RULE 103-108 - ra9048

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

1/89

RULE 103-108 – RA 9048

[G.R. No. 130277. May 9, 2002]

MA. LOURDES BARRIENTOS ELEOSIDA, for an !n "#$a%f of $#r &!nor

'$!%, ()ARLES ()RISTIAN ELEOSIDA, petitioner , vs. LO(AL

(I*IL REGISTRAR O+ UE-ON (IT, an (ARLOS *ILLENA

BORBON, respondents.

D E ( I S I O N

/UNO, J .

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Order [1] of the Regional Trial

Court of Quezon City, Branch !, which dis"issed motu proprio the petition of #a$%ourdes &leosida to correct so"e entries in the 'irth certificate of her son, Charles

Christian$ The 'irth certificate shows, a"ong others, that the child(s full na"e is

Charles Christian &leosida Bor'on$ )e was 'orn on #ay *+, 1!!* to #a$ %ourdes

Barrientos &leosida and Carlos illena Bor'on$ The 'irth certificate also indicates that

the child(s parents were "arried on -anuary 1., 1!/ in Batangas City$[*]

On -anuary 0., 1!!, petitioner #a$ %ourdes &leosida filed a petition 'efore the

Regional Trial Court of Quezon City see2ing to correct the following entries in the

'irth certificate of her son, Charles Christian3 first, the surna"e 4Bor'on4 should 'e

changed to 4&leosida54 second, the date of the parents( wedding should 'e left 'lan25

and third, the infor"ant(s na"e should 'e 4#a$ %ourdes B$ &leosida,4 instead of 4#a$

%ourdes &$ Bor'on$4 6n support of her petition, petitioner alleged that she gave 'irth to

her son out of wedloc2 on #ay *+, 1!!*5 that she and the 'oy(s father, Carlos Bor'on,

were never "arried5 and that the child is therefore illegiti"ate and should follow the

"other(s surna"e$ The petition i"pleaded the %ocal Registrar of Quezon City and

Carlos illena Bor'on as respondents$[0]

On 7pril *0, 1!!, the trial court issued a notice of hearing stating3

erified petition having 'een filed 'y petitioner #a$ %ourdes Barrientos &leosida,

praying that the entries in the Certificate of %ive Birth of her "inor child, Charles

Christian &leosida Bor'on, 'e changed and8or corrected, such that, his last na"e

BORBO9 'e deleted and instead place therein the na"e &%&O:6;7, which is the

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/may2002/130277.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/may2002/130277.htm#_edn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/may2002/130277.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/may2002/130277.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/may2002/130277.htm#_edn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/may2002/130277.htm#_edn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/may2002/130277.htm#_edn1

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

2/89

surna"e of his "othereneral, who are given fifteen A1/ days fro" notice of

the petition, or fro" the last date of pu'lication of such notice, within which to file

their opposition thereto, if any$ 6n the event that the :olicitor >eneral "ay not 'e a'le

to appear on the scheduled hearing, to designate the City Drosecutor of Quezon City to

appear for and in 'ehalf of the :tate$

:O OR;&R&;$[+]

On -une *?, 1!!, the trial court issued another order setting the date for the

presentation of evidence on -uly *0, 1!!$ 6t stated3

Considering that there is no opposition filed despite notice to the :olicitor >eneral as

contained in the notice of hearing dated 7pril *0, 1!! reEuiring that office to file

their opposition, if any, to the petition for correction of entries in the 'irth certificate

of "inor child Charles Christian &leosida, the petitioner will 'e allowed to present

co"pliance with the Furisdictional reEuire"ents and at the sa"e ti"e initially presentevidence on -uly *0, 1!!, at 30. o(cloc2 in the "orning$[/]

On 7ugust */, 1!!, the trial court motu proprio dis"issed the petition for lac2 of

"erit$ 6t ruled3

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/may2002/130277.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/may2002/130277.htm#_edn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/may2002/130277.htm#_edn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/may2002/130277.htm#_edn5

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

3/89

6t is an esta'lished Furisprudence that, only C%&R6C7% &RROR: O@ 7 )7R#%&::

79; 699OCGOG: 97TGR& li2e3 "isspelled na"e, occupation of the parents, etc$,

"ay 'e the su'Fect of a Fudicial order Aconte"plated under 7rticle +1* of the 9ew

Civil Code, authorizing changes or corrections and3 9OT as "ay affect the C66%

:T7TG:, 97T6O97%6T= OR C6T6H&9:)6D O@ T)& D&R:O9: 69O%&;$

6n the present case, it is very clear that the changes desired 'y the petitioner will

ulti"ately affect the C66% :T7TG: O@ C)7R%&: C)R6:T679, as she wants the

Court to direct the Civil Registrar of Quezon City to su'stitute her "aiden na"e,

&%&O:6;7, with that of BORBO95 to delete the infor"ation supplied in 6T 1*,

respecting the date and place of "arriage of parents, on the ground that she was never

"arried to respondent C7R%O: 6%%&97 BORBO9 and a"end the infor"ation in

6T 1+, respecting the na"e of the infor"ant, fro" #7$ %OGR;&: &$ BORBO9

to #7$ %OGR;&: B$ &%&O:6;7, and is indicative of petitioner(s intention anddevice to esta'lish that C)7R%&: C)R6:T679(s civil status as 6%%&>6T6#7T&$

Iith the petition(s ulti"ate purpose on the part of petitioner to secure Fudicial order,

which would authorize a change in the civil status of C)7R%&: C)R6:T679, this

Court, finds the action i"proper$ The "atters desired to 'e cancelled and8or changed

'y petitioner cannot 'e considered falling under the a"'it of the words clerical errors

of a har"less and innocuous nature$

I)&R&@OR&, for %7CJ O@ #&R6T, the petition is now #OTG DROD6O Asicdis"issed$[?]

Detitioner filed the instant petition for review raising the issue of whether

corrections of entries in the certificate of live 'irth pursuant to 7rticle +1* of the Civil

Code, in relation to Rule 1. of the Rules of Court "ay 'e allowed even if the errors

to 'e corrected are su'stantial and not "erely clerical errors of a har"less and

innocuous nature$[]

The Court reEuired the respondents to co""ent on the petition$ The Office of the:olicitor >eneral AO:> filed a #anifestation in %ieu of Co""ent$ The O:>

su'"itted that even su'stantial errors in the civil registry "ay 'e corrected provided

that the parties aggrieved 'y the error avail the"selves of the appropriate adversary

proceeding$ Thus it argued that even if the petition see2s the correction and eventual

change in the civil status of Charles Christian, the sa"e can 'e ordered 'y the court as

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/may2002/130277.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/may2002/130277.htm#_edn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/may2002/130277.htm#_edn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/may2002/130277.htm#_edn7

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

4/89

long as all the parties who "ay 'e affected 'y the entries are notified and represented$[] Respondent Carlos Bor'on, on the other hand, failed to su'"it his co""ent on the

petition despite several notices fro" this Court$ )ence, on -anuary *+, *..1, the Court

dispensed with the filing of respondent Bor'on(s co""ent and gave due course to the

petition$[!]

Ie find "erit in the petition$ Rule 1. of the Revised Rules of Court provides the

procedure for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry$ The

proceedings under said rule "ay either 'e su""ary or adversary in nature$ 6f the

correction sought to 'e "ade in the civil register is clerical, then the procedure to 'e

adopted is su""ary$ 6f the rectification affects the civil status, citizenship or

nationality of a party, it is dee"ed su'stantial, and the procedure to 'e adopted is

adversary$[1.] This is our ruling in R#"%!' 4. *a%#n'!a[11] where we held that even

su'stantial errors in a civil registry "ay 'e corrected and the true facts esta'lishedunder Rule 1. provided the parties aggrieved 'y the error avail the"selves of the

appropriate adversary proceeding$ 7n appropriate adversary suit or proceeding is one

where the trial court has conducted proceedings where all relevant facts have 'een

fully and properly developed, where opposing counsel have 'een given opportunity to

de"olish the opposite party(s case, and where the evidence has 'een thoroughly

weighed and considered$ The Court further laid down the procedural reEuire"ents to

"a2e the proceedings under Rule 1. adversary, thus3

The pertinent sections of Rule 1. provide3

SE(. 3. /ar5!#4$

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

5/89

Thus, the persons who "ust 'e "ade parties to a proceeding concerning the

cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register are

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

6/89

proprio without allowing the petitioner to present evidence to support her petition and

all the other persons who have an interest over the "atter to oppose the sa"e$

IN *IE )EREO+, the petition is >R79T&; and the Order dated 7ugust

*/, 1!! of the RTC of Quezon City, Branch !, su'Fect of the petition at 'ar is setaside$ The case is RO&; to the court a Euo for further proceedings$

SO ORDERED

RE/UBLI( O+

T)E/)ILI//INES,

Detitioner,

< versus <

(ARLITO I. :)O, MI()AEL

:)O, MER( NONA :)O

+ORTUN, )EDD MOIRA

:)OSERRANO, :E*INDOGMO( :)O ;M!nor7, and

&%7:CO, -R$, JJ $

DRO#G%>7T&;3

-une *!, *..

< < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < < <

D E ( I S I O N

(AR/IO MORALES, J .

