Special Proceedings; Cancellation/ Correction of Name;
specifically certify that respondent "has not undergone sex change or sex
When there is a medical finding that the petitioner in a case for
correction of erroneous entry as to gender is phenotypically male or
female, the nosex change or transplant certification becomes mere
surplusage.
Republic vs Unabia
Facts:
Respondent Miller Omandam Unabia filed before the RTC Special
Proceeding No. 2009018, which is a "Petition for Correction of Entries
on the Birth Certificate of Mellie Umandam Unabia,"4 claiming that his
Birth Certificate5 contained errors in that the name entered therein was
"Mellie Umandam Unabia", when it should properly have been written as
"Miller Omandam Unabia"; that the gender was erroneously entered as
"female" instead of "male"; and that his father's middle initial was
erroneously indicated as "U" when it should have been "O".
Petitioner contested that respondent failed to comply with its
provisions, in that the medical certificate submitted did not specifically
certify that respondent "has not undergone sex change or sex
transplant" as required by Section 5 and that an individual's true gender
is not determinable by simple visual observation and examination.
Furthermore, the correction of respondent's name from "Mellie" to
"Miller" does not involve a simple clerical error contemplated by Rule
108 of the Rules of Court, as said rule refers only to changes or
corrections of clerical, typographical, and other innocuous errors and
obviously misspelled names.
Issue:
Whether the petition for correction of entries should prosper
Decision:
The court ruled in the affirmative.
In his photograph attached to the record, it will be observed particularly
that respondent's Adam's apple or, in medical terms, his laryngeal
prominence was quite evident and prominent. This can only indicate
that respondent is male, because anatomically, only men possess an
Adam's apple.
As for petitioner's argument that the medical certificate failed to
transplant" as required by law, suffice it to state that this is no longer
required with the certification by Dr. Labis that respondent is
"phenotypically male", meaning that respondent's entire physical,
physiological, and biochemical makeup as determined both genetically
and environmentally is male, which thus presupposes that he did not
undergo sex reassignment. As determined genetically and
environmentally, from conception to birth, respondent's entire being,
from the physical, to the physiological, to the biochemical meaning that
all the chemical processes and substances occurring within respondent
was undoubtedly male. He was conceived and born male, he looks male,
and he functions biologically as a male. Thus, the Court must do away
with the requirement of nosex change certification.
When there is a medical finding that the petitioner in a case for
correction of erroneous entry as to gender is phenotypically male or
female, the nosex change or transplant certification becomes mere
surplusage.
As to the clerical error of the respondent’s name: In Section2(3) of R.A.
10172 defines 'clerical of[sic] typographical error' as:
'Clerical or typographical error' refers to a mistake committed in the
performance of clerical work in writing, copying, transcribing or typing
an entry in the civil register that is harmless and innocuous, such as
misspelled name or misspelled place of birth, mistake in the entry of day
and month in the date of birth or the sex of the person or the like, which
is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding, and can be
corrected or changed only by reference to other existing record or
records: Provided, however, That no correction must involve the change
of nationality, age, or status of the petitioner.'
Finally, suffice it to state that, as correctly declared by the CA,
respondent was actually using the name Miller Omandam Unabia; that
"Miller" and "Mellie" and "Omandam" and "Umandam" were confusingly
similar; and that respondent's medical certificate shows that he is
phenotypically male.
Special Proceedings; Cancellation/ Correction of Name;
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.
Republic of the Philippines vs Kho
Facts:
Carlito and his siblings Michael, Mercy Nona and Heddy Moira filed
before the RTC of Butuan City a verified petition for correction of entries
in the civil registry of Butuan City to effect changes in their respective
birth certificates. Carlito also asked the court in behalf of his minor
children, Kevin and Kelly, to order the correction of some entries in their
birth certificates. He requested the correction in his birth certificate of
the citizenship of his mother to "Filipino" instead of "Chinese," as well as
the deletion of the word "married" opposite the phrase "Date of
marriage of parents" because his parents, Juan Kho and Epifania Inchoco
(Epifania), were allegedly not legally married. The same request to
delete the "married" status of their parents from their respective birth
certificates was made by Carlito’s siblings Michael, Mercy Nona, and
Heddy Moira.
With respect to the birth certificates of Carlito’s children, he prayed that
the date of his and his wife’s marriage be corrected from April 27, 1989
to January 21, 2000, the date appearing in their marriage certificate.
The Local Civil Registrar of Butuan City was impleaded as respondent.
Petitioner, Republic of the Philippines, appealed the RTC Decision to the
CA, faulting the trial court in granting the petition for correction of
entries in the subject documents despite the failure of respondents to
implead the minors’ mother, Marivel, as an indispensable party and to
offer sufficient evidence to warrant the corrections with regard to the
questioned "married" status of Carlito and his siblings’ parents, and the
latter’s citizenship.
Issue:
1- Whether the petition for cancellation or correction of entries should is
proper
2- Whether the failure to implead resulted to making judgment void
3- Whether the issue of correcting the name from Carlito John to Carlito
be proper under Rule 108 instead of Rule 103
4- Whether the correction of the mother’s citizenship in the petition was
proper
Held:
1- The court ruled in the affirmative.
The changes sought can only be granted in an adversary proceeding as
defined as, 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.
The philosophy behind this requirement lies in the fact that the books
making up the civil register and all documents relating thereto shall be
prima facie evidence of the facts therein contained. 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. (LabayoRowe v. Republic)
The Court ruled, and has since repeatedly ruled, that even substantial
errors in a civil registry may be corrected through a petition filed under
Rule 108. 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.
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.
2- As to the issue whether the failure to implead Marivel and Carlito’s
parents rendered the trial short of the required adversary proceeding
and the trial court’s judgment void, the Court held that the publication of is the fact that during the cross examination by the city prosecutor of
the order of hearing under Section 4 of Rule 108 cured the failure to Epifania, he did not deem fit to question her citizenship. Such failure to
implead an indispensable party. oppose the correction prayed for, which certainly was not respondents’
fault, does not in any way change the adversarial nature of the
The purpose precisely of Section 4, Rule 108 is to bind the whole world proceedings.
to the subsequent judgment on the petition. The sweep of the decision
would cover even parties who should have been impleaded under Also significant to note is that the birth certificates of Carlito’s siblings
Section 3, Rule 108, but were inadvertently left out. uniformly stated the citizenship of Epifania as "Filipino." To disallow the
correction in Carlito’s birth record of his mother’s citizenship would
A petition for correction is an action in rem, an action against a thing and perpetuate an inconsistency in the natal circumstances of the siblings
not against a person. The decision on the petition binds not only the who are unquestionably born of the same mother and father.
parties thereto but the whole world. An in rem proceeding is validated
essentially through publication. Publication is notice to the whole world
that the proceeding has for its object to bar indefinitely all who might be
minded to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be
established. 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.

