
the courts. In other words, you do not apply the
procedure under RA 9048 for proceedings under
Rule 108 since it is judicial.
The procedures are different. You cannot use RA
9048 procedure under a petition for correction
under Rule 108. The promulgation of rules of
procedure for courts of justice is the exclusive
domain of the Supreme Court.