G.R.No.170340REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINESv.

CARLITOI.KHO,MICHAELKHO,MERCYNONAKHO
FORTUN,HEDDYMOIRAKHOSERRANO,KEVIN
DOGMOCKHO(Minor),andKELLYDOGMOCKHO
(Minor):JUNE2007PHILIPPINESUPREMECOURT
JURISPRUDENCE

SECONDDIVISION[G.R.NO.170340:June29,2007]
REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINES,Petitioner,v.CARLITOI.KHO,MICHAELKHO,MERCYNONA
KHOFORTUN,HEDDYMOIRAKHOSERRANO,KEVINDOGMOCKHO(Minor),andKELLY
DOGMOCKHO(Minor),Respondents.
DECISIONCARPIOMORALES,J.:
Challenged via Petition for Review on Certiorari is the October 27, 2005 Decision1 of the Court of
Appeals(CA)inCAG.R.CVNo.78124whichaffirmedtheSeptember4,2002Decision2oftheRegional
Trial Court (RTC) of Butuan City, Branch 5 granting the prayer of respondents Carlito I. Kho (Carlito),
Michael Kho, Mercy Nona KhoFortun, and Heddy Moira KhoSerrano for the correction of entries in
theirbirthcertificatesaswellasthoseofCarlito'sminorchildrenKevinandKellyDogmocKho.
Theundisputedfactsareasfollows:
OnFebruary12,2001,CarlitoandhissiblingsMichael,MercyNonaandHeddyMoirafiledbeforethe
RTCofButuanCityaverifiedpetitionforcorrectionofentriesinthecivilregistryofButuanCitytoeffect
changesintheirrespectivebirthcertificates.Carlitoalsoaskedthecourtinbehalfofhisminorchildren,
KevinandKelly,toorderthecorrectionofsomeentriesintheirbirthcertificates.
InthecaseofCarlito,herequestedthecorrectioninhisbirthcertificateofthecitizenshipofhismotherto
"Filipino"insteadof"Chinese,"aswellasthedeletionoftheword"married"oppositethephrase"Dateof
marriageofparents"becausehisparents,JuanKhoandEpifaniaInchoco(Epifania),wereallegedlynot
legallymarried.
Thesamerequesttodeletethe"married"statusoftheirparentsfromtheirrespectivebirthcertificates
wasmadebyCarlito'ssiblingsMichael,MercyNona,andHeddyMoira.

With respect to the birth certificates of Carlito's children, he prayed that the date of his and his wife's
marriage be corrected fromApril 27, 1989 to January 21, 2000, the date appearing in their marriage
certificate.
TheLocalCivilRegistrarofButuanCitywasimpleadedasrespondent.
On April 23, 2001, Carlito et al. filed an Amended Petition3 in which it was additionally prayed that
Carlito'ssecondnameof"John"bedeletedfromhisrecordofbirthandthatthenameandcitizenshipof
Carlito's father in his (Carlito's) marriage certificate be corrected from "John Kho" to "Juan Kho" and
"Filipino"to"Chinese,"respectively.
Asrequired,thepetitionwaspublishedforthreeconsecutiveweeks4inMindanaoDailyPatrolCARAGA,
anewspaperofgeneralcirculation,afterwhichitwassetforhearingonAugust9,2001.
InaletterofJune18,2001addressedtothetrialcourt,thecitycivilregistrar5stated her observations
and suggestions to the proposed corrections in the birth records of Carlito and his siblings but
interposednoobjectionstotheotheramendments.
OnthescheduledhearingofthepetitiononAugust9,2001,onlythecounselforrespondentsappeared
as the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) had yet to enter its appearance for the city civil registrar.
ThetrialcourtthusresetthehearingtoOctober9,2001.6OnSeptember14,2001,7theOSGenteredits
appearancewithanauthorizationtothecityprosecutorofButuanCitytoappearinthecaseandrender
assistancetoit(theOSG).
On January 31, 2002, respondents presented documentary evidence showing compliance with the
jurisdictional requirements of the petition. They also presented testimonial evidence consisting of the
testimoniesofCarlitoandhismother,Epifania.Duringthesamehearing,anadditionalcorrectioninthe
birth certificates of Carlito's children was requested to the effect that the first name of their mother be
rectifiedfrom"Maribel"to"Marivel."
By Decision8 of September 4, 2002, the trial court directed the local civil registrar of Butuan City to
correct the entries in the record of birth of Carlito, as follows: (1) change the citizenship of his mother
from"Chinese"to"Filipino"(2)delete"John"fromhisnameand(3)deletetheword"married"opposite
thedateofmarriageofhisparents.Thelastcorrectionwasorderedtobeeffectedlikewiseinthebirth
certificatesofrespondentsMichael,MercyNona,andHeddyMoira.
Additionally,thetrialcourtorderedthecorrectionofthebirthcertificatesoftheminorchildrenofCarlito
toreflectthedateofmarriageofCarlitoandMarivelDogmoc(Marivel)asJanuary21,2000,insteadof
April27,1989,andthename"Maribel"as"Marivel."
WithrespecttothemarriagecertificateofCarlitoandMarivel,thecorrectionsorderedpertainedtothe
alterationofthenameofCarlito'sfatherfrom"JohnKho"to"JuanKho"andthelatter'scitizenshipfrom

