Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

BARCO V.

COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 120587 January 20, 2004
Nadina sought the change of surname of his dauther to gustillo and the name of the father in
her dauthers BOC. Petitioner claims that Rule 108 is limited only to correction of clerical or
innocuous errors
May substantial errors be corrected through a petition filed under Rule 108?
Republic Act No. 9048, enacted in 2001, has effectively changed the nature of a proceeding
under Rule 108. Under this new law, clerical or typographical errors and change of first name or
nickname may now be corrected or changed by the concerned city or municipal registrar or
consul general, without need of any judicial order. The obvious effect is to remove from the
ambit of Rule 108 the correction or changing of such errors in entries of the civil register. Hence,
what is left for the scope of operation of Rule 108 are substantial changes and corrections in
entries of the civil register
To repeat, substantial corrections to the civil status of persons recorded in the civil registry may
be effected through the filing of a petition under Rule 108.
Barco correctly notes, however, that the RTC erred in directing that the name of Nadinas
daughter be changed from June Salvacion Maravilla to June Salvacion Gustilo. Following the
trial courts determination that Gustilo was the father of June, but prescinding from the
conclusive presumption of legitimacy for the nonce assuming it could be done, the child would
obviously be illegitimate. The applicable laws mandate that June, as an illegitimate child,
should bear the surname of her mother, and not the father.
But the Court is now precluded from reviewing the RTCs appreciation of the evidence, however
erroneous it may be, because the Order is already final.
ELOSIDA V. LCR OF QUEZON CITY
G.R. NO. 130277
MAY 9, 2002
Petitioner Ma. Lourdes Eleosida filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City
seeking to correct the following entries in the birth certificate of her son, Charles Christian: first,
the surname "Borbon" should be changed to "Eleosida;" second, the date of the parents'
wedding should be left blank; and third, the informant's name should be "Ma. Lourdes B.
Eleosida," instead of "Ma. Lourdes E. Borbon." In support of her petition, petitioner alleged that
she gave birth to her son out of wedlock on May 24, 1992; that she and the boy's father, Carlos
Borbon, were never married; and that the child is therefore illegitimate and should follow the
mother's surname.
Trial court dismissed the petition on the ff reasons:
"It is an established jurisprudence that, only CLERICAL ERRORS OF A HARMLESS AND
INNOCUOUS NATURE like: misspelled name, occupation of the parents, etc., may be the
subject of a judicial order (contemplated under Article 412 of the New Civil Code), authorizing
changes or corrections and: NOT as may affect the CIVIL STATUS, NATIONALITY OR
CITIZENSHIP OF THE PERSONS INVOLVED.
Article 412: No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected, without a judicial order.
COURTS RULING:
Petitioner fled the instant petition for review raising the issue of whether corrections of entries in
the certificate of live birth pursuant to Article 412 of the Civil Code, in relation to Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court may be allowed even if the errors to be corrected are substantial and not merely
clerical errors of a harmless and innocuous nature.
We find merit in the petition. Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court provides the procedure for
cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry. The proceedings under said rule may
either be summary or adversary in nature. If the correction sought to be made in the civil
Page 1 of 8

