Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
THIRD DIVISION
RESOLUTION
REYES, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to annul
and set aside the Decision2 dated April 26, 2013 issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
CV No. 98112.
Facts
Emelita Basilio Gan (petitioner) was born on December 21, 1956 out of wedlock to Pia Gan, her
father who is a Chinese national, and Consolacion Basilio, her mother who is a Filipino
citizen.3 The petitioner's birth certificate,4 which was registered in the Office of the Local Civil
Registrar (LCR) of Libmanan, Camarines Sur, indicates that her full name is Emelita Basilio.
On June 29, 2010, the petitioner filed a Petition5 for correction of name with the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Libmanan, Camarines Sur. The petitioner sought to change the full name
indicated in her birth certificate from "Emelita Basilio" to "Emelita Basilio Gan." She claimed that
she had been using the name "Emelita Basilio Gan" in her school records from elementary until
college, employment records, marriage contract, and other government records. 6 chanrobleslaw
On July 15, 2010, the RTC issued an Order, which noted that the petition filed sought not
merely a correction of entry in the birth certificate, but a change of name. Accordingly, the RTC
ordered the petitioner to make the necessary amendment to her petition to conform to the
requirements of Rule 103 of the Rules of Court.7 chanrobleslaw
The petitioner filed with the RTC an Amended Petition 8 dated August 3, 2010 for change of
name. The amended petition contained substantially the same allegations as in the petition for
correction of entry in the birth certificate. On August 10, 2010, the RTC set the initial hearing of
the petition in a newspaper of general circulation. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), as
counsel of the Republic of the Philippines (respondent), filed its notice of appearance. The OSG
authorized the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Libmanan, Camarines Sur to appear and
assist the OSG in the proceedings before the RTC. 9 chanrobleslaw
On July 19, 2011, after due proceedings; the RTC of Libmanan, Camarines Sur, Branch 29,
issued an Order10 granting the petition for change of name. The RTC, thus, directed the LCR of
Libmanan, Camarines Sur to change the petitioner's name in her birth certificate from "Emelita
Basilio" to "Emelita Basilio Gan." The RTC opined that, from the evidence presented, the said
petition was filed solely to put into order the records of the petitioner and that changing her
name in her birth certificate into Emelita Basilio Gan would avoid confusion in her personal
records.11chanrobleslaw
The respondent sought a reconsideration12 of the RTC Order dated July 19, 2011, alleging that
the petitioner, who is an illegitimate child, failed to adduce evidence that she was duly
recognized by her father, which would have allowed her to use the surname of her father. 13 On
October 17, 2011, the RTC issued an Order14 denying the respondent's motion for
reconsideration.
Ruling of the CA
On appeal, the CA, in its Decision15 dated April 26, 2013, reversed and set aside the RTC Orders
dated July 19, 2011 and October 17, 2011. The CA opined that pursuant to Article 176 of the
Family Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 9255,16 the petitioner, as an illegitimate child,
may only use the surname of her mother; she may only use the surname of her father if their
filiation has been expressly recognized by her father.17 The CA pointed out that the petitioner
has not adduced any evidence showing that her father had recognized her as his illegitimate
child and, thus, she may not use the surname of her father. 18 chanrobleslaw
In this petition for review, the petitioner maintains that the RTC correctly granted her petition
since she only sought to have her name indicated in her birth certificate changed to avoid
confusion as regards to her personal records. 19 She insists that her failure to present evidence
that her father recognized her as his illegitimate child is immaterial; a change of name is
reasonable and warranted, if it is necessary to avoid confusion.20 chanrobleslaw
A change of name is a privilege and not a matter of right; a proper and reasonable cause must
exist before a person may be authorized to change his name. 21 "In granting or denying petitions
for change of name, the question of proper and reasonable cause is left to the sound discretion
of the court. x x x What is involved is not a mere matter of allowance or disallowance of the
request, but a judicious evaluation of the sufficiency and propriety of the justifications advanced
in support thereof, mindful of the consequent results in the event of its grant and with the sole
prerogative for making such determination being lodged in the courts." 22 chanrobleslaw
After a judicious review of the records of this case, the Court agrees with the CA that the reason
cited by the petitioner in support of her petition for change of name, i.e. that she has been
using the name "Emelita Basilio Gan" in all of her records, is not a sufficient or proper
justification to allow her petition. When the petitioner was born in 1956, prior to the enactment
and effectivity of the Family Code, the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code then regarding the
petitioner's use of surname provide: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Article 366. A natural child acknowledged by both parents shall principally use the surname of
the father. If recognized by only one of the parents, a natural child shall employ the surname of
the recognizing parent.
