G.R. No.

207147, September 14, 2016

EMELITA BASILIO GAN, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
RESOLUTION
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of
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.
REYES, J.:
Ruling of the CA
1

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
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
chanroble slaw

Civil Registrar (LCR) of Libmanan, Camarines Sur,

In this petition for review, the petitioner maintains that
indicates that her full name is Emelita Basilio.
the RTC correctly granted her petition since she only
sought to have her name indicated in her birth certificate
On June 29, 2010, the petitioner filed a Petition5 for
changed to avoid confusion as regards to her personal
correction of name with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
records.19 She insists that her failure to present evidence
Libmanan, Camarines Sur. The petitioner sought to
that her father recognized her as his illegitimate child is
change the full name indicated in her birth certificate from
immaterial; a change of name is reasonable and
"Emelita Basilio" to "Emelita Basilio Gan." She claimed
warranted, if it is necessary to avoid confusion.20
that she had been using the name "Emelita Basilio Gan" in
chanroble slaw

her school records from elementary until college,

employment records, marriage contract, and other Ruling of the Court
government records.6 chan rob leslaw

The petition is denied.

Ruling of the RTC
A change of name is a privilege and not a matter of right;
a proper and reasonable cause must exist before a person
On July 15, 2010, the RTC issued an Order, which noted
may be authorized to change his name. 21 "In granting or
that the petition filed sought not merely a correction of
denying petitions for change of name, the question of
entry in the birth certificate, but a change of name.
proper and reasonable cause is left to the sound discretion
Accordingly, the RTC ordered the petitioner to make the
of the court. x x x What is involved is not a mere matter
necessary amendment to her petition to conform to the
of allowance or disallowance of the request, but a
requirements of Rule 103 of the Rules of Court.7
judicious evaluation of the sufficiency and propriety of the
chanroble slaw

justifications advanced in support thereof, mindful of the

The petitioner filed with the RTC an Amended
consequent results in the event of its grant and with the
Petition8 dated August 3, 2010 for change of name. The
sole prerogative for making such determination being
amended petition contained substantially the same
lodged in the courts."22
allegations as in the petition for correction of entry in the
chan roble slaw

birth certificate. On August 10, 2010, the RTC set the

After a judicious review of the records of this case, the
initial hearing of the petition in a newspaper of general
Court agrees with the CA that the reason cited by the
circulation. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), as
petitioner in support of her petition for change of
counsel of the Republic of the Philippines (respondent),
name, i.e. that she has been using the name "Emelita
filed its notice of appearance. The OSG authorized the
Basilio Gan" in all of her records, is not a sufficient or
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Libmanan, Camarines
proper justification to allow her petition. When the
Sur to appear and assist the OSG in the proceedings
petitioner was born in 1956, prior to the enactment and
before the RTC.9
effectivity of the Family Code, the pertinent provisions of
chanrob leslaw

the Civil Code then regarding the petitioner's use of

On July 19, 2011, after due proceedings; the RTC of
surname provide:
Libmanan, Camarines Sur, Branch 29, issued an
ChanRoble sVirt ualawli bra ry

Article 366. A natural child acknowledged by both parents

Order10 granting the petition for change of name. The
shall principally use the surname of the father. If
RTC, thus, directed the LCR of Libmanan, Camarines Sur
recognized by only one of the parents, a natural child shall
to change the petitioner's name in her birth certificate
employ the surname of the recognizing parent.
from "Emelita Basilio" to "Emelita Basilio Gan." The RTC
opined that, from the evidence presented, the said
Article 368. Illegitimate children referred to in Article 287
petition was filed solely to put into order the records of
shall bear the surname of the mother.
the petitioner and that changing her name in her birth
certificate into Emelita Basilio Gan would avoid confusion In her amended petition for change of name, the
in her personal records.11 chan robles law
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
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 chan roble slaw

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."
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.

The petitioner's reliance on the cases of Alfon v. Republic WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing
of the Philippines,24Republic of the Philippines v. disquisitions, the petition is DENIED.
Coseteng-Magpayo,25 and Republic of the Philippines v.
cralawred

Lim26 to support her position is misplaced. SO ORDERED. chanRoblesvirt ualLawlib rary