"Filipino"to"Chinese."
Petitioner, Republic of the Philippines, appealed the RTC Decision to the CA, faulting the trial court in
grantingthepetitionforcorrectionofentriesinthesubjectdocumentsdespitethefailureofrespondents
to implead the minors' mother, Marivel, as an indispensable party and to offer sufficient evidence to
warrantthecorrectionswithregardtothequestioned"married"statusofCarlitoandhissiblings'parents,
andthelatter'scitizenship.
Petitioneralsofaultedthetrialcourtfororderingthechangeofthename"CarlitoJohnKho"to"Carlito
Kho" for noncompliance with jurisdictional requirements for a change of name under Rule 103 of the
RulesofCourt.
By the assailed Decision of October 27, 2005, the CA denied petitioner's appeal and affirmed the
decisionofthetrialcourt.
The CA found that Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court, which outlines the proper procedure for
cancellationorcorrectionofentriesinthecivilregistry,wasobservedinthecase.
Regarding Carlito's minor children Kevin and Kelly, the appellate court held that the correction of their
mother'sfirstnamefrom"Maribel"to"Marivel"wasmadetorectifyaninnocuouserror.
AsforthechangeinthedateofthemarriageofCarlitoandMarivel,albeittheCAconcededthatitisa
substantial alteration, it held that the date would not affect the minors' filiation from "legitimate" to
"illegitimate"consideringthatatthetimeoftheirrespectivebirthsin1991and1993,theirfatherCarlito's
firstmarriagewasstillsubsistingasithadbeenannulledonlyin1999.
InlightofCarlito'slegalimpedimenttomarryMarivelatthetimetheywereborn,theirchildrenKevinand
Kellywereillegitimate.Itfollowed,theCAwentontostate,thatMarivelwasnotanindispensableparty
tothecase,theminorshavingbeenrepresentedbytheirfatherasrequiredunderSection5ofRule39
oftheRevisedRulesofCourt.
Further,theCAruledthatalthoughCarlitofailedtoobservetherequirementsofRule103oftheRulesof
Court, he had complied nonetheless with the jurisdictional requirements for correction of entries in the
civil registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.The petition for correction of entry in Carlito's birth
record,itnoted,fallsunderletter"o"oftheenumerationunderSection2ofRule108.
In the present petition, petitioner contends that since the changes sought by respondents were
substantial in nature, they could only be granted through an adversarial proceeding in which
indispensable parties, such as Marivel and respondents' parents, should have been notified or
impleaded.
PetitionerfurthercontendsthatthejurisdictionalrequirementstochangeCarlito'snameunderSection2