Article 368. Illegitimate children referred to in Article 287 shall bear the surname of the mother.
In her amended petition for change of name, the petitioner merely stated that she was
born out of wedlock;23 she did not state whether her parents, at the time of her birth,
were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other, which would make her
a natural child pursuant to Article 269 of the Civil Code. If, at the time of the
petitioner's·birth, either of her parents had an impediment to marry the other, she
may only bear the surname of her mother pursuant to Article 368 of the Civil Code.
Otherwise, she may use the surname of her father provided that she was
acknowledged by her father.
However, the petitioner failed to adduce any evidence that would show that she indeed was duly
acknowledged by his father. The petitioner's evidence consisted only of her birth certificate
signed by her mother, school records, employment records, marriage contract, certificate of
baptism, and other government records. Thus, assuming that she is a natural child pursuant to
Article 269 of the Civil Code, she could still not insist on using her father's surname. It was,
thus, a blatant error on the part of the RTC to have allowed the petitioner to change her name
from "Emelita Basilio" to "Emelita Basilio Gan."
The petitioner's reliance on the cases of Alfon v. Republic of the Philippines,24Republic of the
Philippines v. Coseteng-Magpayo,25 and Republic of the Philippines v. Lim26 to support her
cralawre d
position is misplaced.
In Alfon, the name of the petitioner therein which appeared in her birth certificate was Maria
Estrella Veronica Primitiva Duterte; she was a legitimate child of her father and mother. She
filed a petition for change of name, seeking that she be allowed to use the surname "Alfon," her
mother's surname, instead of "Duterte." The trial court denied the petition, ratiocinating that
under Article 364 of the Civil Code, legitimate children shall principally use the surname of the
father. The Court allowed the petitioner therein to use the surname of her mother since Article
364 of the Civil Code used the word "principally" and not "exclusively" and, hence, there is no
legal obstacle if a legitimate child should choose to use the mother's surname to which he or
she is legally entitled.27 chanrobleslaw
In contrast, Articles 366 and 368 of the Civil Code do not give to an illegitimate child or a
natural child not acknowledged by the father the option to use the surname of the father. Thus,
the petitioner cannot insist that she is allowed to use the surname of her father.
In Coseteng-Magpayo, the issue was the proper procedure to be followed when the change
sought to be effected in the birth certificate affects the civil status of the respondent therein
from legitimate to illegitimate. The respondent therein claimed that his parents were never
legally married; he filed a petition to change his name from "Julian Edward Emerson Coseteng
Magpayo," the name appearing in his birth certificate, to "Julian Edward Emerson Marquez-Lim
Coseteng." The notice setting the petition for hearing was published and, since there was no
opposition thereto, the trial court; issued an order of general default and eventually granted the
petition of the respondent therein by, inter alia, deleting the entry on the date and place of
marriage of his parents and correcting his surname from "Magpayo" to "Coseteng." 28 The Court
reversed the trial court's decision since the proper remedy would have been to file a petition
under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. The Court ruled that the change sought by the respondent
therein involves his civil status as a legitimate child; it may only be given due course through an
adversarial proceedings under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. The Court's pronouncement
in Coseteng-Magpayo finds no application in this case.