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
c han robles law

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
 SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 206023, April 03, 2017
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. LORENA OMAPAS
SALI, Respondent.
DECISION
PERALTA, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court (Rules) seeks to annul and set aside the
February 11, 2013 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA)
in CA-G.R. CEB CV No. 03442, which affirmed in toto the
February 23, 2010 Decision of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 14, Baybay City, Leyte, granting the
Petition for Correction of Entry under Rule 108 of
the Rules filed by respondent Lorena Omapas Sali (Sali).
The CA narrated the undisputed factual antecedents.
Lorena Omapas Sali filed a Verified Petition, dated
November 26, 2008, for Correction of Entry under Rule
108 of the Rules of Court before the RTC with the
following material averments:
1. Petitioner is a Filipino, of legal age, single and a
resident [of] 941 D. Veloso St.[,] Baybay, Leyte;
2. The respondent is located in Baybay City, Leyte and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court where it can
be served with summons and other processes of this
Honorable Court;
3. All parties herein have the capacity to sue and be sued;
4. Petitioner is the daughter of Spouses Vedasto A.
Omapas and Almarina A. Albay who was born on April 24,
1968 in Baybay, Leyte. A copy of the Baptismal Certificate
issued by the Parish of the Sacred Heart, Sta. Mesa,
Manila is hereunto attached as Annex "A";
5. Unfortunately, in recording the facts of her birth, the
personnel of the Local Civil Registrar of Baybay, Leyte[,]
thru inadvertence and mistake[,] erroneously entered in
the records the following: Firstly, the first name of the
petitioner as "DOROTHY" instead of "LORENA" and
Secondly, the date of birth of the petitioner as "June 24,
1968" instead of "April 24, 1968." A copy of the
Certificate of Live Birth of Dorothy A. Omapas issued by
the National Statistics Office (NSO) and Certification from
the Local Civil Registrar of Baybay, Leyte are hereunto
attached as Annex "B" and Annex "C" respectively.
6. The petitioner has been using the name "Lorena A.
Omapas["] and her date of birth as "April 24, 1968" for as
long as she (sic) since she could remember and is known
to the community in general as such;
7. To sustain petitioner's claim that the entries in her
Certificate of Live Birth pertaining to her first name and
date of birth should be corrected so that it will now read
as "LORENA A. OMAPAS" and "April 24, 1968"
respectively, attached hereto are: the Certificate of
Marriage of Morsalyn [D.] Sali and Lorena A. Omapas, and
a photocopy of the Postal Identity Card of the petitioner
as Annex "D" and Annex "E" respectively; [and]
8. This petition is intended neither for the petitioner to
escape criminal and/or civil liability, nor affect the
hereditary succession of any person whomsoever but
solely for the purpose of setting the records of herein
petitioner straight.
[Sali] then prayed for the issuance of an order correcting
her first name from "Dorothy" to "Lorena" and the date of
her birth from "June 24, 1968" to ["]April 24, 1968."
After [Sali] proved her compliance with the jurisdictional
requirements, reception of evidence followed. The Clerk of
Court was then appointed as a commissioner to receive
the evidence in support of the petition. Subsequently, she
rendered a Report relative thereto.
On February 23, 2010, the trial court issued the assailed
Decision in favor of [Sali], the dispositive portion of which
reads:
WHEREFORE, this Court, hereby resolves to GRANT this
petition for correction of the erroneous entries in the Birth
Certificate of Lorena A. Omapas-Sali, specifically her first
name from "DOROTHY" to "LORENA" and her date of birth
from "JUNE 24, 1968" to "APRIL 24, 1968", and ordering
the Local Civil Registrar of Baybay City, Leyte, and the
National Statistics Office to effect the foregoing correction
in the birth record of Lorena A. Omapas-Sali, upon finality
of this decision, and upon payment of the proper legal
fees relative thereto.
Furnish copy of this decision to the Office of the Solicitor
General, the Local Civil Registrar of Baybay City, Leyte,
the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, the petitioner and her
counsel.
SO ORDERED.2
On March 24, 2010, the Republic, through the Office of
the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed the RTC Decision
for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the court a
quo because the title of the petition and the order setting
the petition for hearing did not contain Sali's aliases.
The CA denied the appeal, ruling that: (1) the records are
bereft of any indication that Sali is known by a name
other than "Lorena," hence, it would be absurd to compel
her to indicate any other alias that she does not have; (2)
Sali not only complied with the mandatory requirements
for an appropriate adversarial proceeding under Rule 108
of the Rules but also gave the Republic an opportunity to
timely contest the purported defective petition; and (3)
the change in the first name of Sali will certainly avoid
further confusion as to her identity and there is no
showing that it was sought for a fraudulent purpose or
that it would prejudice public interest.
Now before Us, the grounds of the petition are as
follows:
cha nRoblesv irt ualLawlib rary
I.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW
WHEN IT APPLIED RULE 108 INSTEAD OF RULE 103,
THEREBY DISPENSING WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF
STATING THE RESPONDENT'S ALIASES IN THE TITLE OF
THE PETITION.
 II.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW
IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENT FAILED TO
EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES.3
The Republic argues that although Sali's petition is
entitled: "IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR
CORRECTION OF ENTRY IN THE CERTIFICATE OF LIVE
BIRTH OF DOROTHY A. OMAPAS," it is actually a petition
for a change of name. The first name being sought to be
changed does not involve the correction of a simple
clerical, typographical or innocuous error such as a
patently misspelled name, but a substantial change in
Sali's first name. This considering, the applicable rule is
Rule 103, which requires that the applicant's names and
aliases must be stated in the title of the petition and the
order setting it for hearing, and that the petition can be