Challenged via petition for review on certiorari is the Octo'er *,

*../ ;ecision[1] of the Court of 7ppeals AC7 in C7$R$ C 9o$ 1*+ which

affir"ed the :epte"'er +, *..* ;ecision[*] of the Regional Trial Court ARTC of

Butuan City, Branch / granting the prayer of respondents Carlito 6$ Jho ACarlito,

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn4

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

7/89

#ichael Jho, #ercy 9ona Jho

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

8/89

7s reEuired, the petition was pu'lished for three consecutive wee2s [+] in

#indanao ;aily Datrol7, a newspaper of general circulation, after which

it was set for hearing on 7ugust !, *..1$

6n a letter of -une 1, *..1 addressed to the trial court, the city civilregistrar [/] stated her o'servations and suggestions to the proposed corrections in

the 'irth records of Carlito and his si'lings 'ut interposed no o'Fections to the

other a"end"ents$

On the scheduled hearing of the petition on 7ugust !, *..1, only the counsel

for respondents appeared as the Office of the :olicitor >eneral AO:> had yet to

enter its appearance for the city civil registrar$ The trial court thus reset the hearing

to Octo'er !, *..1$

[?]

On :epte"'er 1+, *..1,

[]

the O:> entered its appearancewith an authorization to the city prosecutor of Butuan City to appear in the case

and render assistance to it Athe O:>$

On -anuary 01, *..*, respondents presented docu"entary evidence showing

co"pliance with the Furisdictional reEuire"ents of the petition$ They also

presented testi"onial evidence consisting of the testi"onies of Carlito and his

"other, &pifania$ ;uring the sa"e hearing, an additional correction in the 'irth

certificates of Carlitos children was reEuested to the effect that the first na"e of

their "other 'e rectified fro" #ari'el to #arivel$

By ;ecision[] of :epte"'er +, *..*, the trial court directed the local civil

registrar of Butuan City to correct the entries in the record of 'irth of Carlito, as

follows3 A1 change the citizenship of his "other fro" Chinese to @ilipino5 A*

delete -ohn fro" his na"e5 and A0 delete the word "arried opposite the date of

"arriage of his parents$ The last correction was ordered to 'e effected li2ewise in

the 'irth certificates of respondents #ichael, #ercy 9ona, and )eddy #oira$

7dditionally, the trial court ordered the correction of the 'irth certificates of

the "inor children of Carlito to reflect the date of "arriage of Carlito and #arivel

;og"oc A#arivel as -anuary *1, *..., instead of 7pril *, 1!!, and the na"e

#ari'el as #arivel$

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn10

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

9/89

Iith respect to the "arriage certificate of Carlito and #arivel, the

corrections ordered pertained to the alteration of the na"e of Carlitos father fro"

-ohn Jho to -uan Jho and the latters citizenship fro" @ilipino to Chinese$

Detitioner, Repu'lic of the Dhilippines, appealed the RTC ;ecision to theC7, faulting the trial court in granting the petition for correction of entries in the

su'Fect docu"ents despite the failure of respondents to i"plead the "inors "other,

#arivel, as an indispensa'le party and to offer sufficient evidence to warrant the

corrections with regard to the Euestioned "arried status of Carlito and his si'lings

parents, and the latters citizenship$

Detitioner also faulted the trial court for ordering the change of the na"e

Carlito -ohn Jho to Carlito Jho for non

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

10/89

'een represented 'y their father as reEuired under :ection / of Rule 0[!] of the

Revised Rules of Court$

@urther, the C7 ruled that although Carlito failed to o'serve the

reEuire"ents of Rule 1.0 of the Rules of Court, he had co"plied nonetheless withthe Furisdictional reEuire"ents for correction of entries in the civil registry under

Rule 1. of the Rules of Court$ The petition for correction of entry in Carlitos 'irth

record, it noted, falls under letter o of the enu"eration under :ection * of Rule

1.$

6n the present petition, petitioner contends that since the changes sought 'y

respondents were su'stantial in nature, they could only 'e granted through an

adversarial proceeding in which indispensa'le parties, such as #arivel andrespondents parents, should have 'een notified or i"pleaded$

Detitioner further contends that the Furisdictional reEuire"ents to change

Carlitos na"e under :ection * of Rule 1.0 of the Rules of Court were not satisfied

'ecause the 7"ended Detition failed to allege Carlitos prior three

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

11/89

@urther, the deletion of the entry that Carlitos and his si'lings parents were

"arried alters their filiation fro" legiti"ate to illegiti"ate, with significant

i"plications on their successional and other rights$

Clearly, the changes sought can only 'e granted in an adversary proceeding$ Labayo-Rowe v. Republic[1*] eplains the raison d etre3

$ The philosophy 'ehind this reEuire"ent lies in the fact that the

'oo2s "a2ing up the civil register and all docu"ents relating thereto

shall 'e pri"a facie evidence of the facts therein contained. If 5$#

#n5r!#4 !n 5$# '!!% r#=!45#r 'o% "# 'orr#'5# or '$an=# 5$ro=$

r# 4&&ary ro'##!n=4 an no5 5$ro=$ aror!a5# a'5!on

>$#r#!n a%% ar5!#4 >$o &ay "# aff#'5# "y 5$# #n5r!#4 ar# no5!f!# or

r#r#4#n5#, 5$# oor 5o fra or o5$#r &!4'$!#f >o% "# 4#5 o#n,5$# 'on4#?#n'# of >$!'$ &!=$5 "# #5r!n5a% an far r#a'$!n=.

A&"phasis supplied

6n Republic v. Valencia,[10] however, this Court ruled, and has since

repeatedly ruled, that even su'stantial errors in a civil registry "ay 'e corrected

through a petition filed under Rule 1.$[1+]

6t is undou'tedly true that if the su'Fect "atter of a petition is notfor the correction of clerical errors of a har"less and innocuous nature,

'ut one involving nationality or citizenship, which is indisputa'ly

su'stantial as well as controverted, affir"ative relief cannot 'e granted

in a proceeding su""ary in nature$ )o>##r, !5 !4 a%4o 5r# 5$a5 a r!=$5

!n %a> &ay "# #nfor'# an a >ron= &ay "# r#!# a4 %on= a4 5$#

aror!a5# r#y !4 4#. T$!4 (or5 a$#r#4 5o 5$# r!n'!%#

5$a5 ##n 4"45an5!a% #rror4 !n a '!!% r#=!45ry &ay "# 'orr#'5# an

5$# 5r# fa'54 #45a"%!4$# provided 5$# ar5!#4 a==r!## "y 5$# #rror

aa!% 5$#&4#%#4 of 5$# aror!a5# a#r4ary ro'##!n=.

Ihat is "eant 'y appropriate adversary proceedingL Blac2s %aw

;ictionary defines adversary proceeding[] as follows3

One having opposing parties5 contested, as distinguished fro" an

e parte application, one of which the party see2ing relief has given legal

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn16

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

12/89

warning to the other party, and afforded the latter an opportunity to

contest it$ [1/] A&"phasis, italics and underscoring supplied

The enact"ent in #arch *..1 of Repu'lic 7ct 9o$ !.+, otherwise 2nown as 797CT 7GT)OR6H69> T)& C6T= OR #G96C6D7% C66% R&>6:TR7R OR

T)& CO9:G% >&9&R7% TO CORR&CT 7 C%&R6C7% OR

T=DO>R7D)6C7% &RROR 69 79 &9TR= 79;8OR C)79>& O@ @6R:T

97#& OR 96CJ97#& 69 T)& C66% R&>6:T&R I6T)OGT 9&&; O@

-G;6C67% OR;&R, has 'een considered to lend legislative affir"ation to the

Fudicial precedence that su'stantial corrections to the civil status of persons

recorded in the civil registry "ay 'e effected through the filing of a petition under

Rule 1.$[1?]

Thus, this Court in Republic v. Benemerito[1] o'served that the o'vious

effect of Repu'lic 7ct 9o$ !.+ is to "a2e possi'le the ad"inistrative correction

of clerical or typographical errors or change of first na"e or nic2na"e in entries in

the civil register, leaving to Rule 1. the correction of su'stantial changes in the

civil registry in appropriate adversarial proceedings$

Ihen all the procedural reEuire"ents under Rule 1. are thus followed, the

appropriate adversary proceeding necessary to effect su'stantial corrections to theentries of the civil register is satisfied$[1] The pertinent provisions of Rule 1. of

the Rules of Court read3

:&C$ 0$ Parties$ Ihen cancellation or correction of an entry in the

civil registrar is sought, the civil registrar and a%% #r4on4 >$o $a# or

'%a!& any !n5#r#45 >$!'$ >o% "# aff#'5# 5$#r#"y 4$a%% "# &a#

ar5!#4 5o 5$# ro'##!n=.