register is clerical, then the procedure to be adopted is summary. If the rectification affects the
civil status, citizenship or nationality of a party, it is deemed substantial, and the procedure to be
adopted is adversary.10 This is our ruling in Republic vs. Valencia11 where we held that even
substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected and the true facts established under Rule
108 provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary
proceeding. An appropriate adversary suit or proceeding is one where the trial court has
conducted proceedings where all relevant facts have been fully and properly developed, where
opposing counsel have been given opportunity to demolish the opposite party's case, and
where the evidence has been thoroughly weighed and considered.
BRAZA ET AL V. CITY CIVIL REG OF NEGROS OCC. ET AL., G.R. No. 181174 DEC 4, 2009
Petitioner Ma. Cristina Torres (Ma. Cristina) and Pablo Sicad Braza, Jr. (Pablo), also known as
Pablito Sicad Braza, were married [1] on January 4, 1978. The union bore Ma. Cristinas copetitioners Paolo Josef[2] and Janelle Ann[3] on May 8, 1978 and June 7, 1983, respectively, and
Gian Carlo[4] on June 4, 1980.
Pablo died[5] on April 15, 2002 in a vehicular accident in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia.
During the wake following the repatriation of his remains to the Philippines, respondent Lucille
Titular (Lucille) began introducing her co-respondent minor Patrick Alvin Titular Braza (Patrick)
as her and Pablo's son. Ma. Cristina thereupon made inquiries in the course of which she
obtained Patrick's birth certificate where she found out that his deceased husband acknowledge
Patrick and that the latters mother was married to her dceased husband and that Patrick was
legitimated.
Ma. Christina filed a petition for correction of patricks birth entry stating that the latter could not
have been legitmated as the marriage of his mother to her husband was bigamous.
Trial court dismissed the petition, holding that in a special proceeding for correction of entry, the
court, which is not acting as a family court under the Family Code, has no jurisdiction over an
action to annul the marriage of Lucille and Pablo, impugn the legitimacy of Patrick, and order
Patrick to be subjected to a DNA test, hence, the controversy should be ventilated in an ordinary
adversarial action.
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.
he allegations of the petition filed before the trial court clearly show that petitioners seek to
nullify the marriage between Pablo and Lucille on the ground that it is bigamous and impugn
Patricks filiation in connection with which they ask the court to order Patrick to be subjected to a
DNA test.
Their cause of action is actually to seek the declaration of Pablo and Lucilles marriage as void
for being bigamous and impugn Patricks legitimacy, which causes of action are governed not by
Rule 108 but by A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC which took effect on March 15, 2003, and Art. 171 [18] of
the Family Code, respectively, hence, the petition should be filed in a Family Court as expressly
provided in said Code.
REPUBLIC V. COSETENG-MAGPAYO
G.R. No. 189476 FEBRUARY 2, 2011
Born in Makati on September 9, 1972, Julian Edward Emerson Coseteng
Magpayo (respondent) is the son of Fulvio M. Magpayo Jr. and Anna Dominique Marquez-Lim
Coseteng who, as respondents certificate of live birth [1] shows, contracted marriage on March
26, 1972.
Claiming, however, that his parents were never legally married, respondent filed on July
22, 2008 at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City a Petition to change his name to
Julian Edward Emerson Marquez Lim Coseteng. The petition, docketed as SPP No. Q0863058, was entitled IN RE PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME OF JULIAN EDWARD
EMERSON COSETENG MAGPAYO TO JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON MARQUEZ-LIM
COSETENG.
Page 2 of 8

In support of his petition, respondent submitted a certification from the National Statistics
Office stating that his mother Anna Dominique does not appear in [its] National Indices of
Marriage.[2] Respondent also submitted his academic records from elementary up to
college[3] showing that he carried the surname Coseteng, and the birth certificate of his child
where Coseteng appears as his surname.[4] In the 1998, 2001 and 2004 Elections, respondent
ran and was elected as Councilor of Quezon Citys 3rdDistrict using the name JULIAN M.L.
COSETENG.[5]
On order of Branch 77 of the Quezon City RTC, [6] respondent amended his petition by
alleging therein compliance with the 3-year residency requirement under Section 2,Rule 103 of
the Rules of Court.[7]
The notice setting the petition for hearing on November 20, 2008 was published in the
newspaper Broadside in its issues of October 31-November 6, 2008, November 7-13, 2008, and
November 14-20, 2008.[8] And a copy of the notice was furnished the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG).
The Republic contends that the deletion of the entry on the date and place of marriage of
respondents parents from his birth certificate has the effect of changing his civil status from
legitimate to illegitimate, hence, any change in civil status of a person must be effected through
an appropriate adversary proceeding
The trial court granted the petition but on appeal, the High Court reversed it stating:
COURTS RULING:
A person can effect a change of name under Rule 103 (CHANGE OF NAME) using valid and
meritorious grounds including (a) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely
difficult to write or pronounce; (b) when the change results as a legal consequence such as
legitimation; (c) when the change will avoid confusion; (d) when one has continuously used and
been known since childhood by a Filipino name, and was unaware of alien parentage; (e) a
sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of former alienage, all in good faith and
without prejudicing anybody; and (f) when the surname causes embarrassment and there is no
showing that the desired change of name was for a fraudulent purpose or that the change of
name would prejudice public interest.[17] Respondents reason for changing his name cannot be
considered as one of, or analogous to, recognized grounds, however.
The change being sought in respondents petition goes so far as to affect his legal status
in relation to his parents. It seeks to change his legitimacy to that of illegitimacy. Rule 103 then
would not suffice to grant respondents supplication.
Labayo-Rowe v. Republic[19] categorically holds that changes which may affect the civil
status from legitimate to illegitimate . . . are substantial and controversial alterations which can
only be allowed after appropriate adversary proceedings . . .
Since respondents desired change affects his civil status from legitimate to
illegitimate, Rule 108 applies. It reads:
SECTION 1. Who may file petition.Any person interested in any act,
event, order or decree concerning the civil status of persons which has been
recorded in the civil register, may file a verified petition for the cancellation or
correction of any entry relating thereto, with the [RTC] of the province where
the corresponding civil registry is located.
xxxx
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.