granted only on specific grounds provided by law. Further,
assuming that a petition for correction of entries under
Rule 108 is the appropriate remedy, the petition should
not have been granted for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies provided for under Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 9048.
The petition is partially granted.
Sali's petition is not for a change of name as
contemplated under Rule 103 of the Rules but for
correction of entries under Rule 108. What she seeks is
the correction of clerical errors which were committed in
the recording of her name and birth date. This Court has
held that not all alterations allowed in one's name are
confined under Rule 103 and that corrections for clerical
errors may be set right under Rule 108.4 The
evidence5 presented by Sali show that, since birth, she
has been using the name "Lorena." Thus, it is apparent
that she never had any intention to change her name.
What she seeks is simply the removal of the clerical fault
or error in her first name, and to set aright the same to
conform to the name she grew up with.6
Nevertheless, at the time Sali's petition was filed, R.A. No.
9048 was already in effect.7 Section 1 of the law
states:
chanRoblesvirtua lLawlibrary
SECTION 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or Typographical
Error and Change of First Name or Nickname. - No entry
in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a
judicial order, except for clerical or typographical errors
and change of first name or nickname which can be
corrected or changed by the concerned city or municipal
civil registrar or consul general in accordance with the
provisions of this Act and its implementing rules and
regulations. (Emphasis ours)
The petition for change of first name may be allowed,
among other grounds, if the new first name has been
habitually and continuously used by the petitioner and he
or she has been publicly known by that first name in the
community.8 The local city or municipal civil registrar or
consul general has the primary jurisdiction to entertain
the petition. It is only when such petition is denied that a
petitioner may either appeal to the civil registrar general
or file the appropriate petition with the proper court. 9 We
stressed in Silverio v. Republic of the Philippines:10
RA 9048 now governs the change of first name. It vests
the power and authority to entertain petitions for change
of first name to the city or municipal civil registrar or
consul general concerned. Under the law, therefore,
jurisdiction over applications for change of first name is
now primarily lodged with the aforementioned
administrative officers. The intent and effect of the law is
to exclude the change of first name from the coverage of
Rules 103 (Change of Name) and 108 (Cancellation or
Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) of the Rules of
Court, until and unless an administrative petition for
change of name is first filed and subsequently denied. It
likewise lays down the corresponding venue, form and
procedure. In sum, the remedy and the proceedings
regulating change of first name are primarily
administrative in nature, not judicial.11
Recently, the Court again said in Onde v. Office of the
Local Civil Registrar of Las Piñas City:12
In Silverio v. Republic, we held that under R.A. No. 9048,
jurisdiction over applications for change of first name is
now primarily lodged with administrative officers. The
intent and effect of said law is to exclude the change of
first name from the coverage of Rules 103 (Change of
Name) and 108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in
the Civil Registry) of the Rules of Court, until and unless
an administrative petition for change of name is first filed
and subsequently denied. The remedy and the
proceedings regulating change of first name are primarily
administrative in nature, not judicial. In Republic v.
Cagandahan, we said that under R.A. No. 9048, the
correction of clerical or typographical errors can now be
made through administrative proceedings and without the
need for a judicial order. The law removed from the ambit
of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court the correction of clerical
or typographical errors. Thus petitioner can avail of this
administrative remedy for the correction of his and his
mother's first name.13
In this case, the petition, insofar as it prayed for the
change of Sali's first name, was not within the RTC's
primary jurisdiction. It was improper because the remedy
should have been administrative, i.e., filing of the petition
with the local civil registrar concerned. For failure to
exhaust administrative remedies, the RTC should have
dismissed the petition to correct Sali's first name.
On the other hand, anent Sali's petition to correct her
birth date from "June 24, 1968" to "April 24, 1968," R.A.
No. 9048 is inapplicable. It was only on August 15, 2012
that R.A. No. 10172 was signed into law amending R.A.
No. 9048.14 As modified, Section 1 now includes the day
and month in the date of birth and sex of a person,
thus:
chanRoblesvirt ualLaw lib rary
Section 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or Typographical
Error and Change of First Name or Nickname. - No entry
in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a
judicial order, except for clerical or typographical errors
and change of first name or nickname, the day and
month in the date of birth or sex of a person where it is
patently clear that there was a clerical or typographical
error or mistake in the entry, which can be corrected or
changed by the concerned city or municipal civil registrar
or consul general in accordance with the provisions of this
Act and its implementing rules and regulations. (Emphasis
ours)
Considering that Sali filed her petition in 2008, Rule
10815 is the appropriate remedy in seeking to correct her
date of birth in the civil registry. Under the Rules, the
following must be observed:
ch anRoblesvi rtua lLawlibra ry
Sec. 3. Parties. - When cancellation or correction of an
entry in the civil register is sought, the civil registrar and
all persons who have or claim any interest which would be
affected thereby shall be made parties to the proceeding.
Sec. 4. Notice and publication. - Upon the filing of the
petition, the court shall, by an order, fix the time and
place for the hearing of the same, and cause reasonable
notice thereof to be given to the persons named in the
petition. The court shall also cause the order to be
published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in
a newspaper of general circulation in the province.