:&C$ +$ Notice and publication$ Gpon the filing of the petition,

the court shall, 'y an order, fi the ti"e and place for the hearing of thesa"e, and cause reasona'le notice thereof to 'e given to the persons

na"ed in the petition$ The court shall also cause the order to 'e

pu'lished once in a wee2 for three A0 consecutive wee2s in a newspaper

of general circulation in the province$


8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

13/89

:&C$ /$ Opposition$ T$# '!!% r#=!45rar an any #r4on $a!n=

or '%a!&!n= any !n5#r#45 under the entry whose cancellation or

correction is sought "ay, within fifteen A1/ days fro" notice of the

petition, or fro" the last date of pu'lication of such notice, file his

opposition thereto$ A&"phasis and underscoring supplied

There is no dispute that the trial courts Order [1!] setting the petition for

hearing and directing any person or entity having interest in the petition to oppose

it was posted[*.] as well as pu'lished for the reEuired period5 that notices of

hearings were duly served on the :olicitor >eneral, the city prosecutor of Butuan

and the local civil registrar5 and that trial was conducted on -anuary 01, *..*

during which the pu'lic prosecutor, acting in 'ehalf of the O:>, actively

participated 'y crossustilo

and to correspondingly change her surna"e$ The petition was granted 'y the trial

court$

Barco, whose "inor daughter was allegedly fathered also 'y >ustilo,

however, sought to annul the trial courts decision, clai"ing that she should have

'een "ade a party to the petition for correction$ @ailure to i"plead her deprived the

RTC of Furisdiction, she contended$

6n dis"issing Barcos petition, this Court held that the pu'lication of theorder of hearing under :ection + of Rule 1. cured the failure to i"plead an

indispensa'le party$

The essential reEuisite for allowing su'stantial corrections of

entries in the civil registry is that the true facts 'e esta'lished in an

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn23

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

14/89

appropriate adversarial proceeding$ This is e"'odied in :ection 0, Rule

1. of the Rules of Court, which states3

:ection 0$ Parties$ Ihen cancellation or correction of an entry in

the civil register is sought, the civil registrar and all persons who have or

clai" any interest which would 'e affected there'y shall 'e "ade partiesto the proceeding$

Gndou'tedly, Barco is a"ong the parties referred to in :ection 0

of Rule 1.$ )er interest was affected 'y the petition for correction, as

any Fudicial deter"ination that -une was the daughter of 7r"ando would

affect her wards share in the estate of her father$ $

=et, even though Barco was not i"pleaded in the petition, the

Court of 7ppeals correctly pointed out that the defect was cured 'y

co"pliance with :ection +, Rule 1., which reEuires notice 'y

pu'lication $

The purpose precisely of :ection +, Rule 1. is to 'ind the whole

world to the su'seEuent Fudg"ent on the petition$ The sweep of the

decision would cover even parties who should have 'een i"pleaded

under :ection 0, Rule 1., 'ut were inadvertently left out$

erily, a petition for correction is an action in rem, an action

against a thing and not against a person$ The decision on the petition

'inds not only the parties thereto 'ut the whole world$ 7n in

rem proceeding is validated essentially through pu'lication$ Du'lication

is notice to the whole world that the proceeding has for its o'Fect to 'ar

indefinitely all who "ight 'e "inded to "a2e an o'Fection of any sort

against the right sought to 'e esta'lished$ 6t is the pu'lication of suchnotice that 'rings in the whole world as a party in the case and vests the

court with Furisdiction to hear and decide it$ [**]

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn24

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

15/89

>iven the a'ove ruling, it 'eco"es unnecessary to rule on whether #arivel or

respondents parents should have 'een i"pleaded as parties to the proceeding$ 6t

"ay not 'e a"iss to "ention, however, that during the hearing on -anuary 01,

*..*, the city prosecutor who was acting as representative of the O:> did not raise

any o'Fection to the non

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

16/89

7 certification fro" the office of the city registrar, which was appended to

respondents 7"ended Detition, li2ewise stated that it has no record of "arriage

'etween -uan Jho and &pifania$[*!] Gnder the circu"stances, the deletion of the

word #arried opposite the date of "arriage of parents is warranted$

Iith respect to the correction in Carlitos 'irth certificate of his na"e fro"

Carlito -ohn to Carlito, the sa"e was properly granted under Rule 1. of the Rules

of Court$ 7s correctly pointed out 'y the C7, the cancellation or correction of

entries involving changes of na"e falls under letter o of the following provision of

:ection * of Rule 1.3[0.]

:ection *$ &ntries su'Fect to cancellation or correction$ Gpon good

and valid grounds, the following entries in the civil register "ay 'e

cancelled or corrected3 Aa 'irths5 A' "arriages5 Ac deaths5 Ad legalseparation5 Ae Fudg"ents of annul"ent of "arriage5 Af Fudg"ents

declaring "arriages void fro" the 'eginning5 Ag legiti"ations5 Ah

adoptions5 Ai ac2nowledg"ents of natural children5 AF naturalization5

A2 election, loss or recovery of citizenship5 Al civil interdiction5 A"

Fudicial deter"ination of filiation5 An voluntary e"ancipation of a

"inor5 and Ao'$an=#4 of na$ A&"phasis and underscoring supplied

)ence, while the Furisdictional reEuire"ents of Rule 1.0 Awhich governs petitions for change of na"e were not co"plied with, o'servance of the

provisions of Rule 1. suffices to effect the correction sought for$

#ore i"portantly, Carlitos official transcript of record fro"

the Grious College in Butuan City,[01] certificate of eligi'ility fro" the Civil

:ervice Co""ission,[0*] and voter registration record[00] satisfactorily show that he

has 'een 2nown 'y his first na"e only$ 9o preFudice is thus li2ely to arise fro" the

dropping of the second na"e$

The correction of the "others citizenship fro" Chinese to @ilipino as

appearing in Carlitos 'irth record was also proper$ Of note is the fact that during

the cross ea"ination 'y the city prosecutor of &pifania, he did not dee" fit to

Euestion her citizenship$ :uch failure to oppose the correction prayed for, which

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/june2007/170340.htm#_ftn35

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

17/89

certainly was not respondents fault, does not in any way change the adversarial

nature of the proceedings$

7lso significant to note is that the 'irth certificates of Carlitos si'lings

unifor"ly stated the citizenship of &pifania as @ilipino$ To disallow the correctionin Carlitos 'irth record of his "others citizenship would perpetuate an

inconsistency in the natal circu"stances of the si'lings who are unEuestiona'ly

'orn of the sa"e "other and father$

Outside the a"'it of su'stantial corrections, of course, is the correction of

the na"e of Carlitos wife fro" #ari'el to #arivel$ The "ista2e is clearly clerical

or typographical, which is not only visi'le to the eyes, 'ut is also o'vious to the

understanding

[0+]

considering that the na"e reflected in the "arriage certificate of Carlito and his wife is #arivel$

7propos is "u v. Republic[0/] which held that changing the appellants

Christian na"e of :incio to :encio a"ounts "erely to the righting of a clerical

error$ The change of na"e fro" Beatriz %a'ayo8Beatriz %a'ayu to &"peratriz

%a'ayo was also held to 'e a "ere innocuous alteration, which can 'e granted

through a su""ary proceeding$[0?] The sa"e ruling holds true with respect to the

correction in Carlitos "arriage certificate of his fathers na"e fro" -ohn Jho to

-uan Jho$ &cept in said "arriage certificate, the na"e -uan Jho was unifor"lyentered in the 'irth certificates of Carlito and of his si'lings$[0]

)ERE+ORE, the Detition is DENIED$ The ;ecision of the Court of

7ppeals is 7@@6R#&;$

:O OR;&R&;$

G.R. No. 177721 July 3, 2007

KILOSBAYAN FOUNDATION AND BANTAY KATARUNGAN FOUNDATION, petitioners,vs.EXECUTIE SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ER!ITA" SANDIGANBAYAN JUSTICE GREGORY S.ONG,respondents.

D E C I S I O N

A#CUNA, J.$


8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

18/89

Filed on May 23, 2007 was this petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Petitioners are peoples and!or non"#overn$ental or#ani%ations en#a#ed in pu&li' and 'ivi' 'ausesai$ed at prote'tin# the peoples ri#hts to self"#overnan'e and (usti'e.

Respondent )*e'utive +e'retary is the head of the ffi'e of the President and is in 'har#e of

releasin# presidential appoint$ents in'ludin# those of +upre$e Court -usti'es.

Respondent re#ory +. n# is alle#edly the party whose appoint$ent would fill up the va'an'y inthis Court.

Petitioners alle#e that/

n May 6, 2007, respondent )*e'utive +e'retary, in representation of the ffi'e of the President,announ'ed an appoint$ent in favor of respondent re#ory +. n# as 1sso'iate -usti'e of the+upre$e Court to fill up the va'an'y 'reated &y the retire$ent on 1pril 2, 2007 of 1sso'iate -usti'eRo$eo -. Calle(o, +r. he appoint$ent was reported the followin# day, May 7, 2007, &y the $a(ordaily pu&li'ations.

n May , 2007, the $a(or daily pu&li'ations reported that the appoint$ent was 4re'alled4 or 4heldin a&eyan'e4 &y Mala'aan# in view of the uestion relatin# to the 'iti%enship of respondent re#ory+. n#. here is no indi'ation whatever that the appoint$ent has &een 'an'elled &y the ffi'e of thePresident.

n May , 2007, the $a(or daily pu&li'ations reported that respondent )*e'utive +e'retary statedthat the appoint$ent is 4still there e*'ept that the validation of the issue is &ein# done &y the -udi'ialand 8ar Coun'il 9-8C:.4

Petitioners 'ontend that the appoint$ent e*tended to respondent n# throu#h respondent )*e'utive+e'retary is patently un'onstitutional, ar&itrary, whi$si'al and issued with #rave a&use of dis'retion

a$ountin# to la'; of (urisdi'tion.

Petitioners 'lai$ that respondent n# is a Chinese 'iti%en, that this fa't is plain and in'ontesta&le,and that his own &irth 'ertifi'ate indi'ates his Chinese 'iti%enship. Petitioners atta'hed a 'opy ofsaid &irth 'ertifi'ate as 1nne* 4>> of the 7 Constitution provides that 4No person shall beappointed Member of the Supreme Court or any lower collegiate court unless he is a natural-

born citizen of the Philippines.4 +e'. 2 of 1rt. >= defines "natural-born citizens as those whoare citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acuire or perfect their Philippine Citizenship."