of Rule 103 of the Rules of Court were not satisfied because the Amended Petition failed to allege
Carlito'spriorthreeyearbonafideresidenceinButuanCity,andthatthetitleofthepetitiondidnotstate
Carlito's aliases and his true name as "Carlito John I. Kho." Petitioner concludes that the same
jurisdictionaldefectsattachedtothechangeofnameofCarlito'sfather.
Thepetitionfails.
Itcannotbegainsaidthatthepetition,insofarasitsoughttochangethecitizenshipofCarlito'smother
as it appeared in his birth certificate and delete the "married" status of Carlito's parents in his and his
siblings' respective birth certificates, as well as change the date of marriage of Carlito and Marivel
involves the correction of not just clerical errors of a harmless and innocuous nature.10 Rather, the
changesentailsubstantialandcontroversialamendments.
ForthechangeinvolvingthenationalityofCarlito'smotherasreflectedinhisbirthcertificateisagrave
and important matter that has a bearing and effect on the citizenship and nationality not only of the
parents,butalsooftheoffspring.11
Further,thedeletionoftheentrythatCarlito'sandhissiblings'parentswere"married"alterstheirfiliation
from"legitimate"to"illegitimate,"withsignificantimplicationsontheirsuccessionalandotherrights.
Clearly, the changes sought can only be granted in an adversary proceeding. LabayoRowe v.
Republic12explainstheraisondetre:
xxx.Thephilosophybehindthisrequirementliesinthefactthatthebooksmakingupthecivilregister
and all documents relating thereto shall be primafacie evidence of the facts therein contained. If the
entriesinthecivilregistercouldbecorrectedorchangedthroughmeresummaryproceedingsandnot
through appropriate action wherein all parties who may be affected by the entries are notified or
represented,thedoortofraudorothermischiefwouldbesetopen,theconsequenceofwhichmightbe
detrimentalandfarreaching.xxx(Emphasissupplied)cralawlibrary
In Republic v. Valencia,13 however, this Court ruled, and has since repeatedly ruled, that even
substantialerrorsinacivilregistrymaybecorrectedthroughapetitionfiledunderRule108.14
Itisundoubtedlytruethatifthesubjectmatterofapetitionisnotforthecorrectionofclericalerrorsofa
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
longastheappropriateremedyisused.ThisCourtadherestotheprinciplethatevensubstantialerrors
inacivilregistrymaybecorrectedandthetruefactsestablishedprovidedthepartiesaggrievedbythe
erroravailthemselvesoftheappropriateadversaryproceeding.
xxx

What is meant by "appropriate adversary proceeding?" Black's Law Dictionary defines "adversary
proceeding["]asfollows:
Onehavingopposingpartiescontested,asdistinguishedfromanexparteapplication,oneofwhichthe
partyseekingreliefhasgivenlegalwarningtotheotherparty,andaffordedthelatteranopportunityto
contestit.xxx15(Emphasis,italicsandunderscoringsupplied)
TheenactmentinMarch2001ofRepublicActNo.9048,otherwiseknownas"AnActAuthorizingtheCity
orMunicipalCivilRegistrarortheConsulGeneraltoCorrectaClericalorTypographicalErrorinanEntry
and/or Change of First Name or Nickname in the Civil Register Without Need of Judicial Order," has
beenconsideredtolendlegislativeaffirmationtothejudicialprecedencethatsubstantialcorrectionsto
the civil status of persons recorded in the civil registry may be effected through the filing of a petition
underRule108.16
Thus,thisCourtinRepublicv.Benemerito17observedthattheobviouseffectofRepublicActNo.9048is
tomakepossibletheadministrativecorrectionofclericalortypographicalerrorsorchangeoffirstname
ornicknameinentriesinthecivilregister,leavingtoRule108thecorrectionofsubstantialchangesin
thecivilregistryinappropriateadversarialproceedings.
When all the procedural requirements under Rule 108 are thus followed, the appropriate adversary
proceeding necessary to effect substantial corrections to the entries of the civil register is satisfied.18
ThepertinentprovisionsofRule108oftheRulesofCourtread:
SEC. 3. Parties. When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil registrar is sought, the civil
registrarandallpersonswhohaveorclaimanyinterestwhichwouldbeaffectedtherebyshallbemade
partiestotheproceeding.
SEC.4.Noticeandpublication.Uponthefilingofthepetition,thecourtshall,byanorder,fixthetime
andplaceforthehearingofthesame,andcausereasonablenoticethereoftobegiventothepersons
namedinthepetition.Thecourtshallalsocausetheordertobepublishedonceinaweekforthree(3)
consecutiveweeksinanewspaperofgeneralcirculationintheprovince.
SEC.5.Opposition.Thecivilregistrarandanypersonhavingorclaiminganyinterestundertheentry
whose cancellation or correction is sought may, within fifteen (15) days from notice of the petition, or
fromthelastdateofpublicationofsuchnotice,filehisoppositionthereto.(Emphasisandunderscoring
supplied)cralawlibrary
Thereisnodisputethatthetrialcourt'sOrder19settingthepetitionforhearinganddirectinganyperson
or entity having interest in the petition to oppose it was posted20as well as published for the required
periodthatnoticesofhearingsweredulyservedontheSolicitorGeneral,thecityprosecutorofButuan
and the local civil registrar and that trial was conducted on January 31, 2002 during which the public
prosecutor,actinginbehalfoftheOSG,activelyparticipatedbycrossexaminingCarlitoandEpifania.