Finally, Lim likewise finds no application in this case. In Lim, the petition that was filed was for
correction of entries under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court; the petition sought, among others, is
the correction of the surname of the respondent therein from "Yo" to "Yu." Further, the
respondent therein, although an illegitimate child, had long been using the surname of her
father. It bears stressing that the birth certificate of the respondent therein indicated that her
surname was the same as her father albeit misspelled. Thus, a correction of entry in her birth
certificate is appropriate.29 chanrobleslaw
Here, the petitioner filed a petition for change of name under Rule 103 and not a petition for
correction of entries under Rule 108. Unlike in Lim, herein petitioner's birth certificate indicated
that she bears the surname of her mother and not of her father.
SO ORDERED. chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Endnotes:
*
Designated additional Member per Raffle dated October 13, 2014 vice Associate Justice Francis
H. Jardeleza.
**
Designated additional Member per Raffle dated February 17, 2016 vice Associate Justice
Diosdado M. Peralta.
2
Penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, with Associate Justices Francisco P.
Acosta and Angelita A. Gacutan concurring; id. at 21-29.
3
Id. at 21-22.
4
Id. at 30-31.
5
Id. at 33-35.
6
Id. at 33-34.
7
Id. at 22.
8
Id. at 36-38.
9
Id. at 23-24.
10
Issued by Presiding Judge Cecilia R. Borja-Soler; id. at 39-41.
11
Id. at 41.
12
Id. at 42-49.
13
Id. at 43.
14
Id. at 50-52.
15
Id. at 21-29.
16
AN ACT ALLOWING ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN TO USE THE SURNAME OF THEIR FATHER,
AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ARTICLE 176 OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 209, OTHERWISE
KNOWN AS THE "FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES." Approved on February 24, 2004.
17
Rollo, p. 26.
18
Id. at 27.
19
Id. at 13.
20
Id. at 11.
21
See Oan v. Republic of the Philippines, 102 Phil. 468, 469-470 (1957).
22
Julian Lin Wang v. Cebu City Civil Registrar, 494 Phil. 149, 158 (2005).
23
Rollo, p. 36.
24
186 Phil. 600 (1980).
25
cralawred 656 Phil. 550 (2011).
26
464 Phil. 151 (2004).
27
Alfon v. Republic of the Philippines, supra note 24, at 603.
28
Republic of the Philippines v. Coseteng-Magpayo, supra note 25, at 552-554.
29
Republic of the Philippines v. Lim, supra note 26, at 155.
How to prove filiation; evidence needed.
“x x x.
ART. 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the
same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children.
xxxx
(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or
(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a
private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned.
x x x."
[1] G.R. No. 148220, June 15, 2005, 460 SCRA 197, 206-208.
1. Their filiation has been expressly recognized by the father through the
record of birth appearing in the civil registrar;
2. When an admission in a public document or a private handwritten
instrument is made by the father.
Children born out of wedlock, also known as illegitimate children, may use the
surname of the father under Republic Act No. 9255.
All you need is to file the necessary application with the civil registry of the
place where your child was born along with the following documents:
Children conceived and born outside a valid marriage are illegitimate, unless
otherwise provided in the Family Code of the Philippines (Article 165 of the
Family Code).
Who are considered illegitimate children?
The following are considered illegitimate children:
It is important to note that based on this cited provision, the general rule is
that the mother’s surname shall be used by an illegitimate child. However,
Republic Act No. 9255 amended this law to include a provision which now
allows an illegitimate child to use his father’s surname if the father expressly
recognizes the child as his own in a written document.
your son may use his father’s surname if the father signed the birth certificate
of your son, or if he acknowledged it in a public document or a private
handwritten document.
If, on the other hand, the father does not recognize your son, then the general
rule shall prevail wherein your surname shall be used by your son.
Furthermore, jurisprudence provides that the entry for the middle name of an
illegitimate child’s birth certificate must be left blank if the father does not
recognize the child. (Republic of the Philippines vs. Trinidad R.A. Capote
February 2007).
Also note that the cited provision does not grant legitimacy to a child. Thus,
even if an illegitimate child may use the surname of his father, the child’s
status as an illegitimate will not change.