Sec. 5. Opposition. - The civil registrar and any person

having or claiming any interest under the entry whose
cancellation or correction is sought may, within fifteen
(15) days from notice of the petition, or from the last date
of publication of such notice, file his opposition thereto.
The Republic did not question the petition to correct Sali's
birth date from "June 24, 1968" to "April 24, 1968." In
fact, it did not contest the CA ruling that the requirements
for an appropriate adversarial proceeding were
satisfactorily complied with. The appellate court found: chanRoblesvirt ual Lawlib rary

xxxx

Here, [Sail] filed with the court a quo a verified petition

for the correction of her first name from "Dorothy" to
"Lorena" as well as the date of her birth from "June 24,
1968" to "April 24, 1968." In the petition, she aptly
impleaded the Civil Registrar of Baybay City, Leyte as
respondent. Thereafter, the trial court issued an Order
fixing the time and place for the hearing of the petition.
The Order for hearing was then published once a week for
three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
circulation in the province to notify the persons having or
claiming any interest therein. Moreover, said Order was
posted in four public and conspicuous places within the
locality. Subsequently, the Civil Registrar, Solicitor
General and Assistant Provincial Prosecutor were
furnished copies of the Petition and Order to give them
the opportunity to file their respective oppositions thereto.
x x x.16
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition
is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The February 11, 2013
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CV No.
03442, which affirmed in toto the February 23, 2010
Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Baybay
City, Leyte, is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. The
Petition for Correction of Entry in the Certificate of Live
Birth of Dorothy A. Omapas with respect to her first name
is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to its filing with
the local civil registrar concerned.
 G.R. No. 231998, November 20, 2017
ERIC SIBAYAN CHUA, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
DECISION
VELASCO JR., J.:
Nature of the Case
For consideration of the Court is the Petition for Review on
Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the
November 7, 2016 Decision1 and May 19, 2017
Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV
No. 102624. The assailed rulings disallowed petitioner
from changing the name registered in his birth certificate
from "Eric Sibayan Kiat" (Eric) to "Eric Sibayan Chua."
The Facts
On January 7, 2013, Eric filed a petition for change of
surname from "Kiat" to "Chua." In his petition,3 Eric
alleged that he was born on November 8, 1973 to a
Chinese father named "Cheong Kiat" (Cheong) and a
Filipino mother named "Melania Sibayan" (Melania).
However, after his birth, his father Cheong allegedly
secured a favorable judgment allowing him (Cheong) to
change his surname from "Kiat" to "Chua." Thus, Eric
adopted the new surname of his father, "Chua," and had
been using the name "Eric Sibayan Chua" in all of his
credentials. Eric likewise averred in his petition that he is
known in their community as "Eric Chua" instead of "Eric
Kiat." The petition was docketed as Special Proceeding
Case No. 907 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 34, in Balaoan, La Union.
After the RTC found that the petition is sufficient in form
and substance, and upon establishing the requisite
jurisdictional facts, trial ensued on May 21, 2013. Eric
testified that he was not able to secure a copy of his
father's birth certificate since the latter was born in China;
that his mother Melania told him that his father Cheong
changed his surname from "Kiat" to "Chua;"4 and that his
Certificate of Live Birth is the only document where his
surname appears as "Kiat." Offered in evidence were his
Certificate of Baptism, Voter Certification, Police
Clearance, National Bureau of Investigation Clearance,
Passport, High School Diploma, and the Certificates of
Live Birth of his children, which all state Eric's name to be
"Eric Sibayan Chua."5
Melania also testified in support of the petition, claiming
that Cheong used the surname "Kiat" in China, but used
"Chua" in the Philippines; that "Chua" is the surname
Cheong used when they married; that it was her uncle
who erroneously caused the registration of Eric's name as
"Eric Kiat;" and that when Eric was 16, Cheong, who was
already weak, returned to China and contacted them no
longer.6
The asseveration that Eric is known in their community as
"Eric Chua" was corroborated by his neighbor, Avelino
Fernandez.7
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
Finding the change of name as nothing more than a
straightening of the records, the RTC rendered its January
22, 2014 Decision8 granting the petition in the following
wise:
WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Court hereby
orders the Local Civil Registrar of Balaoan, La Union to
change the name of the petitioner from ERIC S. KIAT to
ERIC S. CHUA in his Certificate of Live Birth under
Registry No. 422-K-73 of the Local Civil Registrar of
Balaoan, La Union.
Let a copy of the judgment be furnished the Office of the
Local Civil Registrar, Balaoan, La Union and the National
Statistics Office (NSO), Quezon City, Metro Manila for
guidance, information and execution of the necessary
corrections and the subsequent issuance of the
updated/corrected Certificate of Live Birth.
SO ORDERED.9
The Republic, represented by the Office of the Solicitor
General, interposed an appeal from the foregoing ruling.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On November 7, 2016, the CA rendered the assailed
Decision reversing the RTC, thusly:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby GRANTED. The
January 22, 2014 Decision of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 34, Balaoan, La Union in Special Proceedings Case
No. 907 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petition for
change of name filed by petitioner appellee Eric Sibayan
Kiat is DISMISSED for lack of factual and legal basis.
SO ORDERED.10
According to the CA, Eric failed to establish a compelling
ground for changing his name. The CA deemed that there
was no proof offered tending to establish that Eric's
father, Cheong, was able to secure a court judgment
allowing him to officially change his surname from "Kiat"
to "Chua." Eric and Melania's testimonies were seen as
mere allegations that do not satisfy the requisite quantum
of evidence to establish such fact. There was then no
basis for Eric's adoption of the surname "Chua." 11 The
appellate court likewise held that no proof was offered to
show that Eric will be prejudiced by his use of his
registered name.12 Thus, since Eric's evidence fell short of
preponderant, his petition for change of name must
necessarily be dismissed, so the CA ruled.
Through its May 19, 2017 Resolution, the CA denied Eric's
motion for reconsideration from the above-ruling. Hence,
the instant recourse.
The Issue
The issue to be resolved herein is simply whether or not
the appellate court erred in disallowing petitioner from
officially changing his name.
The Court's Ruling
The petition is meritorious.
Contrary to the ruling of the CA, there is legal and factual
basis for granting Eric's petition for change of name. To
recall, his petition is not only anchored on his father's
alleged change of surname from "Kiat" to "Chua," but also
on the fact that he (Eric) had been using the surname
"Chua" in all of his credentials. Thus, it may be that Eric
and Melania's testimonies are not preponderant proof of
Cheong's change of surname, but this should not foreclose
the possibility of granting the petition on a different
ground.
In Republic v. Coseteng-Magpayo,13 the Court enumerated
several recognized grounds that can be invoked by a
person desirous of changing his name, viz:
(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;
respondent failed to demonstrate that allowing petitioner
to change his surname will prejudice the State,
strengthening Our resolve to grant the sought-after relief.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is
hereby GRANTED. The November 7, 2016 Decision and
May 19, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. CV No. 102624 are hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The January 22, 2014 Decision of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) - Branch 34, Balaoan, La Union, in
Special Proceeding Case No. 907 is hereby REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.