Page 3 of 8

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. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
Rule 108 clearly directs that a petition which concerns ones civil status should be filed
in the civil registry in which the entry is sought to be cancelled or corrected that of Makati in
the present case, and all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected
thereby should be made parties to the proceeding.
he failed to implead the civil registrar of Makati and all affected parties as respondents in
the case.
As for the requirement of notice and publication, Rule 108 provides:
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.
A reading of these related provisions readily shows that Rule 108 clearly mandates two sets of
notices to different potential oppositors. The first notice is that given to the persons named in
the petition and the second (which is through publication) is that given to other persons who are
not named in the petition but nonetheless may be considered interested or affected parties,
such as creditors. That two sets of notices are mandated under the above-quoted Section 4 is
validated by the subsequent Section 5, also above-quoted, which provides for two periods (for
the two types of potential oppositors) within which to file an opposition (15 days from
notice or from the last date of publication).
REPUBLIC V. DR. NORMA UY
G.R. No. 198010, August 12, 2013

On March 8, 2004, respondent filed a Petition for Correction of Entry in her Certificate of Live
Birth.5Impleaded as respondent is the Local Civil Registrar of Gingoog City. She alleged that
she was born on February 8, 1952 and is the illegitimate daughter of Sy Ton and Sotera
Lugsanay6 Her Certificate of Live Birth7 shows that her full name is Anita Sy when in fact she is
allegedly known to her family and friends as Norma S. Lugsanay. She further claimed that her
school records, Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) Board of Medicine Certificate, 8 and
passport9 bear the name Norma S. Lugsanay. She also alleged that she is an illegitimate child
considering that her parents were never married, so she had to follow the surname of her
mother.10 She also contended that she is a Filipino citizen and not Chinese, and all her siblings
bear the surname Lugsanay and are all Filipinos.11cralaw virtualaw library
Respondent allegedly filed earlier a petition for correction of entries with the Office of the Local
Civil Registrar of Gingoog City to effect the corrections on her name and citizenship which was
supposedly granted.12 However, the National Statistics Office (NSO) records did not bear such
changes. Hence, the petition before the RTC.
On May 13, 2004, the RTC issued an Order 13 finding the petition to be sufficient in form and
substance and setting the case for hearing, with the directive that the said Order be published in
a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Gingoog and the Province of Misamis Oriental
at least once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks at the expense of respondent, and that the
order and petition be furnished the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and the City
Prosecutors Office for their information and guidance. 14 Pursuant to the RTC Order, respondent
complied with the publication requirement.
RTC AND CA GRANTED THE PETITION
Page 4 of 8