Petitioners $aintain that even if it were #ranted that eleven years after respondent n#s &irth hisfather was finally #ranted Filipino 'iti%enship &y naturali%ation, that, &y itself, would not $a;erespondent n# a natural"&orn Filipino 'iti%en.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_177721_2007.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_177721_2007.html#fnt1

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

19/89

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

20/89

2. -usti'e re#ory +. n# is a natural"&orn 'iti%en as deter$ined &y the 8ureau of>$$i#ration and affir$ed &y the Depart$ent of -usti'e, whi'h have the authority and

(urisdi'tion to $a;e deter$ination on $atters of 'iti%enship.

3. ndisputed eviden'e dis'losed that respondent n# is a natural"&orn 'iti%en.

?. Petitioners are not entitled to a te$porary restrainin# order.?

Respondent n# su&$itted his Co$$ent with pposition, $aintainin# that he is a natural"&ornFilipino 'iti%enE that petitioners have no standin# to file the present suitE and that the issue raisedou#ht to &e addressed to the -8C as the Constitutional &ody $andated to review the ualifi'ations of those it re'o$$ends to (udi'ial posts. Further$ore, the petitioners in his view failed to in'lude thePresident who is an indispensa&le party as the one who e*tended the appoint$ent.

1s to his 'iti%enship, respondent n# tra'es his an'estral lines to one Maria +antos of Malolos,8ula'an, &orn on Bove$&er 25, , who was alle#edly a Filipino 'iti%en5 who $arried Chan Gin, aChinese 'iti%enE that these two had a son, -uan +antosE that in 06 Chan Gin died in China, as aresult of whi'h Maria +antos reverted to her Filipino 'iti%enshipE that at that ti$e -uan +antos was a

$inorE that -uan +antos there&y also &e'a$e a Filipino 'iti%enE6

that respondent n#s $other, Dyuio; +antos, is the dau#hter of the spouses -uan +antos and +y +io; $$i#ration and the D- a 'ertifi'ationand an identifi'ation that he is a natural"&orn Filipino 'iti%en under 1rti'le >=, +e'tions and 2 of theConstitution, sin'e his $other was a Filipino 'iti%en when he was &orn.

+u$$ari%in#, his ar#u$ents are as follows/

>. P)>>B)R+ H1CG F +1BD>B 1BD >B18>H>I >MPH)1D 1B >BD>+P)B+18H)P1RI JC>1H 1C>B >+ B+P)R18H) H)1H 8+1CH)+ +) F -D>C>1HPJ)R 1BD +B FRB1>B B + 8I + >. R)+PBD)B B >+, >B R< 1BD >B F1C, 1 B1R1H"8RB C>>L)B F PP>B)+, CB+>D)R>B G +1B+ J1+ 1 F>H>P>B C>>L)B 1 M) F 1) ))B>E and

8. B 8))B 8RB 8)FR) -1B1RI 7, 73 F 1 F>H>P>B MP>B C>>L)B+P PB R)1CB I, R)+PBD)B B M))+ R)M)B+ BD)R 1R>CH)>=, +)C>B+ 1BD 2 F >B.

>>>. R< C)R>F>C1) F R)+PBD)B B 1+ PR)+)B)D 8IP)>>B)R+ C1B, >B B J1I, J>+< J>< F>B1H>I

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

21/89

>+ 1 CB)+) B1>B1H, R D>+PR=) CBCH+>=)HI B F1C, 1B1R1H"8RB F>H>P>B, D)+C)BD)D FRM 4>BD>+.4

>=. > >+ B B)C)++1RI FR R)+PBD)B B R)+R -D>C>1H 1C>BBD)R RH) 0 F M 1BD)B-I + R>H>P>B, BBB)K>+)B 1BI CB>>B1H >MP)D>M)B FR M 1++M) >B F 1++C>1) -+>C) F

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

22/89

>n his petition to &e ad$itted to the Philippine &ar, do';eted as 8.). Bo. 3"B filed on +epte$&er?, 7, under .R. Bo. 3205 of that date, respondent n# alle#ed that he is ualified to &ead$itted to the Philippine &ar &e'ause, a$on# others, he is a Filipino 'iti%enE and that he is aFilipino 'iti%en &e'ause his father, )u#enio n# > B

CM)+ now the undersi#ned petitioner and to this L1H, to spouses )u#enio n# C 1 > B

Repu&li' of the Philippines :

City of Manila : +.+.

>, R)RI +1B+ B, after &ein# sworn, depose and state/ that > a$ the petitioner inthe fore#oin# petitionE that the sa$e was prepared &y $e and!or at $y instan'e and that thealle#ations 'ontained therein are true to $y ;nowled#e.

9+#d.: R)RI +1B+ B

1ffiant

+8+CR>8)D 1BD +JRB to &efore $e this 2th day of 1u#ust, 7, City of Manila,Philippines, affiant e*hi&itin# his!her Residen'e Certifi'ate Bo. 1"QQQQQQQQQQQ, issued at

QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ, on QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ, QQ.

9+#d.:Botary Pu&li'ntil De'e$&er 3, 7PR Bo. 3?7

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_177721_2007.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_177721_2007.html#fnt12

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

23/89

-anuary , 7, Pasi#, MM

Do'. Bo. E

Pa#e Bo. 0E8oo; Bo. =>>>E+eries of 7.3

>n fa't, )$ilio R. Re&ueno, Deputy Cler; of Court and 8ar Confidant, wrote respondent n# a letterdated 'to&er 3, 7 statin# that in 'onne'tion with his Petition for 1d$ission to the 7 8ar)*a$inations, he has to su&$it/

: 1 'ertified 'lear 'opy of his 8irth Certifi'ateE and

2: 1 'ertifi'ation of non"appeal re his 'iti%enship fro$ the ffi'e of the +oli'itor eneral.

Respondent n# 'o$plied with these reuire$ents.

>t was on the &asis of these alle#ations under oath and the su&$itted eviden'e of naturali%ation thatthis Court allowed respondent n# to ta;e the oath as a lawyer.

>t is 'lear, therefore, that fro$ the re'ords of this Court, respondent n# is a naturali%ed Filipino'iti%en. he alle#ed su&seuent re'o#nition of his natural"&orn status &y the 8ureau of >$$i#rationand the D- 'annot a$end the final de'ision of the trial 'ourt statin# that respondent n# and his$other were naturali%ed alon# with his father.

Further$ore, as petitioners 'orre'tly su&$it, no su&stantial 'han#e or 'orre'tion in an entry in a 'ivilre#ister 'an &e $ade without a (udi'ial order, and, under the law, a 'han#e in 'iti%enship status is a

su&stantial 'han#e. >n Ha&ayo"Rowe v. Repu&li',? this Court held that/

Chan#es whi'h affe't the 'ivil status or 'iti%enship of a party are su&stantial in 'hara'ter andshould &e threshed out in a proper a'tion dependin# upon the nature of the issues in'ontroversy, and wherein all the parties who $ay &e affe'ted &y the entries are notified orrepresented and eviden'e is su&$itted to prove the alle#ations of the 'o$plaint, and proof tothe 'ontrary ad$itted.5

Repu&li' 1't Bo. 0? provides in +e'tion 2 93: that a su$$ary ad$inistrative pro'eedin# to 'orre't'leri'al or typo#raphi'al errors in a &irth 'ertifi'ate 'annot apply to a 'han#e in nationality.+u&stantial 'orre'tions to the nationality or 'iti%enship of persons re'orded in the 'ivil re#istryshould, therefore, &e effe'ted throu#h a petition filed in 'ourt under Rule 0 of the Rules of Court.6

he series of events and lon# strin# of alle#ed 'han#es in the nationalities of respondent n#san'estors, &y various &irths, $arria#es and deaths, all entail fa'tual assertions that need to &ethreshed out in proper (udi'ial pro'eedin#s so as to 'orre't the e*istin# re'ords on his &irth and'iti%enship. he 'hain of eviden'e would have to show that Dy uio; +antos, respondent n#s$other, was a Filipino 'iti%en, 'ontrary to what still appears in the re'ords of this Court. Respondentn# has the &urden of provin# in 'ourt his alle#ed an'estral tree as well as his 'iti%enship under theti$e"line of three Constitutions.7 ntil this is done, respondent n# 'annot a''ept an appoint$ent to

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_177721_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_177721_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_177721_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_177721_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_177721_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_177721_2007.html#fnt17http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_177721_2007.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_177721_2007.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_177721_2007.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_177721_2007.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/gr_177721_2007.html#fnt17

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

24/89

this Court as that would &e a violation of the Constitution. For this reason, he 'an &e prevented &yin(un'tion fro$ doin# so.

%&EREFORE, the petition is GRANTED as one of in(un'tion dire'ted a#ainst respondent re#ory+. n#, who is here&y ENJOINED fro$ a''eptin# an appoint$ent to the position of 1sso'iate-usti'e of the +upre$e Court or assu$in# the position and dis'har#in# the fun'tions of that offi'e,

until he shall have su''essfully 'o$pleted all ne'essary steps, throu#h the appropriate adversarialpro'eedin#s in 'ourt, to show that he is a natural"&orn Filipino 'iti%en and 'orre't the re'ords of his&irth and 'iti%enship.

his De'ision is FINAL and I!!EDIATELY EXECUTORY.

Bo 'osts.

SO ORDERED.

