Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
*
G.R. No. 170340. June 29, 2007.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
178
179
Same Same Same Same Same Republic Act No. 9048 The
enactment in March 2001 of R.A. No. 9048 has been considered to
lend legislative affirmation to the judicial precedence that
substantial corrections to the civil status of persons recorded in the
civil registry may be effected through the filing of a petition under
Rule 108the obvious effect of Republic Act No. 9048 is to make
possible the administrative correction of clerical or typographical
errors or change of first name or nickname in entries in the civil
register, leaving to Rule 108 the correction of substantial changes
in the civil registry in appropriate adversarial proceedings.The
enactment in March 2001 of Republic Act No. 9048, otherwise
known as AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OR MUNICIPAL
CIVIL REGISTRAR OR THE CONSUL GENERAL TO
CORRECT A CLERICAL OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN AN
ENTRY AND/OR CHANGE OF FIRST NAME OR NICKNAME
IN THE CIVIL REGISTER WITHOUT NEED OF JUDICIAL
ORDER, has been considered to lend legislative affirmation to
the judicial precedence that 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. Thus, this Court
in Republic v. Benemerito, 425 SCRA 488 (2004), observed that
the obvious effect of Republic Act No. 9048 is to make possible the
administrative correction of clerical or typographical errors or
change of first name or nickname in entries in the civil register,
leaving to Rule 108 the correction of substantial changes in the
civil registry in appropriate adversarial proceedings.
Same Same Same Same Same Parties Publication of the
order of hearing under Section 4 of Rule 108 cures the failure to
implead an indispensable party.What surfaces as an issue is
whether the failure to implead Marivel and Carlitos parents
rendered the trial short of the required adversary proceeding and
the trial courts judgment void. A similar issue was earlier raised
in Barco v. Court of Appeals, 420 SCRA 162 (2004). That case
stemmed from a petition for correction of entries in the birth
certificate of a minor, June Salvacion Maravilla, to reflect the
name of her real father (Armando Gustilo) and to correspondingly
change her surname. The petition was granted by the trial court.
Barco, whose minor daughter was allegedly fathered also by
Gustilo, however, sought to annul the trial courts decision,
claiming that she should have been made a party to the petition
for correction. Failure to implead her deprived the RTC of
jurisdiction, she contended. In
180
180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
181
VOL. 526, JUNE 29, 2007 181
CARPIOMORALES, J.:
_______________
182
_______________
183
_______________
184
_______________
186
_______________
187
13
In Republic v. Valencia, however, this Court ruled, and
has since repeatedly ruled, that even substantial errors in
a civil registry 14may be corrected through a petition filed
under Rule 108.
_______________
188
_______________
16 Barco v. Court of Appeals, 465 Phil. 39, 61 420 SCRA 162, 177
(2004).
17 G.R. No. 146963, March 15, 2004, 425 SCRA 488, 492493.
18 Lee v. Court of Appeals, 419 Phil. 392, 405 367 SCRA 110, 129
(2001).
189
19
There is no dispute that the trial courts Order setting the
petition for hearing and directing any person or entity 20
having interest in the petition to oppose it was posted as
well as published for the required period that notices of
hearings were duly served on the Solicitor General, the city
prosecutor of Butuan and the local civil registrar and that
trial was conducted on January 31, 2002 during which the
public prosecutor, acting in behalf of the OSG, actively
participated by crossexamining Carlito and Epifania.
What surfaces as an issue is whether the failure to
implead Marivel and Carlitos parents rendered the trial
short of the required adversary proceeding and the trial
courts judgment void.
A similar
21
issue was earlier raised in Barco v. Court of
Appeals. That case stemmed from a petition for correction
of entries in the birth certificate of a minor, June Salvacion
Maravilla, to reflect the name of her real father (Armando
Gustilo) and to correspondingly change her surname. The
petition was granted by the trial court.
Barco, whose minor daughter was allegedly fathered
also by Gustilo, however, sought to annul the trial courts
decision, claiming that she should have been made a party
to the petition for correction. Failure to implead her
deprived the RTC of jurisdiction, she contended.
In dismissing Barcos petition, this Court held that the
publication of the order of hearing under Section 4 of Rule
108 cured the failure to implead an indispensable party.
_______________
19 Records, pp. 2829. The Order was issued by then Acting Presiding
Judge Victor A. Tomaneng.
20 Id., at p. 32. Affidavit of Posting.
21 Supra note 16.
190
_______________
191
_______________
192
27
Juan Kho who died in 1959. Again, that testimony was
not challenged by the city prosecutor.
The documentary evidence supporting the deletion from
Carlitos and his siblings birth certificates of the entry
Married opposite the date of marriage of their parents,
moreover, consisted of a certification issued on November
24, 1973 by St. Joseph (Butuan City) Parish priest Eugene
van Vught stating that Juan Kho and Epifania had been
living together as common law couple 28
since 1935 but have
never contracted marriage legally.
A certification from the office of the city registrar, which
was appended to respondents Amended Petition, likewise
stated that it 29has no record of marriage between Juan Kho
and Epifania. Under the circumstances, the deletion of the
word Married opposite the date of marriage of parents
is warranted.
With respect to the correction in Carlitos birth
certificate of his name from Carlito John to Carlito, the
same was properly granted under Rule 108 of the Rules of
Court. As correctly pointed out by the CA, the cancellation
or correction of entries involving changes of name falls
under letter
30
o of the following provision of Section 2 of
Rule 108:
_______________
27 Id., at p. 67.
28 Id., at p. 50, Exhibit I.
29 Id., at p. 20, Annex A to Amended Petition.
30 Vide Republic v. Court of Appeals, 325 Phil. 361, 368 255 SCRA 99,
105 (1996).
193
_______________
194
34
understanding considering that the name reflected in the
marriage certificate of Carlito and
35
his wife is Marivel.
Apropos is Yu v. Republic which held that changing
the appellants 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, 36which can be granted through a summary
proceeding. The same ruling holds true with respect to the
correction in Carlitos marriage certificate of his fathers
name from John Kho to Juan Kho. Except in said
marriage certificate, the name Juan Kho was uniformly
entered 37in the birth certificates of Carlito and of his
siblings.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision of
the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Actg. Chairperson), Tinga and Velasco, Jr.,
JJ., concur.
Quisumbing (Chairperson), On Official Leave.
o0o
_______________
195
Copyright2017CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.