COURTS RULING: ON PETITION FOR REVIEW, SC REVERSED FOR LACK OF NOTICE


TO INTERESTED PARTIES

It has been settled in a number of cases starting with Republic v. Valencia20 that even
substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected and the true facts established
provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the appropriate
adversary proceeding.21 The pronouncement of the Court in that case is illuminating:
It is undoubtedly true that if the subject matter of a petition is not for the correction of
clerical errors of a harmless and innocuous nature, but one involving nationality or
citizenship, which is indisputably substantial as well as controverted, affirmative relief
cannot be granted in a proceeding summary in nature. However, it is also true that a
right in law may be enforced and a wrong may be remedied as long as the appropriate
remedy is used. This Court adheres to the principle that even substantial errors in a civil
registry may be corrected and the true facts established provided the parties aggrieved
by the error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding. x x x
What is meant by appropriate adversary proceeding? Blacks Law Dictionary defines
adversary proceeding as follows:
One having opposing parties; contested, as distinguished from an ex parte application,
one of which the party seeking relief has given legal warning to the other party, and
afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it. Excludes an adoption proceeding.
Respondents birth certificate shows that her full name is Anita Sy, that she is a Chinese
citizen and a legitimate child of Sy Ton and Sotera Lugsanay. In filing the petition,
however, she seeks the correction of her first name and surname, her status from
legitimate to illegitimate and her citizenship from Chinese to Filipino. Thus,
respondent should have impleaded and notified not only the Local Civil Registrar but
also her parents and siblings as the persons who have interest and are affected by the
changes
or
corrections
respondent
wanted
to
make.
The fact that the notice of hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation
and notice thereof was served upon the State will not change the nature of the
proceedings taken.37 A reading of Sections 4 and 5, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court
shows that the Rules mandate two sets of notices to different potential oppositors: one
given to the persons named in the petition and another given to other persons who are
not named in the petition but nonetheless may be considered interested or affected
parties.38 Summons must, therefore, be served not for the purpose of vesting the courts
with jurisdiction but to comply with the requirements of fair play and due process to
afford the person concerned the opportunity to protect his interest if he so
chooses.39cralaw
virtualaw
library
While there may be cases where the Court held that the failure to implead and notify the
affected or interested parties may be cured by the publication of the notice of hearing,
earnest efforts were made by petitioners in bringing to court all possible interested
parties.40 Such failure was likewise excused where the interested parties themselves
initiated the corrections proceedings; 41 when there is no actual or presumptive
awareness of the existence of the interested parties; 42 or when a party is inadvertently
left out.

REPUBLIC V. OLAYVAR
G.R. No. 189538 February 10, 2014

Page 5 of 8

Respondent requested from the National Statistics Office (NSO) a Certificate of No Marriage
(CENOMAR) as one of the requirements for her marriage with her boyfriend of five years. Upon
receipt thereof, she discovered that she was already married to a certain Ye Son Sune, a
Korean National, on June 24, 2002, at the Office of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC),
Palace of Justice. She denied having contracted said marriage and claimed that she did not
know the alleged husband; she did not appear before the solemnizing officer; and, that the
signature appearing in the marriage certificate is not hers. 4 She, thus, filed a Petition for
Cancellation of Entries in the Marriage Contract, especially the entries in the wife portion
thereof.5 Respondent impleaded the Local Civil Registrar of Cebu City, as well as her alleged
husband, as parties to the case.
The trial court granted the petition but the Petitioner appealed arguing that that: (1) there was no
clerical spelling, typographical and other innocuous errors in the marriage contract for it to fall
within the provisions of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court; and (2) granting the cancellation of all
the entries in the wife portion of the alleged marriage contract is, in effect, declaring the
marriage void ab initio
COURTS RULING : PETITION DENIED
In filing the petition for correction of entry under Rule 108, respondent made the Local Civil
Registrar of Cebu City, as well as her alleged husband Ye Son Sune, as parties-respondents. It
is likewise undisputed that the procedural requirements set forth in Rule 108 were complied
with. The Office of the Solicitor General was likewise notified of the petition which in turn
authorized the Office of the City Prosecutor to participate in the proceedings. More importantly,
trial was conducted where respondent herself, the stenographer of the court where the alleged
marriage was conducted, as well as a document examiner, testified. Several documents were
also considered as evidence. With the testimonies and other evidence presented, the trial court
found that the signature appearing in the subject marriage certificate was different from
respondents signature appearing in some of her government issued identification cards. 23 The
court thus made a categorical conclusion that respondents signature in the marriage certificate
was not hers and, therefore, was forged. Clearly, it was established that, as she claimed in her
petition, no such marriage was celebrated.
Indeed the Court made a pronouncement in the recent case of Minoru Fujiki v. Maria Paz Galela
Marinay, Shinichi Maekara, Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City, and the Administrator and Civil
Registrar General of the National Statistics Office24 that:
To be sure, a petition for correction or cancellation of an entry in the civil registry cannot
substitute for an action to invalidate a marriage. A direct action is necessary to prevent
circumvention of the substantive and procedural safeguards of marriage under the Family Code,
A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC and other related laws. Among these safeguards are the requirement of
proving the limited grounds for the dissolution of marriage, support pendente lite of the spouses
and children, the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses and the
investigation of the public prosecutor to determine collusion. A direct action for declaration of
nullity or annulment of marriage is also necessary to prevent circumvention of the jurisdiction of
the Family Courts under the Family Courts Act of 1997 (Republic Act No. 8369), as a petition for
cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry may be filed in the Regional Trial Court
where the corresponding civil registry is located. In other words, a Filipino citizen cannot
dissolve his marriage by the mere expedient of changing his entry of marriage in the civil
registry.
Aside from the certificate of marriage, no such evidence was presented to show the existence of
marriage.1wphi1Rather, respondent showed by overwhelming evidence that no marriage was
entered into and that she was not even aware of such existence. The testimonial and
documentary evidence clearly established that the only "evidence" of marriage which is the
marriage certificate was a forgery. While we maintain that Rule 108 cannot be availed of to
determine the validity of marriage, we cannot nullify the proceedings before the trial court where
all the parties had been given the opportunity to contest the allegations of respondent; the
Page 6 of 8