When a petition for cancellation or correction
of an entry in the civil register involves
substantial and controversial alterations
including those on citizenship, legitimacy of
paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of
marriage, a strict compliance with the
requirements of Rule 108 of the Rules of
Court is mandated.
Posted on February 3, 2012by Erineus
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] Respondent’s reason for changing
his name cannot be considered as one of, or analogous to, recognized grounds,
however.
The present petition must be differentiated from Alfon v. Republic of the
Philippines.[18]In Alfon, the Court allowed the therein petitioner, Estrella
Alfon, to use the name that she had been known since childhood in order to
avoid confusion. Alfon did not deny her legitimacy, however. She merely
sought to use the surname of her mother which she had been using since
childhood. Ruling in her favor, the Court held that she was lawfully entitled to
use her mother’s surname, adding that the avoidance of confusion was
justification enough to allow her to do so. In the present case, however,
respondent denies his legitimacy.
The change being sought in respondent’s 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 respondent’s
supplication.
Labayo-Rowe v. Republic[19] categorically holds that “changes which
may affect the civil status from legitimate to illegitimate . . . are substantial
and controversial alterationswhich can only be allowed after appropriate
adversary proceedings . . .”
Since respondent’s 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
On petition before this Court after the Court of Appeals found that the order of
the trial court involved a question of law, the Court nullified the trial court’s
order directing the change of Emperatriz’ civil status and the filiation of her
child Victoria in light of the following observations:
Milagros Barco (Barco), natural guardian of her minor daughter Mary Joy
Ann Gustilo, filed before the appellate court a motion for intervention,
alleging that Mary Joy had a legal interest in the annulment of the trial court’s
Order as Mary Joy was, by Barco’s claim, also fathered by Gustilo.
The appellate court dismissed the petition for annulment and complaint-in-
intervention.
On appeal by Barco, this Court ruled that she should have been impleaded in
Nadina’s petition for correction of entries of the birth certificate of Mary Joy.
But since a petitioner, like Nadina, is not expected to exhaustively identify all
the affected parties, the subsequent publication of the notice cured the
omission of Barco as a party to the case. Thus the Court explained:
Undoubtedly, Barco is among the parties referred to in Section 3 of Rule 108.
Her interest was affected by the petition for correction, as any judicial
determination that June was the daughter of Armando would affect her ward’s
share in the estate of her father. It cannot be established whether Nadina
knew of Mary Joy’s existence at the time she filed the petition for
correction. Indeed, doubt may always be cast as to whether a
petitioner under Rule 108 would know of all the parties whose
interests may be affected by the granting of a petition. For
example, a petitioner cannot be presumed to be aware of all the
legitimate or illegitimate offsprings of his/her spouse or paramour.
x x x x.
xxxx
The purpose precisely of Section 4, Rule 108 is to bind the whole world to the
subsequent judgment on the petition. The sweep of the decision would
cover even parties who should have been impleaded under Section
3, Rule 108 but were inadvertently left out. x x x x.[26] (emphasis,
italics and underscoring supplied)
Meanwhile, in Republic v. Kho,[27] Carlito Kho (Carlito) and his siblings
named the civil registrar as the sole respondent in the petition they filed for
the correction of entries in their respective birth certificates in the civil
registry ofButuanCity, and correction of entries in the birth certificates of
Carlito’s minor children. Carlito and his siblings requested the correction in
their birth certificates of the citizenship of their mother Epifania to “Filipino,”
instead of “Chinese,” and the deletion of the word “married” opposite the
phrase “Date of marriage of parents” because their parents ─ Juan and
Epifania ─ were not married. And Carlito requested the correction in the birth
certificates of their children of his and his wife’s date of marriage to reflect the
actual date of their marriage as appearing in their marriage certificate. In the
course of the hearing of the petition, Carlito also sought the correction of the
name of his wife from Maribel to “Marivel.”
The Khos’ mother Epifania took the witness stand where she declared that she
was not married to Juan who died before the filing of the Khos’ petition.