(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.14 (emphasis added)
Avoidance of confusion was invoked in Alfon v.
Republic,15 wherein the Court granted the petition for
change of name of Maria Estrella Veronica Primitiva
Duterte to Estrella S. Alfon. In allowing the change of
name, the Court held that:
In the case at bar, it has been shown that petitioner has,
since childhood, borne the name Estrella S. Alfon although
her birth records and baptismal certificate show
otherwise; she was enrolled in the schools from the
grades up to college under the name Estrella S. Alfon; all
her friends call her by this name; she finished her course
in Nursing in college and was graduated and given a
diploma under this name; and she exercised the right of
suffrage likewise under this name. There is therefore
ample justification to grant fully her petition which is not
whimsical but on the contrary is based on a solid and
reasonable ground, i.e. to avoid confusion.16
The same circumstances are attendant in the case at bar.
As Eric has established, he is known in his community as
"Eric Chua," rather than "Eric Kiat." Moreover, all of his
credentials exhibited before the Court, other than his
Certificate of Live Birth, bear the name "Eric Chua." Guilty
of reiteration, Eric's Certificate of Baptism, Voter
Certification, Police Clearance, National Bureau of
Investigation Clearance, Passport, and High School
Diploma all reflect his surname to be "Chua." Thus, to
compel him to use the name "Eric Kiat" at this point would
inevitably lead to confusion. It would result in an
alteration of all of his official documents, save for his
Certificate of Live Birth. His children, too, will
correspondingly be compelled to have their records
changed. For even their own Certificates of Live Birth
state that their father's surname is "Chua." To deny this
petition would then have ramifications not only to Eric's
identity in his community, but also to that of his children.