RE/UBLI( O+ T)E /)ILI//INES, >$R$ 9o$ 1/.+0

/#5!5!on#r,Dresent3

DG9O, C.J $, C#airperson,

< # r 4 4 < :79;O7%GT6&RR&H,

CORO97,

7HCG97 and

>7RC67, JJ $

TRINIDAD R.A. (A/OTE,

R#4on#n5. Dro"ulgated3

@e'ruary *, *..

@ @

D E ( I S I O N

(ORONA, J.

This petition for review on certiorari[1] see2s to set aside the Court of 7ppeals AC7

decision[*] dated -anuary 10, *..0 in C7$R$ C 9o$ ??1*, which affir"ed the

decision of the Regional Trial Court ARTC, Branch *0 of :an

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/157043.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/157043.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/157043.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/157043.htm#_ftn2

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

25/89

-uan, :outhern %eyte dated :epte"'er 1+, 1!!! granting a petition for change of

na"e$

Respondent Trinidad R$ 7$ Capote filed a petition for change of na"e of her ward

fro" $iovanni N. $allamaso to $iovanni Nadores on :epte"'er !, 1!!$ 6n

:pecial Droceeding 9o$ Riovannis guardian ad litem averred3

1$ [Respondent] is a @ilipino citizen, of legal age, "arried, while "inor

>6O7996 9$ >7%%7#7:O, is also a @ilipino citizen, siteen A1?

years old and 'oth are residents of :an -uan, :outhern %eyte where they

can 'e served with su""ons and other court processes5

*$ [Respondent] was appointed guardian [ad litem] of "inor >iovanni

9$ >alla"aso 'y virtue of a court order in :pecial [Droc$] 9o$ R6O7996 9$ >7%%7#7:O is the illegiti"ate natural child of

Corazon D$ 9adores and ;iosdado >alla"aso$ [)e] was 'orn on -uly !,

1!* [,] prior to the effectivity of the 9ew @a"ily Code and as such, his

"other used the surna"e of the natural father despite the a'sence of

"arriage 'etween the"5 and [>iovanni] has 'een 2nown 'y that na"e

since 'irth [as per his 'irth certificate registered at the %ocal Civil

Register of :an -uan, :outhern %eyte]5

?$ The father, ;iosdado >alla"aso, fro" the ti"e [>iovanni] was 'orn

and up to the present, failed to ta2e up his responsi'ilities [to hi"] on

"atters of financial, physical, e"otional and spiritual concerns$

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/157043.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/157043.htm#_ftn3

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

26/89

[>iovannis pleas] for attention along that line [fell] on deaf ears

5

$ [>iovanni] is now fully aware of how he stands with his father and he

desires to have his surna"e changed to that of his "others surna"e5

$ [>iovannis] "other "ight eventually petition [hi"] to Foin her in theGnited :tates and [his] continued use of the surna"e >alla"aso, the

surna"e of his natural father, "ay co"plicate [his] status as natural

child5 and

!$ The change of na"e [fro"] >6O7996 9$ >7%%7#7:O to

>6O7996 97;OR&: will 'e for the 'enefit of the "inor$

[+]

Respondent prayed for an order directing the local civil registrar to effect the

change of na"e on >iovannis 'irth certificate$ )aving found respondents petition

sufficient in for" and su'stance, the trial court gave due course to the petition$

[/]

Du'lication of the petition in a newspaper of general circulation in the provinceof :outhern %eyte once a wee2 for three consecutive wee2s was li2ewise ordered$

[?] The trial court also directed that the local civil registrar 'e notified and that the

Office of the :olicitor >eneral AO:> 'e sent a copy of the petition and order$[]

:ince there was no opposition to the petition, respondent "oved for leave of court

to present her evidence e% parte 'efore a court,

acting through the Drovincial Drosecutor, did not o'Fect5 hence, the lower court

granted the "otion$

7fter the reception of evidence, the trial court rendered a decision ordering the

change of na"e fro" >iovanni 9$ >alla"aso to >iovanni 9adores$[]

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/157043.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/157043.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/157043.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/157043.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/157043.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/157043.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/157043.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/157043.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/157043.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/157043.htm#_ftn8

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

27/89

@ro" this decision, petitioner Repu'lic of the Dhilippines, through the O:>, filed

an appeal with a lone assign"ent of error3 the court a &uo erred in granting the

petition in a su""ary proceeding$

Ruling that the proceedings were sufficiently adversarial in nature as reEuired, the

C7 affir"ed the RTC decision ordering the change of na"e$[!]

6n this petition, the Repu'lic contends that the C7 erred in affir"ing the trial courts

decision which granted the petition for change of na"e despite the non

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

28/89

distinct proceeding fro" Rule 1. on "ere cancellation and correction of entries in

the civil registry Ausually dealing only with innocuous or clerical errors thereon$[1?]

The issue of noniovanni was 'orn in 1!* Aprior to the enact"ent and effectivity of the

@a"ily Code of the Dhilippines,[1!] the pertinent provision of the Civil Code then

as regards his use of a surna"e, read3

7rt$ 0??$ 7 natural child ac2nowledged 'y 'oth parents shall principally

use the surna"e of the father$ 6f recognized 'y only one of the parents, a

na5ra% '$!% 4$a%% #&%oy 5$# 4rna of 5$# r#'o=n!!n= ar#n5 $

Ae"phasis ours

Based on this provision, >iovanni should have carried his "others surna"e

fro" 'irth$ The records do not reveal any act or intention on the part of >iovannis

putative father to actually recognize hi"$ #eanwhile, according to the @a"ily

Code which repealed, a"ong others, 7rticle 0?? of the Civil Code3

7rt$ 1?$ I%%#=!5!&a5# '$!%r#n 4$a%% 4# 5$# 4rna and shall 'e

under the parental authority of 5$#!r &o5$#r, and shall 'e entitled to

support in confor"ity with this Code$ Ae"phasis ours

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/157043.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/157043.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/157043.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/157043.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/157043.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/157043.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/157043.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/157043.htm#_ftn19

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

29/89

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

30/89

Civil Code, >iovanni is entitled to change his na"e as he was never recognized 'y

his father while his "other has always recognized hi" as her child$ 7 change of

na"e will erase the i"pression that he was ever recognized 'y his father$ 6t is also

to his 'est interest as it will facilitate his "others intended petition to have hi" Foin

her in the Gnited :tates$ This Court will not stand in the way of the reunification of

"other and son$

#oreover, it is noteworthy that the cases cited 'y petitioner [**] in support of its

position deal with cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry, a

proceeding separate and distinct fro" the special proceedings for change of na"e$

Those cases deal with the application and interpretation of Rule 1. of the Rules of

Court while this case was correctly filed under Rule 1.0$ Thus, the cases cited 'y

petitioner are irrelevant and have no 'earing on respondents case$ Ihile the O:>

is correct in its stance that the proceedings for change of na"e should 'e

adversarial, the O:> cannot void the proceedings in the trial court on account of its

own failure to participate therein$ 7s the C7 correctly ruled3

The O:> is correct in stating that a petition for change of na"e

"ust 'e heard in an adversarial proceeding$ Gnli2e petitions for the

cancellation or correction of clerical errors in entries in the civil registry

under Rule 1. of the Rules of Court, a petition for change of na"e

under Rule 1.0 cannot 'e decided through a su""ary proceeding$ There

is no dou't that this petition does not fall under Rule 1. for it is not

alleged that the entry in the civil registry suffers fro" clerical or

typographical errors$ The relief sought clearly goes 'eyond correcting

erroneous entries in the civil registry, although 'y granting the petition,

the result is the sa"e in that a corresponding change in the entry is alsoreEuired to reflect the change in na"e$ In 5$!4 r#=ar, [a#%%##]

(ao5# 'o&%!# >!5$ 5$# r#?!r#n5 for an a#r4ar!a% ro'##!n=

"y o45!n= !n a n#>4a#r of =#n#ra% '!r'%a5!on no5!'# of 5$# f!%!n=

of 5$# #5!5!on. T$# %o>#r 'or5 a%4o frn!4$# 5$# OSG a 'oy

5$#r#of. D#4!5# 5$# no5!'#, no on# 'a for>ar 5o oo4# 5$#

#5!5!on !n'%!n= 5$# OSG. T$# fa'5 5$a5 no on# oo4# 5$#

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/157043.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/feb2007/157043.htm#_ftn22

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

31/89

#5!5!on ! no5 #r!# 5$# 'or5 of !54 r!4!'5!on 5o $#ar 5$# 4a

nor o#4 !5 &aC# 5$# ro'##!n= %#44 a#r4ar!a% !n na5r#. The lower

court is still epected to eercise its Fudg"ent to deter"ine whether the

petition is "eritorious or not and not "erely accept as true the argu"ents

propounded$ Considering that the O:> neither opposed the petition nor

the "otion to present its evidence e% partewhen it had the opportunity todo so, it cannot now co"plain that the proceedings in the lower court

were not adversarial enough$[*0] Ae"phasis supplied

7 proceeding is adversarial where the party see2ing relief has given legal

warning to the other party and afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it$