On the issue of whether the failure to implead Marivel and the Khos’ parents
rendered the trial of the petition short of the required adversary proceedings
and the trial court’s judgment void, this Court held that when all the
procedural requirements under Rule 108 are followed, the publication of the
notice of hearing cures the failure to implead an indispensable party. In so
ruling, the Court noted that the affected parties were already notified of the
proceedings in the case since the petitioner-siblings Khos were the ones who
initiated the petition respecting their prayer for correction of their citizenship,
and Carlito respecting the actual date of his marriage to his wife; and, with
respect to the Khos’ petition for change of their civil status from legitimate to
illegitimate, their mother Epifania herself took the witness stand declaring
that she was not married to their father.
What is clear then in Barco and Kho is the mandatory directive under Section
3 of Rule 108 to implead the civil registrar and the parties who would
naturally and legally be affected by the grant of a petition for correction or
cancellation of entries. Non-impleading, however, as party-respondent of one
who is inadvertently left out or is not established to be known by the
petitioner to be affected by the grant of the petition or actually participates in
the proceeding is notified through publication.
IN FINE, when a petition for cancellation or correction of an entry in the
civil register involves substantial and controversial alterations including
those on citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of
marriage, a strict compliance with the requirements of Rule 108 of the Rules
of Court is mandated.
Special Proceedings: Rule 103, Rule 108, RA 9048
SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS
Rules 103 & 108; RA 9048
By Olive Cachapero
Venue RTC of the province in which RTC of the province where with the local civil registry
he resides, or, the corresponding civil office of the city or municipality
in the City of Manila, to the registry is located. where the record being sought
Juvenile and Domestic to be corrected or changed is
Relations Court. kept.
Contents of That the petitioner has been The affidavit shall set forth
Petition or a bona fide resident of the facts necessary to establish the
affidavit province where the petition is merits of the petition and
filed for at least 3 years prior to shall show affirmatively that
the date of such filing; the petitioner is competent to
The cause for which the change testify to the matters stated.
of the petitioner's name is The petitioner shall state the
sought; particular erroneous entry or
The name asked for. entries, which are sought to be
corrected and/or the change
sought to be made.
Form A petition for change of name a verified petition for the The verified petition shall be in
shall be signed andverified by cancellation or correction of the form of an affidavit,
the person desiring his name any entry relating thereto subscribed and sworn to before
changed, or some other person any person authorized by the
on his behalf, law to administer oaths.
Notice, Court shall direct that a copy of Court shall cause reasonable Sec. 9
Publication the order be published before notice thereof to be given to
& posting the hearing at least once a week the persons named in the
for 3 successive weeks in some petition. (publication is
newspaper of general sufficient to include all
circulation published in the interested parties.)
province, as the court shall
deem best.
The court shall also cause the
order to be published once a
week for 3 consecutive weeks
in a newspaper of general
circulation in the province.
Hearing The date set for the hearing
shall not be within 30 days
prior to an election nor within 4
month after the last publication
of the notice.
Grounds when the name is ridiculous, The petitioner finds the first
tainted with dishonor, or is name or nickname to be
extremely difficult to write or ridiculous, tainted with
pronounce; dishonor or extremely difficult
when the request for change is to write or pronounce.
a consequence of a change of The new first name or
status, such as when a natural nickname has been habitually
child is acknowledged or and continuously used by the
legitimated; and petitioner and he has been
when the change is necessary publicly known by that by that
to avoid confusion, first name or nickname in the
having continuously used and community: or
had been known since The change will avoid
childhood by a Filipino name, confusion.
unaware of her alien parentage;
a sincere desire to adopt a
Filipino name to erase signs of
a former alienage, al in good
faith and without prejudicing
surname causes embarrassment
and here is no showing the
desired change of name was for
a fraudulent purpose or that it
would prejudice public interest.