WhatsurfacesasanissueiswhetherthefailuretoimpleadMarivelandCarlito'sparentsrenderedthe
trialshortoftherequiredadversaryproceedingandthetrialcourt'sjudgmentvoid.
AsimilarissuewasearlierraisedinBarcov.CourtofAppeals.21Thatcasestemmedfromapetitionfor
correction of entries in the birth certificate of a minor, June Salvacion Maravilla, to reflect the name of
herrealfather(ArmandoGustilo)andtocorrespondinglychangehersurname.Thepetitionwasgranted
bythetrialcourt.
Barco,whoseminordaughterwasallegedlyfatheredalsobyGustilo,however,soughttoannulthetrial
court'sdecision,claimingthatsheshouldhavebeenmadeapartytothepetitionforcorrection.Failure
toimpleadherdeprivedtheRTCofjurisdiction,shecontended.
IndismissingBarco'spetition,thisCourtheldthatthepublicationoftheorderofhearingunderSection4
ofRule108curedthefailuretoimpleadanindispensableparty.
The essential requisite for allowing substantial corrections of entries in the civil registry is that the true
factsbeestablishedinanappropriateadversarialproceeding.ThisisembodiedinSection3,Rule108
oftheRulesofCourt,whichstates:
Section 3. Parties. When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register is sought, the civil
registrarandallpersonswhohaveorclaimanyinterestwhichwouldbeaffectedtherebyshallbemade
partiestotheproceeding.
xxx
Undoubtedly,BarcoisamongthepartiesreferredtoinSection3ofRule108.Herinterestwasaffected
bythepetitionforcorrection,asanyjudicialdeterminationthatJunewasthedaughterofArmandowould
affectherward'sshareintheestateofherfather.xxx.
Yet,eventhoughBarcowasnotimpleadedinthepetition,theCourtofAppealscorrectlypointedoutthat
thedefectwascuredbycompliancewithSection4,Rule108,whichrequiresnoticebypublicationxxx.
xxx
ThepurposepreciselyofSection4,Rule108istobindthewholeworldtothesubsequentjudgmenton
the petition. The sweep of the decision would cover even parties who should have been impleaded
underSection3,Rule108,butwereinadvertentlyleftout.xxx
xxx
Verily,apetitionforcorrectionisanactioninrem,anactionagainstathingandnotagainstaperson.
Thedecisiononthepetitionbindsnotonlythepartiestheretobutthewholeworld.Aninremproceeding
isvalidatedessentiallythroughpublication.Publicationisnoticetothewholeworldthattheproceeding