The imperatives of avoiding confusion dictate that the

instant petition be granted. Additionally, public
 G.R. No. 207074, January 17, 2018
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. MICHELLE SORIANO
GALLO, Respondent.
DECISION
LEONEN, J.:
Names are labels for one's identity. They facilitate social
interaction, including the allocation of rights and
determination of liabilities. It is for this reason that the
State has an interest in one's name.
The name through which one is known is generally,
however, not chosen by the individual who bears it.
Rather, it is chosen by one's parents. In this sense, the
choice of one's name is not a product of the exercise of
autonomy of the individual to whom it refers.
In view of the State's interest in names as markers of
one's identity, the law requires that these labels be
registered. Understandably, in some cases, the names so
registered or other aspects of one's identity that pertain to
one's name are not reflected with accuracy in the
Certificate of Live Birth filed with the civil registrar.
Changes to one's name, therefore, can be the result of
either one of two (2) motives. The first, as an exercise of
one's autonomy, is to change the appellation that one was
given for various reasons. The other is not an exercise to
change the label that was given to a person; it is simply
to correct the data as it was recorded in the Civil Registry.
This is a Petition for Review1 under Rule 45 assailing the
April 29, 2013 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CV No. 96358, which denied the Republic of the
Philippines' appeal3 from the Regional Trial Court
December 7, 2010 Order4 granting herein respondent
Michelle Soriano Gallo's (Gallo) Petition for Correction of
Entry of her Certificate of Live Birth.
Gallo has never been known as "Michael Soriano Gallo."
She has always been female. Her parents, married on May
23, 1981, have never changed their names. For her, in
her petition before the Regional Trial Court, her Certificate
of Live Birth contained errors, which should be corrected.
For her, she was not changing the name that was given to
her; she was merely correcting its entry.
To accurately reflect these facts in her documents, Gallo
prayed before the Regional Trial Court of Ilagan City,
Isabela in Special Proc. No. 21555 for the correction of her
name from "Michael" to "Michelle" and of her biological
sex from "Male" to "Female" under Rule 1086 of the Rules
of Court.7
In addition, Gallo asked for the inclusion of her middle
name, "Soriano"; her mother's middle name, "Angangan";
her father's middle name, "Balingao"; and her parent's
marriage date, May 23, 1981, in her Certificate of Live
Birth, as these were not recorded.8
As proof, she attached to her petition copies of her
diploma, voter's certification, official transcript of records,
medical certificate, mother's birth certificate, and parents'
marriage certificate.9
The Regional Trial Court, having found Gallo's petition
sufficient in form and substance, set a hearing on August
2, 2010. It also ordered the publication of the Notice of
Hearing once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Province of
Isabela.10
The Office of the Solicitor General authorized the Office of
the Provincial Prosecutor to appear on its behalf.11 Trial
then ensued.
During trial, Gallo testified on her allegations. She showed
that her college diploma, voter's certification, and
transcript indicated that her name was "Michelle Soriano
Gallo." The doctor who examined her also certified that
she was female.12 On cross-examination, Gallo explained
that she never undertook any gender-reassignment
surgery and that she filed the petition not to evade any
civil or criminal liability, but to obtain a passport. 13
The Regional Trial Court, in its December 7, 2010 Order,
granted the petition.14 It lent credence to the documents
Gallo presented and found that the corrections she sought
were "harmless and innocuous."15 It concluded that there
was a necessity to correct Gallo's Certificate of Live Birth
and applied Rule 108 of the Rules of
Court,16 citing Republic v. Cagandahan.17 Thus:
WHEREFORE, above premises considered, an order is
hereby issued directing the Civil Registrar General, NSO
through the Municipal Civil Registrar of Ilagan, Isabela to
correct the entries in the Birth Certificate of the petitioner
as well as in the National Statistics Office Authenticated
copy particularly her first name "MICHAEL" to
"MICHELLE", gender from "MALE" to "FEMALE", middle
name of petitioner to be entered as "SORIANO", middle
names of petitioner's parents to be properly supplied as
"ANGANGAN" for the mother and "BALINGAO" for the
father, as well as date of marriage of petitioner's parents
to be recorded as "MAY 23, 1981", after payment of legal
fees if there be any.
SO ORDERED.18
The Office of the Solicitor General appealed, alleging that
the applicable rule should be Rule 103 of the Rules of
Court for Petitions for Change of Name.19 It argued that
Gallo did not comply with the jurisdictional requirements
under Rule 103 because the title of her Petition and the
published Order did not state her official name, "Michael
Gallo."20 Furthermore, the published Order was also
defective for not stating the cause of the change of
name.21
The Court of Appeals, in its assailed April 29, 2013
Decision, denied the Office of the Solicitor General's
appeal.22 It found that Gallo availed of the proper remedy
under Rule 108 as the corrections sought were clerical,
harmless, and innocuous.23 It further clarified that Rule
108 is limited to the implementation of Article 412 of the
Civil Code24 and that the proceedings which stem from it
can "either be summary, if the correction sought is
clerical, or adversary . . . if [it] affects . . . civil status,
citizenship or nationality . . . which are deemed
substantial corrections."25
The Court of Appeals discussed that Rule 103, on the
other hand, "governs the proceeding for changing the
given or proper name of a person as recorded in the civil
register."26