Judgment that such name be changed in court may either dismiss the When the petition for a change
accordance with the prayer of petition or issue an order of first name is approved by the
the petition. granting the cancellation or C/MCR or CG or D/CR and
correction prayed for. such decision has not been
impugned by the CRG, the
change shall be reflected in the
birth certificate by way of
marginal annotation.
Service of Judgments or orders – shall be In either case (dismissed or
judgment furnished the civil registrar of granted), a certified copy of
the municipality or city where the judgment shall be served
the court issuing the same is upon the civil registrar
situated, who shall concerned who
forthwithenter the same in the shall annotatedthe same in
civil register his record.
Example Adopted child’s change of Illegitimacy
surname Sex
Nationality/citizenship
Civil status
NOTES
RULE 103
Lack of verification – not jurisdictional; only renders the pleading fatally defective (which may be corrected) hence
warrants dismissal of the petition
The petition must be filed by the person desiring to change his/her name, even if it may be signed and verified by some
other person (example mother of a minor. The minor would have to file the petition herself when she reaches the age
of majority)
All names or aliases must appear in the caption of the petition – omission is fatal to the petition
Purpose of publication: to apprise the public of the pendency of the petition so that those who may know of any legal
objection to it might come forward with the iformation in order to determine the fitness of the petitioner…”
(jurisdictional)
A petition to change the name of an infant should be granted only where to do so is clearly for the best interest of the
child (petition filed by the mother)
Insufficient grounds for change of name:
Separation of spouses
No proof of prejudice by use of official name
Mere use and known y different name
No proof hat true name evokes derisive laughter
RULE108
Applies only to substantial changes and corrections in entries in the civil register. Under Rep. Act No. 9048, a
correction in the civil registry involving the change of sex is not a mere clerical or typographical error. It is a
substantial change for which the applicable procedure is Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
Note: Te correction should not imply a change of status but a mere rectification of error; there must be no increase or
diminution of substantive right
The child may not collaterally impugn his legitimacy as entered in the register in an action of partition (purpose:
declare him illegitimate); but he may file this petitioner mother is not the latter’s child at all)
A clerical error is one which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding; an error made by a clerk or a
transcriber; a mistake in copying or writing, or a harmless change such as a correction of name that is clearly
misspelled or of a misstatement of the occupation of the parent. Substantial or contentious alterations may be
allowed only in adversarial proceedings, in which all interested parties are impleaded and due process is properly
observed.
Period to file petition: from discovery of error
Purpose of proceedings: establish the status or right of a party, or a particular fact
The recognition of the foreign divorce decree may be made in a Rule 108 proceeding itself, as the object of special
proceedings (such as that in Rule 108 of the Rules of Court) is precisely to establish the status or right of a party or a
particular fact. Moreover, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court can serve as the appropriate adversarial proceeding by which
the applicability of the foreign judgment can be measured and tested in terms of jurisdictional infirmities, want of
notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
RA 9048
The correction of clerical or typographical error shall be availed of only once with respect to a particular entry or entries
in the same civil registry record. However, with regard to the change of first name or nickname in the birth certificate,
the privilege shall be availed of only once subject to Rule 12 hereunder.
Examples
But if your birth certificate shows Ma. Cecilia instead of Maria Cecilia – cannot be corrected under 9048, it is not
typographical error. You have to avail of Art. 103
Corpuz and Corpus or Gutierrez and Gutierres – not typographical errors
Another example: First name is Enrile and family name is Teodoro (baliktad diba?). If interchanged, it is not
innocuous. If it affects business relations or otherwise rights and obligations, you haveto go to 108
The error is innocuous. (ex. Date of birth is 1989 but what appears is 1889; a woman gave birth when she was 35yo but
what appears is she gave birth when she was 5yo) – clearly typographical error
NOTE: But there are special cases where because of evidence presented were considered under 9048, so it is now a
matter of evidence. As long as you can support your claim, and the best support would be also documents regarding
the name of your parents, brothers and sisters, grandparents. (Example: Their names are also Gutierrez and not
Gutierres). If you can prove that it was typographical error, it will fall under 9048.