3- With respect to the correction in Carlito’s birth certificate of his name

from "Carlito John" to "Carlito," where the petitioner contended not in
accordance to the jurisdictional requirements of Rule 103, the Court
ruled that the same was properly granted under Rule 108 of the Rules of
Court.

Rule 108, Section 2. Entries subject to cancellation or correction. —

Upon good and valid grounds, the following entries in the civil register
may be cancelled or corrected: (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) acknowledgments of natural children; (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.

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.

4- In relation to the correction of the mother’s citizenship from Chinese

to Filipino as appearing in Carlito’s birth record was also proper. Of note

Special Proceedings; Change of Name
Reading Art. 364 of the Civil Code together with the State’s declared
policy to ensure the fundamental equality of women and men before the
law, a legitimate child is entitled to use the surname of either parent as a
last name.
Alanis vs CA
Facts:
Petitioner filed before the RTC of Zamboanga to change his name from
Anacleto Ballaho Alanis III to Abdulhamid Ballaho. He wished to remove
his father’s surname Alanis III and instead use his mother’s maiden
name “Ballaho” as it was what he has been using since childhood and
indicate in his school records. He likewise wished to change his first
name for the same reasons. The petitioner testified that his parents
separated when he was 5 years old. His father was based in
Maguindanao while his mother was based in Basilan who testified that
she single-handedly raised him and his siblings.
RTC denied petition holding petitioner failed to prove any of the grounds
to warrant the change of name.It noted that the mere fact that the
petition has been using a different name and has become known by it is
not a valid ground to change a name. It also held that to allow him to
drop his last name was to disregard the surname of his natural and
legitimate father, in violation of the Family Code and Civil Code, which
provide that legitimate children shall principally use their father’s
surnames.
Issue:
1- Whether the petition has established a recognized ground for the
change of name.
2- Whether a legitimate child is entitled to use the mother’s surname as
their own
Decision:
1-
The Court ruled in the affirmative.
The RTC cited instances recognized under jurisprudence as sufficient to
warrant a change of name, namely:
When the name is ridiculous, dishonorable, or extremely difficult to
write or pronounce
When the change results as a legal consequence of legitimation or
adoption
When the change will avoid confusion
When one has continuously used and been known since childhood by a
Filipino name and was aware of alien parentage
When the change is based on a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to
erase signs of former alienage, all in good faith and without prejudice to
anybody
When the surname causes embarrassment and there is no showing that
the desired change of name was for fraudulent purpose or that the
change of name would prejudice public interest.
The Court sees fit to grant the requested change to avoid confusion.
Where the RTC recognized the confusion that may arise, despite this, it
did not delve into the issue of changing “Anacleto” to "Abdulhamid” but
instead concluded that granting the petition would create even more
confusion because it could trigger much deeper inquiries regarding his
parentage and/or paternity. However the Court fails to see how the
change name would create more confusion. Furthermore, whether
people inquire deeper into petitioner’s parentage or paternity because
of a name is inconsequential and seems to be more a matter of intrigue
and gossip than an issue for courts to consider.
2- The fundamental equality of women and men before the law shall be
ensured by the State. This is guaranteed by no less than the Constitution,
a statute and an international convention to which the Philippines is a
party. Thus, the State has the duty to actively modify what is in its power
to modify to ensure that the women are not discriminated.
The RTC gravely erred when it held that the legitimate children cannot
use their mother’s surnames. Contrary to State policy, the trial court
treated the surnames of the petitioner’s mother and father unequally.
The provision in Art. 264 of the Civil Code “Legitimate and legitimated
children shall principally use the surname of the father” the provision
indeed states that the legitimate children shall “principally” use the
surname of the father but “principally” does not mean “exclusively”. This
gives room to incorporate the State policy of ensuring fundamental
equality of women and men before the law.

The trial court’s reasoning further decoded patriarchy into our system. If
a surname is significant for identifying a person’s ancestry, interpreting
the laws to mean that a marital child’s surname must identify only the
paternal line renders the mother and her family invisible.

Hence, legitimate is entitled to use mother’s surname.