Jurisprudence has recognized the following grounds as
sufficient to warrant a change of name, to wit: (a) when
the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult
to write or pronounce; (b) when the change results as a
legal consequence of legitimation or adoption; (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)
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; 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.27
The Court of Appeals also stated that Republic Act No.
10172, "the present law on the matter, classifies a change
in the first name or nickname, or sex of a person as
clerical error that may be corrected without a judicial
order."28 It applied this ruling on the inclusion of Gallo's
middle name, her parents' middle names, and the latter's
date of marriage, as they do not involve substantial
corrections.29
As the petition merely involved the correction of clerical
errors, the Court of Appeals held that a summary
proceeding would have sufficed. With this determination,
the Regional Trial Court's more rigid and stringent
adversarial proceeding was more than enough to satisfy
the procedural requirements under Rule 108.30
However, the Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor
General, believes otherwise. For it, Gallo wants to change
the name that she was given. Thus, it filed the present
Petition via Rule 45 under the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure. The Petition raises procedural errors made by
the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals in
finding for Gallo.31
Citing Republic v. Mercadera,32 petitioner argues that
"only clerical, spelling, typographical and other innocuous
errors in the civil registry may be raised" in petitions for
correction under Rule 108.33 Thus, the correction must
only be for a patently misspelled name.34 As "Michael"
could not have been the result of misspelling "Michelle,"
petitioner contends that the case should fall under Rule
103 for it contemplates a substantial change.35
Petitioner holds that since the applicable rule is Rule 103,
Gallo was not able to comply with the jurisdictional
requirements for a change of name under Section 2 of this
Rule.36 It also argues that the use of a different name is
not a reasonable ground to change name under Rule
103.37
Finally, petitioner insists that Gallo failed to exhaust
administrative remedies and observe the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction38 as Republic Act No. 9048 allegedly
now governs the change of first name, superseding the
civil registrar's jurisdiction over the matter. 39
To support its claim, it cited Silverio v. Republic, 40 which
held that "[t]he intent and effect of the law is to exclude
the change of first name from the coverage of Rules 103 .
. . and 108 . . . of the Rules of Court, until and unless an
administrative petition for change of name is first filed and
subsequently denied."41
Respondent Gallo, in her Comment,42 counters that the
issue of whether or not the petitioned corrections are
innocuous or clerical is a factual issue, which is improper
in a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45. 43 In
any case, she argues that the corrections are clerical;
hence, the applicable rule is Rule 108 and not Rule 103,
with the requirements of an adversarial proceeding
properly satisfied.44 Lastly, she contends that petitioner
has waived its right to invoke the doctrines of non-
exhaustion of administrative remedies and primary
jurisdiction when it failed to file a motion to dismiss before
the Regional Trial Court and only raised these issues
before this Court.45
Petitioner filed its Reply.46 The case was then submitted
for resolution after the parties filed their respective
Memoranda.47
The issues for this Court's resolution are:
First, whether or not the Republic of the Philippines raised
a question of fact in alleging that the change sought by
Michelle Soriano Gallo is substantive and not a mere
correction of error;
Second, whether or not Michelle Soriano Gallo's petition
involves a substantive change under Rule 103 of the Rules
of Court instead of mere correction of clerical errors; and
Finally, whether or not Michelle Soriano Gallo failed to
exhaust administrative remedies and observe the doctrine
of primary jurisdiction.
This Court finds for the respondent. Hers was a Petition to
correct the entry in the Civil Registry.
I
In assailing the Court of Appeals' ruling that the change
sought by Gallo was a mere correction of error, petitioner
raises a question of fact not proper under a Rule 45
Petition, which should only raise questions of law.
Time and again, it has been held that this Court is not a
trier of facts. Thus, its functions do not include weighing
and analyzing evidence adduced from the lower courts all
over again.
In Spouses Miano v. Manila Electric Co.48:
The Rules of Court states that a review of appeals filed
before this Court is "not a matter of right, but of sound
judicial discretion." The Rules of Court further requires
that only questions of law should be raised in petitions
filed under Rule 45 since factual questions are not the
proper subject of an appeal by certiorari. It is not this
Court's function to once again analyze or weigh evidence
that has already been considered in the lower courts.
Bases Conversion Development Authority v.
Reyes distinguished a question of law from a question of
fact:
Jurisprudence dictates that there is a "question of law"
when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is
on a certain set of facts or circumstances; on the other
hand, there is a "question of fact" when the issue raised
on appeal pertains to the truth or falsity of the alleged
facts. The test for determining whether the supposed
error was one of "law" or "fact" is not the appellation
given by the parties raising the same; rather, it is whether
the reviewing court can resolve the issues raised without
evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of
law; otherwise, it is one of fact. In other words, where
there is no dispute as to the facts, the question of