[*+] Respondent gave notice of the petition through pu'lication as reEuired 'y the

rules$[*/] Iith this, all interested parties were dee"ed notified and the whole world

considered 'ound 'y the Fudg"ent therein$ 6n addition, the trial court gave due

notice to the O:> 'y serving a copy of the petition on it$ Thus, all the reEuire"ents

to "a2e a proceeding adversarial were satisfied when all interested parties,

including petitioner as represented 'y the O:>, were afforded the opportunity to

contest the petition$

)ERE+ORE, the petition is here'y DENIED and the -anuary 10, *..0

decision of the Court of 7ppeals in C7$R$ C 9o$ ??1* A++IRMED$

SO ORDERED$

'G.R. No. 1())**. !+- 30, 200(/

IN RE$ ETITION FOR C&ANGE OF NA!E ANDOR

CORRECTIONCANCELLATION OF ENTRY IN CIIL REGISTRY

OF JULIAN LIN CARULASAN %ANG +lo 4o54 + JULIAN LIN

%ANG, 6o 8 +984:8:-o8-68: + JULIAN LIN %ANG, JULIAN

LIN %ANG, :uly 8;88468: y

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

32/89

%ANG, petitioner, vs. CEBU CITY CIIL REGISTRAR, :uly

8;88468: y 68 R8=

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

33/89

they pronounce it as %$ 6t is for these reasons that the na"e of -ulian %in Carulasan

Iang is reEuested to 'e changed to -ulian %in Iang$ @A

n 30 1pril 2003, the RC rendered a de'ision denyin# the petition. @2A he

trial 'ourt found that the reason #iven for the 'han#e of na$e sou#ht in thepetitionthat is, that petitioner -ulian $ay &e dis'ri$inated a#ainst when

studies in +in#apore &e'ause of his $iddle na$edid not fall within the

#rounds re'o#ni%ed &y law. he trial 'ourt ruled that the 'han#e sou#ht is

$erely for the 'onvenien'e of the 'hild. +in'e the +tate has an interest in the

na$e of a person, na$es 'annot &e 'han#ed to suit the 'onvenien'e of the

&earers. nder 1rti'le 7? of the Fa$ily Code, le#iti$ate 'hildren have the

ri#ht to &ear the surna$es of the father and the $other, and there is no

reason why this ri#ht should now &e ta;en fro$ petitioner -ulian, 'onsiderin#

that he is still a $inor. he trial 'ourt added that when petitioner -ulianrea'hes the a#e of $a(ority, he 'ould then de'ide whether he will 'han#e his

na$e &y droppin# his $iddle na$e.@3A

Petitioner filed a $otion for re'onsideration of the de'ision &ut this was

denied in a resolution dated 20 May 200?. @?A he trial 'ourt $aintained that the

+in#aporean pra'ti'e of not 'arryin# a $iddle na$e does not (ustify the

droppin# of the $iddle na$e of a le#iti$ate Filipino 'hild who intends to study

there. he droppin# of the $iddle na$e would &e tanta$ount to #ivin# due

re'o#nition to or appli'ation of the laws of +in#apore instead of Philippine law

whi'h is 'ontrollin#. hat the 'han#e of na$e would not pre(udi'e pu&li'

interest or would not &e for a fraudulent purpose would not suffi'e to #rant the

petition if the reason for the 'han#e of na$e is itself not reasona&le.@5A

Petitioner then filed this Petition for %eview on Certiorari &'nder %ule ()*@6A ar#uin# that the trial 'ourt has de'ided a uestion of su&stan'e not

theretofore deter$ined &y the Court, that is/ whether or not droppin# the

$iddle na$e of a $inor 'hild is 'ontrary to 1rti'le 7?

@7A

of the Fa$ily Code.Petitioner 'ontends that @JAith #lo&ali%ation and $i*ed $arria#es, there is a

need for the +upre$e Court to rule on the $atter of droppin# of fa$ily na$e

for a 'hild to ad(ust to his new environ$ent, for 'onsisten'y and har$ony

a$on# si&lin#s, ta;in# into 'onsideration the &est interest of the 'hild. @A >t is

ar#ued that 'onvenien'e of the 'hild is a valid reason for 'han#in# the na$e

as lon# as it will not pre(udi'e the +tate and others. Petitioner points out that

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn8

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

34/89

the $iddle na$e Carulasan will 'ause hi$ undue e$&arrass$ent and the

diffi'ulty in writin# or pronoun'in# it will &e an o&sta'le to his so'ial

a''eptan'e and inte#ration in the +in#aporean 'o$$unity. Petitioner also

alle#es that it is error for the trial 'ourt to have denied the petition for 'han#e

of na$e until he had rea'hed the a#e of $a(ority for hi$ to de'ide the na$eto use, 'ontrary to previous 'ases@A de'ided &y this Court that allowed a $inor

to petition for 'han#e of na$e.@0A

he Court reuired the ffi'e of the +oli'itor eneral 9+: to 'o$$ent

on the petition. he + filed its Comment @A positin# that the trial 'ourt

'orre'tly denied the petition for 'han#e of na$e. he + ar#ues that under

1rti'le 7? of the Fa$ily Code, le#iti$ate 'hildren have the ri#ht to &ear the

surna$es of their father and $other, and su'h ri#ht 'annot &e denied &y the

$ere e*pedient of droppin# the sa$e. 1''ordin# to the +, there is also noshowin# that the droppin# of the $iddle na$e Carulasan is in the &est interest

of petitioner, sin'e $ere 'onvenien'e is not suffi'ient to support a petition for

'han#e of na$e and!or 'an'ellation of entry.@2A he + also adds that the

petitioner has not shown any 'o$pellin# reason to (ustify the 'han#e of na$e

or the droppin# of the $iddle na$e, for that $atter. Petitioners alle#ation that

the 'ontinued use of the $iddle na$e $ay result in 'onfusion and diffi'ulty is

alle#edly $ore i$a#inary than real. he + reiterates its ar#u$ent raised

&efore the trial 'ourt that the droppin# of the 'hilds $iddle na$e 'ould onlytri##er $u'h deeper inuiries re#ardin# the true parenta#e of petitioner.

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

35/89

or any 'o$pellin# reason whi'h $ay (ustify su'h 'han#e. therwise, the

reuest should &e denied.@?A

he tou'hstone for the #rant of a 'han#e of na$e is that there &e proper

and reasona&le 'ause for whi'h the 'han#e is sou#ht.@5A

o (ustify a reuestfor 'han#e of na$e, petitioner $ust show not only so$e proper or 'o$pellin#

reason therefore &ut also that he will &e pre(udi'ed &y the use of his true and

offi'ial na$e. 1$on# the #rounds for 'han#e of na$e whi'h have &een held

valid are/ 9a: when the na$e is ridi'ulous, dishonora&le or e*tre$ely diffi'ult

to write or pronoun'eE 9&: when the 'han#e results as a le#al 'onseuen'e,

as in le#iti$ationE 9': when the 'han#e will avoid 'onfusionE 9d: when one has

'ontinuously used and &een ;nown sin'e 'hildhood &y a Filipino na$e, and

was unaware of alien parenta#eE 9e: a sin'ere desire to adopt a Filipino na$e

to erase si#ns of for$er aliena#e, all in #ood faith and without pre(udi'in#any&odyE and 9f: when the surna$e 'auses e$&arrass$ent and there is no

showin# that the desired 'han#e of na$e was for a fraudulent purpose or that

the 'han#e of na$e would pre(udi'e pu&li' interest. @6A

>n #rantin# or denyin# petitions for 'han#e of na$e, the uestion of proper

and reasona&le 'ause is left to the sound dis'retion of the 'ourt. he eviden'e

presented need only &e satisfa'tory to the 'ourt and not all the &est eviden'e

availa&le. Jhat is involved is not a $ere $atter of allowan'e or disallowan'e

of the reuest, &ut a (udi'ious evaluation of the suffi'ien'y and propriety of the

(ustifi'ations advan'ed in support thereof, $indful of the 'onseuent results in

the event of its #rant and with the sole prero#ative for $a;in# su'h

deter$ination &ein# lod#ed in the 'ourts.@7A

he petition &efore us is unli;e other petitions for 'han#e of na$e, as it

does not si$ply see; to 'han#e the na$e of the $inor petitioner and adopt

another, &ut instead see;s to drop the $iddle na$e alto#ether. De'ided 'ases

in this (urisdi'tion involvin# petitions for 'han#e of na$e usually deal withreuests for 'han#e of surna$e. here are only a handful of 'ases involvin#

reuests for 'han#e of the #iven na$e@A and none on reuests for 'han#in#

or droppin# of the $iddle na$e. Does the law allow one to drop the $iddle

na$e fro$ his re#istered na$eO Je have to answer in the ne#ative.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn18

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

36/89

1 dis'ussion on the le#al si#nifi'an'e of a persons na$e is relevant at this

point. Je uote, thus/

@or all practical and legal purposes, a "an(s na"e is the designation 'y which he is

2nown and called in the co""unity in which he lives and is 'est 2nown$ 6t is definedas the word or co"'ination of words 'y which a person is distinguished fro" other

individuals and, also, as the la'el or appellation which he 'ears for the convenience of

the world at large addressing hi", or in spea2ing of or dealing with hi"$ 9a"es are

used "erely as one "ethod of indicating the identity of persons5 they are descriptive

of persons for identification, since, the identity is the essential thing and it has

freEuently 'een held that, when identity is certain, a variance in, or "isspelling of, the

na"e is i""aterial$

The na"es of individuals usually have two parts3 the given na"e or proper na"e, andthe surna"e or fa"ily na"e$ The given or proper na"e is that which is given to the

individual at 'irth or 'aptis", to distinguish hi" fro" other individuals$ The na"e or

fa"ily na"e is that which identifies the fa"ily to which he 'elongs and is continued

fro" parent to child$ The given na"e "ay 'e freely selected 'y the parents for the

child5 'ut the surna"e to which the child is entitled is fied 'y law$

7 na"e is said to have the following characteristics3 A1 6t is a'solute, intended to

protect the individual fro" 'eing confused with others$ A* 6t is o'ligatory in certain

respects, for no'ody can 'e without a na"e$ A0 6t is fied, unchangea'le, ori""uta'le, at least at the start, and "ay 'e changed only for good cause and 'y