hasforitsobjecttobarindefinitelyallwhomightbemindedtomakeanobjectionofanysortagainstthe
rightsoughttobeestablished.Itisthepublicationofsuchnoticethatbringsinthewholeworldasaparty
inthecaseandveststhecourtwithjurisdictiontohearanddecideit.22
Given the above ruling, it becomes unnecessary to rule on whether Marivel or respondents' parents
shouldhavebeenimpleadedaspartiestotheproceeding.Itmaynotbeamisstomention,however,that
during the hearing on January 31, 2002, the city prosecutor who was acting as representative of the
OSG did not raise any objection to the noninclusion of Marivel and Carlito's parents as parties to the
proceeding.
Parenthetically,itseemshighlyimprobablethatMarivelwasunawareoftheproceedingstocorrectthe
entries in her children's birth certificates, especially since the notices, orders and decision of the trial
courteHewereallsenttotheresidence23shesharedwithCarlitoandthechildren.
Itisalsowelltorememberthattheroleofthecourtinhearingapetitiontocorrectcertainentriesinthe
civilregistryistoascertainthetruthaboutthefactsrecordedtherein.24
With respect to the date of marriage of Carlito and Marivel, their certificate of marriage25 shows that
indeed they were married on January 21, 2000, not on April 27, 1989. Explaining the error, Carlito
declared that the date "April 27, 1989" was supplied by his helper, adding that he was not married to
Marivel at the time his sons were born because his previous marriage was annulled only in 1999.26
Given the evidence presented by respondents, the CA observed that the minors were illegitimate at
birth,hence,thecorrectionwouldbringaboutnochangeatallinthenatureoftheirfiliation.
WithrespecttoCarlito'smother,itbearsnotingthatshedeclaredatthewitnessstandthatshewasnot
married to Juan Kho who died in 1959.27 Again, that testimony was not challenged by the city
prosecutor.
ThedocumentaryevidencesupportingthedeletionfromCarlito'sandhissiblings'birthcertificatesofthe
entry "Married" opposite the date of marriage of their parents, moreover, consisted of a certification
issuedonNovember24,1973bySt.Joseph(ButuanCity)ParishpriestEugenevanVughtstatingthat
Juan Kho and Epifania had been living together as common law couple since 1935 but have never
contractedmarriagelegally.28
A certification from the office of the city registrar, which was appended to respondents' Amended
Petition,likewisestatedthatithasnorecordofmarriagebetweenJuanKhoandEpifania.29Under the
circumstances, the deletion of the word "Married" opposite the "date of marriage of parents" is
warranted.
WithrespecttothecorrectioninCarlito'sbirthcertificateofhisnamefrom"CarlitoJohn"to"Carlito,"the
samewasproperlygrantedunderRule108oftheRulesofCourt.AscorrectlypointedoutbytheCA,the
cancellation or correction of entries involving changes of name falls under letter "o" of the following

provisionofSection2ofRule108:30
Section 2. Entries subject to cancellation or correction. Upon good and valid grounds, the following
entriesinthecivilregistermaybecancelledorcorrected:(a)births(b)marriages(c)deaths(d)legal
separation (e) judgments of annulment of marriage (f) judgments declaring marriages void from the
beginning(g)legitimations(h)adoptions(i)acknowledgmentsofnaturalchildren(j)naturalization(k)
election, loss or recovery of citizenship (l) civil interdiction (m) judicial determination of filiation (n)
voluntary emancipation of a minor and (o) changes of name. (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)cralawlibrary
Hence, while the jurisdictional requirements of Rule 103 (which governs petitions for change of name)
werenotcompliedwith,observanceoftheprovisionsofRule108sufficestoeffectthecorrectionsought
for.
Moreimportantly,Carlito'sofficialtranscriptofrecordfromtheUriousCollegeinButuanCity,31certificate
ofeligibilityfromtheCivilServiceCommission,32andvoterregistrationrecord33satisfactorilyshowthat
hehasbeenknownbyhisfirstnameonly.Noprejudiceisthuslikelytoarisefromthedroppingofthe
secondname.
Thecorrectionofthemother'scitizenshipfromChinesetoFilipinoasappearinginCarlito'sbirthrecord
wasalsoproper.OfnoteisthefactthatduringthecrossexaminationbythecityprosecutorofEpifania,
hedidnotdeemfittoquestionhercitizenship.Suchfailuretoopposethecorrectionprayedfor,which
certainly was not respondents' fault, does not in any way change the adversarial nature of the
proceedings.
AlsosignificanttonoteisthatthebirthcertificatesofCarlito'ssiblingsuniformlystatedthecitizenshipof
Epifaniaas"Filipino."TodisallowthecorrectioninCarlito'sbirthrecordofhismother'scitizenshipwould
perpetuate an inconsistency in the natal circumstances of the siblings who are unquestionably born of
thesamemotherandfather.
Outside the ambit of substantial corrections, of course, is the correction of the name of Carlito's wife
from"Maribel"to"Marivel."Themistakeisclearlyclericalortypographical,whichisnotonlyvisibletothe
eyes, but is also obvious to the understanding34 considering that the name reflected in the marriage
certificateofCarlitoandhiswifeis"Marivel."
Apropos is Yu v. Republic35 which held that changing the appellant's Christian name of "Sincio" to
"Sencio" amounts merely to the righting of a clerical error. The change of name from Beatriz
Labayo/Beatriz Labayu to Emperatriz Labayo was also held to be a mere innocuous alteration, which
can be granted through a summary proceeding.36 The same ruling holds true with respect to the
correctioninCarlito'smarriagecertificateofhisfather'snamefrom"JohnKho"to"JuanKho."Exceptin
saidmarriagecertificate,thename"JuanKho"wasuniformlyenteredinthebirthcertificatesofCarlito
andofhissiblings.37

