REPUBLIC v KHO

FACTS: In 2001, Carlito and his siblings filed before the Butuan RTC a petition for correction of entries
in the civil registry to effect changes in their respective birth certificates and the same in behalf of his
minor children. For Carlito, he sought: 1. The correction of citizenship of his mother in his birth
certificate from Filipino to Chinese; 2. That Carlito’s second name of John be deleted from his record of
birth; 3. That the name and citizenship of Carlito’s father in his (Carlito’s) marriage certificate be
corrected from John Kho to Juan Kho and Filipino to Chinese; 4. And the deletion of the word married
because his parents were not legally married (same request as his siblings).

For the birth certificates of Carlito’s children, he prayed for the correction of the date of his and his
wife’s marriage as the date appearing in their marriage certificate.

The Local Civil Registrar of Butuan City was impleaded as respondent and the required publication was
complied with. The RTC directed the local civil registrar of Butuan City to correct the entries in the
record of birth of Carlito, his siblings and Carlito’s children as he prayed for.

***MAIN ISSUE: WON the changes sought can only be granted in an adversary proceeding?

HELD: No. The petition to change the citizenship of the mother, delete the married status of Carlito’s
parents and to change the date of marriage between Carlito and Marivel entails substantial and
controversial amendments. The change of nationality would not just affect the citizenship status of the
parents but also of the children. Futher, the deletion of the married status of their parents would alter their
filiation from legitimate to illegitimate children.

Labayo-Rowe v. Republic provides that if the entries in the civil register could be corrected or changed
through mere summary proceedings and not through appropriate action wherein all parties who may be
affected by the entries are notified or represented, the door to fraud or other mischief would be set open,
the consequence of which might be detrimental and far reaching. However, the court rules in Republic v
Valencia 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.

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.
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. Here,
the requirements under the rule were observed.

2nd ISSUE: WON the failure to implead Marivel and Carlito’s parents rendered the trial short of the
required adversary proceeding and the trial courts judgment void?

HELD: No. According to the case of Barco v CA, 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. A
petition for correction is an action in rem, and it is validated essentially through publication. It is the
publication of such notice that brings in the whole world as a party in the case and vests the court with
jurisdiction to hear and decide it.

Also, as to the children, Marivel was not an indispensable party to the case, the minors having been
represented by their father as required under Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Court.

IF ASKED:

3rd ISSUE: WON the RTC correctly granted the prayer to delete the word married opposite the date of
marriage of parents is warranted?

HELD: YES. A certification from the office of the city registrar, which was appended to respondents
Amended Petition, likewise stated that it has 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.

4th ISSUE: WON the correction of name from Carlito John to Carlito was properly granted?

HELD: YES. The same was properly granted under Rule 108 of the ROC. The cancellation or correction
of entries involving changes of name falls under letter o of Section 2 of Rule 108. Hence, while the
jurisdictional requirements of Rule 103 (which governs petitions for change of name) were not complied
with, observance of the provisions of Rule 108 suffices to effect the correction sought for. Lastly, no
prejudice is likely to arise from the dropping of the second name.

5th ISSUE: WON the correction of the mother’s citizenship is proper?

HELD: YES. The birth certificates of Carlitos siblings uniformly stated the citizenship of Epifania as
Filipino. To disallow the correction in Carlitos birth record of his mothers citizenship would perpetuate an
inconsistency in the natal circumstances of the siblings who are unquestionably born of the same mother
and father.

6th ISSUE: WON the correction of Maribel’s name to Marivel is a substantial correction?

HELD: NO. The mistake is clearly clerical or typographical, which is not only visible to the eyes, but is
also obvious to the understanding considering that the name reflected in the marriage certificate of Carlito
and his wife is Marivel. The same ruling holds true with respect to the correction in Carlitos marriage
certificate of his fathers name from John Kho to Juan Kho.

KILOSBAYAN FOUNDATION AND BANTAY KATARUNGAN FOUNDATION, petitioners,

vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA; SANDIGANBAYAN JUSTICE
GREGORY S. ONG, respondents. (July 3, 2007)

FACTS: Executive Secretary announced an appointment in favor of Gregory Ong as Associate Justice of
the Supreme Court to fill up the vacancy created by the retirement Associate Justice Callejo. However, his
appointment was "recalled" or "held in abeyance" by Malacañang in view of the question relating to hi
citizenship.

Petitioners contend that the appointment extended to respondent Ong through respondent Executive
Secretary is patently unconstitutional as Ong is a Chinese citizen and that his own birth certificate
indicates his Chinese citizenship. Petitioners invoke the Constitution:Section 7 (1) of Article VIII of the
1987 Constitution: "No person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme Court or any lower collegiate
court unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines." Sec. 2 of Art. IV defines "natural-born
citizens as those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to
acquire or perfect their Philippine Citizenship."1

As to his citizenship, Ong claims that his mother was a Filipino citizen at birth and became a Chinese
citizen only upon marrying his father. However, when he was eleven years old his father was naturalized,
and as a result he, his brothers and sisters, and his mother were included in the naturalization. Ong
subsequently obtained from the Bureau of Immigration and the DOJ a certification and an identification
that he is a natural-born Filipino citizen under Article IV, Sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution, since his
mother was a Filipino citizen when he was born.

ISSUE: WON respondent Ong a natural-born Filipino citizen?

HELD: The court took judicial notice of the records of Ong’s petition to be admitted to the Philippine bar
where he submitted his birth certificate and the naturalization papers of his father. His birth certificate
states that he was a Chinese citizen at birth and that his mother was a Chinese citizen and his father was
also a Chinese citizen.

It is clear, therefore, that from the records of this Court, Ong is a naturalized Filipino citizen. The alleged
subsequent recognition of his natural-born status by the Bureau of Immigration and the DOJ cannot
amend the final decision of the trial court stating that Ong and his mother were naturalized along with his
father.

Furthermore no substantial change or correction in an entry in a civil register can be made without a
judicial order, and, under the law, a change in citizenship status is a substantial change. In Labayo-Rowe
v. Republic, this Court held that: Changes which affect the civil status or citizenship of a party are
substantial in character and should be threshed out in a proper action depending upon the nature of the
issues in controversy, and wherein all the parties who may be affected by the entries are notified or
represented and evidence is submitted to prove the allegations of the complaint, and proof to the contrary
admitted.

RA 9048 provides in Section 2 (3) that a summary administrative proceeding to correct clerical or
typographical errors in a birth certificate cannot apply to a change in nationality. Substantial corrections
to the nationality or citizenship of persons recorded in the civil registry should, therefore, be effected
through a petition filed in court under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

The chain of evidence would have to show that Ong’s mother, was a Filipino citizen, contrary to what still
appears in the records of this Court. Ong has the burden of proving in court his alleged ancestral tree as
well as his citizenship under the time-line of three Constitutions. Until this is done, Ong cannot accept an
appointment to this Court as that would be a violation of the Constitution. For this reason, he can be
prevented by injunction from doing so.

Hence, Ong is enjoined from accepting an appointment to the said position until he shall have
successfully completed all necessary steps, through the appropriate adversarial proceedings in court, to
show that he is a natural-born Filipino citizen and correct the records of his birth and citizenship.