Fudicial proceedings$ A+ 6t is outside the co""erce of "an, and, therefore, inaliena'le

and intrans"issi'le 'y act inter vivos or mortis causa$ A/ 6t is i"prescripti'le$@A

his 'itation does not $a;e any referen'e to $iddle na$es, &ut this does

not $ean that $iddle na$es have no pra'ti'al or le#al si#nifi'an'e. Middle

na$es serve to identify the $aternal linea#e or filiation of a person as well as

further distin#uish hi$ fro$ others who $ay have the sa$e #iven na$e and

surna$e as he has.

ur laws on the use of surna$es state that le#iti$ate and le#iti$ated

'hildren shall prin'ipally use the surna$e of the father.@20A he Fa$ily Code

#ives le#iti$ate 'hildren the ri#ht to &ear the surna$es of the father and the

$other,@2A while ille#iti$ate 'hildren shall use the surna$e of their $other,

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn21

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

37/89

unless their father re'o#ni%es their filiation, in whi'h 'ase they $ay &ear the

fathers surna$e.@22A

1pplyin# these laws, an ille#iti$ate 'hild whose filiation is not re'o#ni%ed

&y the father &ears only a #iven na$e and his $others surna$e, and does nothave a $iddle na$e. he na$e of the unre'o#ni%ed ille#iti$ate 'hild

therefore identifies hi$ as su'h. >t is only when the ille#iti$ate 'hild is

le#iti$ated &y the su&seuent $arria#e of his parents or a';nowled#ed &y the

father in a pu&li' do'u$ent or private handwritten instru$ent that he &ears

&oth his $others surna$e as his $iddle na$e and his fathers surna$e as his

surna$e, refle'tin# his status as a le#iti$ated 'hild or an a';nowled#ed

ille#iti$ate 'hild.

1''ordin#ly, the re#istration in the 'ivil re#istry of the &irth of su'hindividuals reuires that the $iddle na$e &e indi'ated in the 'ertifi'ate. he

re#istered na$e of a le#iti$ate, le#iti$ated and re'o#ni%ed ille#iti$ate 'hild

thus 'ontains a #iven or proper na$e, a $iddle na$e, and a surna$e.

Petitioner theori%es that it would &e for his &est interest to drop his $iddle

na$e as this would help hi$ to ad(ust $ore easily to and inte#rate hi$self into

+in#aporean so'iety. >n support, he 'ites +shita v. %epublic @23A and Calderon v.

%epublic ,@2?A whi'h, however, are not apropos &oth.

>n +shita, the petitioner therein, a le#iti$ate dau#hter of a Filipino $other,

8uena 8artolo$e, and a -apanese father, Gishi$atsu shita, sou#ht to

'han#e her na$e fro$ 1ntonina 8. shita to 1ntonina 8artolo$e. he Court

#ranted her petition &ased on the followin# 'onsiderations/ she had ele'ted

Philippine 'iti%enship upon rea'hin# the a#e of $a(orityE her other si&lin#s

who had also ele'ted Philippine 'iti%enship have &een usin# their $others

surna$eE she was e$&arrassed to &ear a -apanese surna$e there still &ein#

ill feelin# a#ainst the -apanese due to the last Jorld JarE and there was no

showin# that the 'han#e of na$e was $otivated &y a fraudulent purpose or

that it will pre(udi'e pu&li' interest.

>n Calderon, the Court allowed petitioner ertrudes -osefina del Prado, an

ille#iti$ate $inor 'hild a'tin# throu#h her $other who filed the petition in her

&ehalf, to 'han#e her na$e to ertudes -osefina Calderon, ta;in# the

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn24

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

38/89

surna$e of her stepfather, Ro$eo C. Calderon, her $others hus&and. he

Court held that a petition for 'han#e of na$e of an infant should &e #ranted

where to do is 'learly for the &est interest of the 'hild. he Court too; into

'onsideration the opportunity provided for the $inor petitioner to eli$inate the

sti#$a of ille#iti$a'y whi'h she would 'arry if she 'ontinued to use thesurna$e of her ille#iti$ate father. he Court pronoun'ed that (usti'e di'tates

that every person &e allowed to avail of any opportunity to i$prove his so'ial

standin# as lon# as doin# so he does not 'ause pre(udi'e or in(ury to the

interests of the +tate or of other people.

Petitioner 'ites ,lfon v. %epublic ,@25A in ar#uin# that althou#h 1rti'le 7? of

the Fa$ily Code #ives the le#iti$ate 'hild the ri#ht to use the surna$es of the

father and the $other, it is not $andatory su'h that the 'hild 'ould use only

one fa$ily na$e, even the fa$ily na$e of the $other. >n ,lfon, the petitioner therein, the le#iti$ate dau#hter of Filo$eno Duterte and )strella 1lfon, sou#ht

to 'han#e her na$e fro$ Maria )strella =eroni'a Pri$itiva Duterte 9her na$e

as re#istered in the Ho'al Civil Re#istry: to )strella +. 1lfon 9the na$e she

had &een usin# sin'e 'hildhood, in her s'hool re'ords and in her voters

re#istration:. he trial 'ourt denied her petition &ut this Court overturned the

denial, rulin# that while 1rti'le 36? of the Civil Code states that she, as a

le#iti$ate 'hild, should prin'ipally use the surna$e of her father, there is no

le#al o&sta'le for her to 'hoose to use the surna$e of her$ other to whi'hshe is entitled. >n addition, the Court found that there was a$ple (ustifi'ation to

#rant her petition, i.e., to avoid 'onfusion.

Jei#hin# petitioners reason of 'onvenien'e for the 'han#e of his na$e

a#ainst the standards set in the 'ases he 'ites to support his 'ontention would

show that his (ustifi'ation is a$orphous, to say the least, and 'ould not

warrant favora&le a'tion on his petition.

he fa'tual ante'edents and uniue 'ir'u$stan'es of the 'ited 'ases arenot at all analo#ous to the 'ase at &ar. he instant 'ase is 'learly

distin#uisha&le fro$ the 'ases of +shita and ,lfon, where the petitioners were

already of a#e when they filed their petitions for 'han#e of na$e. 8ein# of

a#e, they are 'onsidered to have e*er'ised their dis'retion and (ud#$ent, fully

;nowin# the effe'ts of their de'ision to 'han#e their surna$es. >t 'an also &e

un$ista;a&ly o&served that the reason for the #rant of the petitions for 'han#e

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn25

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

39/89

of na$e in these two 'ases was the presen'e of reasona&le or 'o$pellin#

#rounds therefore. he Court, in +shita, re'o#ni%ed the tan#i&le ani$osity

$ost Filipinos had durin# that ti$e a#ainst the -apanese as a result of Jorld

Jar >>, in addition to the fa't of therein petitioners ele'tion of Philippine

'iti%enship. >n ,lfon, the Court #ranted the petition sin'e the petitioner had&een ;nown sin'e 'hildhood &y a na$e different fro$ her re#istered na$e

and she had not used her re#istered na$e in her s'hool re'ords and voters

re#istration re'ordsE thus, denyin# the petition would only result to 'onfusion.

Calderon, on the other hand, #ranted the petition for 'han#e of na$e filed

&y a $other in &ehalf of her ille#iti$ate $inor 'hild. Petitioner 'ites this 'ase

to &uttress his ar#u$ent that he does not have to rea'h the a#e of $a(ority to

petition for 'han#e of na$e. n the 'ase at &ar, the only reason advan'ed &y petitioner for the droppin#

his $iddle na$e is 'onvenien'e. n addition, petitioner is only a $inor. Considerin# the ne&ulous foundation

on whi'h his petition for 'han#e of na$e is &ased, it is &est that the $atter of

'han#e of his na$e &e left to his (ud#$ent and dis'retion when he rea'hes

the a#e of $a(ority.@26A 1s he is of tender a#e, he $ay not yet understand and

appre'iate the value of the 'han#e of his na$e and #rantin# of the sa$e at

this point $ay (ust pre(udi'e hi$ in his ri#hts under our laws.

%&EREFORE, in view of the fore#oin#, the Petition for %eview on

Certiorari is D)B>)D.

SO ORDERED.