procedures were followed, and all the evidence of the parties had already been admitted and
examined. Respondent indeed sought, not the nullification of marriage as there was no
marriage to speak of, but the correction of the record of such marriage to reflect the truth as set
forth by the evidence. Otherwise stated, in allowing the correction of the subject certificate of
marriage by cancelling the wife portion thereof, the trial court did not, in any way, declare the
marriage void as there was no marriage to speak of.

Laperal v. Republic L -18008 Jonston v. Republic L-18284


that disallows such change of name as would give the false impression of family relationship.
The principle remains valid but only to the extent that the proposed change of name would in
great probability cause prejudice or future mischief to the family whose surname it is that is
involved or to the community in general
Llaneta v. Agrava and Calderon v. Republic
previous decisions have allowed children to bear the surname of their respective stepfathers even without the benefit of adoption (petitioners were not legitimate children)
Republic v. CA FIRST DIVISION, G.R. No. 88202 December 14, 1998; Padilla v. Republic
Moore v. Republic
To allow said minors to adopt the surname of their mother's second husband, who is not
their father, could result in confusion in their paternity It could also create the suspicion
that said minors, who were born during the coverture of their mother with her first
husband, were in fact sired by Edward Padilla, thus bringing their legitimate status into
discredit
We find tenable this observation of government's counsel. Indeed, if a child born out of a
lawful wedlock be allowed to bear the surname of the second husband of the mother,
should the first husband die or be separated by a decree of divorce, there may result a
confusion as to his real paternity. In the long run the change may redound to the
prejudice of the child in the community.
Landingin V. Republic, G.R. No. 164948, June 27, 2006
It has been the policy of the Court to adhere to the liberal concept, as stated
in Malkinson v. Agrava,[28] that adoption statutes, being humane and salutary, hold the interest
and welfare of the child to be of paramount consideration and are designed to provide homes,
parental care and education for unfortunate, needy or orphaned children and give them the
protection of society and family in the person of the adopter as well as to allow childless couples
or persons to experience the joys of parenthood and give them legally a child in the person of
the adopted for the manifestation of their natural parental instincts. Every reasonable
intendment should thus be sustained to promote and fulfill these noble and compassionate
objectives of the law.[29]
However, in Cang v. Court of Appeals,[30] the Court also ruled that the liberality with which
this Court treats matters leading to adoption insofar as it carries out the beneficent purposes of
the law to ensure the rights and privileges of the adopted child arising therefrom, ever mindful
that the paramount consideration is the overall benefit and interest of the adopted child, should
be understood in its proper context and perspective. The Courts position should not be
misconstrued or misinterpreted as to extend to inferences beyond the contemplation of law and
jurisprudence. Thus, the discretion to approve adoption proceedings is not to be anchored
solely on best interests of the child but likewise, with due regard to the natural rights of the
parents over the child.[31]
early, the written consent of the biological parents is indispensable for the validity of a
decree of adoption. Indeed, the natural right of a parent to his child requires that his
consent must be obtained before his parental rights and duties may be terminated and
re-established in adoptive parents. In this case, petitioner failed to submit the written
consent of Amelia Ramos to the adoption.
Page 7 of 8

Petitioners contention must be rejected. When she filed her petition with the trial court,
Rep. Act No. 8552 was already in effect. Section 9 thereof provides that if the written
consent of the biological parents cannot be obtained, the written consent of the legal
guardian of the minors will suffice. If, as claimed by petitioner, that the biological mother
of the minors had indeed abandoned them, she should, thus have adduced the written
consent of their legal guardian

Page 8 of 8