WHEREFORE,thePetitionisDENIED.TheDecisionoftheCourtofAppealsisAFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.Endnotes:
*OnOfficialLeave.
**ActingChairperson.
1CArollo,pp.5063pennedbyJusticeMyrnaDimarananVidalandconcurredinbyJusticesRomulo

V.Borja(thenChairmanoftheTwentySecondDivision)andRicardoR.Rosario.
2Rollo,pp.4548pennedbyJudgeAugustusL.Calo.
3Id.at3943.
4Records,pp.6264.ThepetitionwaspublishedonJune1,8,and15,2001asshownbythecopies

ofthenewspaperpublicationsofevendate,whichweremarkedasExhibits"E,""F"and"G."
5Id.at3031,SoledadA.Cruz.
6Id.at34OrderofAugust9,2001.
7Id.at36.
8Rollo,pp.4548.
9SEC.5.Minororincompetentpersons.Aminororapersonallegedtobeincompetent,maysueor

besued,withtheassistanceofhisfather,mother,guardian,orifhehasnone,aguardianadlitem.
10LabayoRowev.RepublicofthePhilippines,G.R.No.L53417,December8,1988,168SCRA294,

300301 Republic v. Valencia, 225 Phil. 408, 413 (1986) Baybayan v. Republic of the Philippines,
123Phil.230,232(1966)Davidv.Republic,122Phil.848,851(1965).
11TyKongTinv.Republic,94Phil.321,324(1954).
12Supranote10at299300,citingTyKongTinv.Republic,supra.
13Supranote10.
14VideRepublicv.Lim,464Phil.151,157(2004)Eloeosidav.LocalCivilRegistrarofQuezonCity,

431Phil.612,619(2002)Republicv.Labrador,364Phil.934,943944(1999).
15Republicv.Valencia,supranote10.
16Barcov.CourtofAppeals,465Phil.39,61(2004).

17G.R.No.146963,March15,2004,425SCRA488,492493.
18Leev.CourtofAppeals,419Phil.392'405(2001).
19Records,pp.2829.TheOrderwasissuedbythenActingPresidingJudgeVictorA.Tomaneng.
20Id.at32.AffidavitofPosting.
21Supranote16.
22Supra at 5557.The ruling was reiterated inAlba v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. 164041, July 29,

2005,465SCRA495,506508.
23 Records, p. 75. Copies of these Orders and of the Decision were mailed to 717 Molave Road,

GuingonaSubdivision,ButuanCity,whichwasreflectedastheresidenceofbothCarlitoandMarivel
in their Certificate of Marriage. During the hearing on January 31, 2002, Carlito also testified that
Marivelwasstilllivingwithhim.
24Republicv.Valencia,supranote10at416.
25Records,p.55,Exhibit"K."
26Id.at7476.TranscriptofStenographicNotes,January31,2002.
27Id.at67.
28Id.at50,Exhibit"I."
29Id.at20,Annex"A"toAmendedPetition.
30VideRepublicv.CA,325Phil.361,368(1996).
31Records,pp.5152,Exhibit"J."
32Id.at53,Exhibit"J1."
33Id.at54,Exhibit"J2."
34Leonorv.CA,326Phil.74,87(1996)Blackv.Republic,104Phil.848,849(1958).
35129Phil.248,249(1967).
36LabayoRowev.Republic,supranote10at300.
37Records,pp.710Exhibits"N"to"Q."