D%7TO9 79; %6BR7;7 >$R$ 9o$ 1+.0./

C&RG6%7,

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/mar2005/159966.htm#_ftn26

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

40/89

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

41/89

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

42/89

1$ ;&C%7R69> the certificate of live 'irth of the #inor #aria Rosilyn

Telin ;elantar as registered under the %ocal Civil Registry 9o$ /oering >$C$ Daderanga, then esta'lished the Furisdictional reEuire"ents

A&hi'its 7 to &$[11] Thereafter, petitioner hus'and Dlaton Ceruila was placed on

the stand as the lone witness for the petitioner and after he co"pleted histesti"ony, 7tty$ Daderanga for"ally offered his evidence and rested his case$

The evidence on record reveals the following3

On #ay 11, 1!/, a child was 'orn at the ;r$ -ose @a'ella #e"orial )ospital in

:ta$ Cruz, #anila$ The na"e of the child was entered in her 'irth certificate as#aria Rosilyn Telin ;elantar A&hi'it 6$ 6n the said 'irth certificate the na"e of

the childs "other appear as %i'rada 7$ Telin A&ntry 9o$ ? while that of her father

as :i"plicio R$ ;elantar A&ntry 9o$ !$ The 'irth certificate li2ewise shows that

the parents of the child, :i"plicio R$ ;elantar and %i'rada 7$ Telin, were "arriedon @e'ruary 1+, 1! in #anila A&ntry 9o$ 1*$ %i2ewise, in &ntry 9o$ *1 of the

sa"e docu"ent, it is "ade to appear that the "other of the child was * years old

when the child was 'orn and that she was attended in her delivery thereof 'y ;r$:antos A&ntry 9o$ 10$ The 'irth certificate was signed 'y one %i'rada T$

delos :antos as the infor"ant and "other of the child with her given address

as *1?/ D$ Burgos :t$, Dasay City A&ntry 9o$ 1+$ This is the very certificate of

live 'irth that is 'eing seriously i"pugned 'y the herein petitioners$

6n support of their petition, the petitioners su'"itted the 'aptis"al certificates of

:i"plicio ;elantar A&hi'it - and %i'rada ;elantar A&hi'it J to prove that theyare full 'lood 'rother and sister and could not have 'een possi'le for the" to have

sired Rosilyn Asic$ 6n the said 'aptis"al certificates, the na"es of the parents of

:i"plicio and %i'rada are si"ilarly entered as -uan ;elantar and Carila TelenA&hi'it -

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

43/89

petitioner that it is highly unli2ely that the alleged parents of Rosilyn would

co""it an incestuous act and proclai" to the whole world that they are the

parents of the herein "inor$ The court has also o'served that in the 'aptis"alcertificate of %i'rada ;elantar, it is entered therein that she was 'orn on -anuary

, 1!+. in Tu'od, #anglanilla, Ce'u A&hi'it J

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

44/89

)ead of the #edical Records :ection and 7d"itting Gnit of the @a'ella )ospital,

which is attached to the petition for annul"ent as 7nne & and which states that

#aria Rosilyn ;elantar was 'orn on #ay 11, 1!/ at the @a'ella )ospital and that

her parents are %i'rada Telin and :i"plicio ;elantar5 [1] and A' the ad"ission of

:i"plicio in his #otion to acate -udg"ent [1] in :p$ Droc$ 9o$ !?

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

45/89

6n a si"ilar case, the :upre"e Court ruled that corrections of su'stantial entries inthe certificate other than "ere clerical errors, should 'e passed upon in an

appropriate adversary proceedings with all the persons interested are "ade parties

therein Repu'lic vs$ alencia A1+1 :CR7 +?*5 +?R7& 7BG:& O@ ;6:CR&T6O9 7#OG9T69> TO %7CJ O@

-GR6:;6CT6O9 69 ;&C%7R69> 9G%% 79; O6; T)& ;&C6:6O9R&9;&R&; B= T)& R&>6O97% TR67% COGRT O@ #796%7 BR79C) 0

;7T&; 7DR6% 11, 1!! 69 :D&C$ DROC&&;69> 9O$ !

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

46/89

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

47/89

categorized as an ordinary civil action5 7rt$ / of the Civil Code which is 'eing

invo2ed 'y petitioners is a general provision, while entries of record of 'irth in the

civil register are governed 'y Repu'lic 7ct 9o$ 0/0 ACivil Registry %aw as

a"ended, and Dresidential ;ecree 9o$ ?/15 since the law provides for a re"edy

when an entry in a record found in the civil registry is erroneous or falsified,

petitioners cannot, 'y their "ere allegation, transport their case fro" the real" of

the rules on special proceedings for the correction of entry to that of an ordinary

civil case for annul"ent of a falsified docu"ent5 in Republic vs. Valencia,[01] it was

held that the parties who "ust 'e "ade parties to a proceeding concerning the

cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register are the civil registrar and

all persons who have or who are clai"ing interests who would 'e affected there'y5

respondent, 'eing a person whose interests would 'e adversely affected 'y the

petition, is an indispensa'le party to the case5 pu'lication cannot 'e su'stituted for

notice5 respondent cannot 'e declared in default since she was not properly

notified$[0*]

7nent the second issue, respondent contends that the C7 has no authority to rule

on the "erits of the case since in a petition for annul"ent of Fudg"ent on the

ground of lac2 of Furisdiction, its authority is li"ited to ruling on whether or not

the petitioner was denied due process of law5 that if the C7 were to rule on the

"erits of the case, it would have deprived respondent of due process5 and that in

any case, respondents record of 'irth is not void as %i'rada was only a'le to prove

that she is not the "other of respondent$[00]

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/140305.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/140305.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/140305.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/140305.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/140305.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/140305.htm#_ftn33

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

48/89

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

49/89

)ere, it is clear that no party could 'e "ore interested in the cancellation of

Rosilyns 'irth certificate than Rosilyn herself$ )er filiation, legiti"acy, and date of

'irth are at sta2e$

Detitioners clai" that even though Rosilyn was never "ade a party to the

proceeding, it is enough that her na"e was included in the caption of the petition$

:uch reasoning is without "erit$

7s we pronounced in Labayo-Rowe vs. Republic[0] where the "other sought

changes in the entries of her two childrens 'irth certificates3

since only the Office of the :olicitor >eneral was notified through the Office of

the Drovincial @iscal, representing the Repu'lic of the Dhilippines as the only

respondent, the proceedings ta2en, which is su""ary in nature, is short of what isreEuired in cases where su'stantial alterations are sought$ A4!# fro& 5$# Off!'#of 5$# So%!'!5or G#n#ra%, a%% o5$#r !n!4#n4a"%# ar5!#4 4$o% $a# "##n

&a# r#4on#n54. T$#y !n'%# no5 on%y 5$# #'%ar# fa5$#r of 5$# '$!% "5

5$# '$!% a4 >#%%, 5o=#5$#r >!5$ 5$# a5#rna% =ranar#n54, !f any, as their

hereditary rights would 'e adversely affected there'y$ A%% o5$#r #r4on4 >$o

&ay "# aff#'5# "y 5$# '$an=# 4$o% "# no5!f!# or r#r#4#n5# . . .$[0!] A&"phasis supplied

6n the present case, only the Civil Registrar of #anila was served su""ons, who,

however, did not participate in the proceedings$ This alone is clearly not sufficient

to co"ply with the reEuire"ents laid down 'y the rules$

Detitioners further clai" that the lac2 of su""ons on Rosilyn was cured 'y the

pu'lication of the order of the trial court setting the case for hearing for three

consecutive wee2s in a newspaper of general circulation$

Ie do not agree$ 6ummons must still be served, not or t#e purpose o vestin) t#e

courts wit# 5urisdiction, but to comply wit# t#e re&uirements o air play and due process. [40] This is 'ut proper, to afford the person concerned the opportunity to

protect her interest if she so chooses$

6ndeed, there were instances when we ruled that even though an interested party

was not i"pleaded in the petition, such defect was cured 'y co"pliance with :ec$

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/140305.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/140305.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/140305.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/140305.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/140305.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/dec2005/140305.htm#_ftn40

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

50/89

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

51/89

&trinsic fraud shall not 'e a valid ground if it was availed of, or could have 'een

availed of, in a "otion for new trial or petition for relief$

:ec$ $ +ect o 5ud)ment $

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

52/89

8/19/2019 RULE 103-108 - ra9048

53/89

to that whi'h she had a'tually &een usin# thru the years. +he also 'ate#ori'ally stated she had not

&een a''used of any 'ri$e under either her re#istered na$e or her present 'orre't na$e.

1n e*'erpt of other portions of her testi$ony, as re'ited in the Repu&li's petition whi'h 'ited the

de'ision of the trial 'ourt/

1t the witness stand the petitioner @herein respondent 8olanteA testified, a$on# others, that

she is now $arried to -or#e Mar&ella, -r. and presently residin# at 8liss 1n#ad, 8an#ued,

1&ra sin'e 5 &ut &efore she resided in Lone ?, 8an#ued, 1&ra sin'e &irth. +he presented

her &irth 'ertifi'ate and was $ar;ed as )*hi&it - to esta&lish su'h fa't of &irth and to effe't

that the na$e Roselie )loisa 8. 8olante entered therein is not her true and 'orre't na$e &ut

instead Maria )loisa 8olante whi'h she had &een usin# durin# her s'hool days, while &ein#

a #overn$ent e$ployee, and in all her pu&li' and private re'ords.

+he presented her professional li'ense issued &y the Professional Re#ulation Co$$ission,

Certifi'ate issued &y the Philippine >nstitute of Certified Pu&li' 1''ountant and a ui';

Count do'u$ent all issued in her na$e Maria )loisa 8. Mar&ella, whi'h do'u$ents were$ar;ed as )*hi&it G and )*hi&it H and )*hi&it M respe'tively. +he li;ewise $ar;ed her

$arria#e li'ense as )*hi&it B to prove her $arria#e ***.

*** *** ***

n 'ross she stated that the purpose of filin# the petition is that, she wanted to se'ure a

passport and wanted that the sa$e &e issued in her 'orre't na$e and that she would not

have filed the petition was 9si': it not for the passport.

n 'larifi'atory uestion &y the Court she said that her reason in filin# the petition is her

reali%ation that there will &e a 'o$pli'ation upon her retire$ent.2

9Jords in &ra';et added.:

n -anuary 23, 2002, the trial 'ourt rendered (ud#$ent #rantin# the &asi' petition, disposin# as

follows/

J

Documents

RULE 103-108 - ra9048