whether or not the conclusions drawn from these facts are
correct is a question of law. However, if the question
posed requires a re-evaluation of the credibility of
witnesses, or the existence or relevance of surrounding
circumstances and their relationship to each other, the
issue is factual.49 (Emphasis supplied)
In the case at bar, petitioner raises an issue which
requires an evaluation of evidence as determining whether
or not the change sought is a typographical error or a
substantive change requires looking into the party's
records, supporting documents, testimonies, and other
evidence.
On changes of first name, Republic Act No. 10172, which
amended Republic Act No. 9048, is helpful in identifying
the nature of the determination sought.
Republic Act No. 1017250 defines a clerical or
typographical error as a recorded mistake, "which
is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding."
Thus:
Section 2. Definition of Terms. — As used in this Act, the
following terms shall mean:
(3) "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.51
Likewise, Republic Act No. 904852 states:
Section 2. Definition of Terms. — As used in this Act, the
following terms shall mean:
(3) "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 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, status or sex of the petitioner.53
By qualifying the definition of a clerical, typographical
error as a mistake "visible to the eyes or obvious to the
understanding," the law recognizes that there is a factual
determination made after reference to and evaluation of
existing documents presented.
Thus, corrections may be made even though the error is
not typographical if it is "obvious to the understanding,"
even if there is no proof that the name or circumstance in
the birth certificate was ever used.
This Court agrees with the Regional Trial Court's
determination, concurred in by the Court of Appeals, that
this case involves the correction of a mere error. As these
are findings of fact, this Court is bound by the lower
courts' findings.
II.A
In any case, Rule 103 of the Rules of Court does not apply
to the case at bar. The change in the entry of Gallo's
biological sex is governed by Rule 108 of the Rules of
Court while Republic Act No. 9048 applies to all other
corrections sought.
Under Article 407 of the Civil Code, the books in the Civil
Register include "acts, events and judicial decrees
concerning the civil status of persons," 54 which are prima
facie evidence of the facts stated there.55
Entries in the register include births, marriages, deaths,
legal separations, annulments of marriage, judgments
declaring marriages void from the beginning,
legitimations, adoptions, acknowledgments of natural
children, naturalization, loss or recovery of citizenship,
civil interdiction, judicial determination of filiation,
voluntary emancipation of a minor, and changes of
name.56
As stated, the governing law on changes of first name is
currently Republic Act No. 10172, which amended
Republic Act No. 9048. Prior to these laws, the controlling
provisions on changes or corrections of name were
Articles 376 and 412 of the Civil Code.
Article 376 states the need for judicial authority before
any person can change his or her name.57 On the other
hand, Article 412 provides that judicial authority is also
necessary before any entry in the civil register may be
changed or corrected.58
Under the old rules, a person would have to file an action
in court under Rule 103 for substantial changes in the
given name or surname provided they fall under any of
the valid reasons recognized by law, or Rule 108 for
corrections of clerical errors.
This requirement for judicial authorization was justified to
prevent fraud and allow other parties, who may be
affected by the change of name, to oppose the matter, as
decisions in these proceedings bind the whole world.59
Rule 103 procedurally governs judicial petitions for change
of given name or surname, or both, pursuant to Article
376 of the Civil Code. This rule provides the procedure for
an independent special proceeding in court to establish
the status of a person involving his relations with others,
that is, his legal position in, or with regard to, the rest of
the community. In petitions for change of name, a person
avails of a remedy to alter the "designation by which he is
known and called in the community in which he lives and
is best known." When granted, a person's identity and
interactions are affected as he bears a new "label or
appellation for the convenience of the world at large in
addressing him, or in speaking of, or dealing with him."
Judicial permission for a change of name aims to prevent
fraud and to ensure a record of the change by virtue of a
court decree.
The proceeding under Rule 103 is also an action in
rem which requires publication of the order issued by the
court to afford the State and all other interested parties to
oppose the petition. When complied with, the decision
binds not only the parties impleaded but the whole world.
As notice to all, publication serves to indefinitely bar all
who might make an objection. "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."
Essentially, a change of name does not define or effect a
change of one's existing family relations or in the rights
and duties flowing therefrom. It does not alter one's legal
capacity or civil status. However, "there could be
instances where the change applied for may be open to
objection by parties who already bear the surname
desired by the applicant, not because he would thereby
acquire certain family ties with them but because the
existence of such ties might be erroneously impressed on
the public mind." Hence, in requests for a change of
name, "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 . . . . mindful of the consequent results in the
event of its grant . . ."60 (Citations omitted)
Applying Article 412 of the Civil Code, a person desiring to
change his or her name altogether must file a petition
under Rule 103 with the Regional Trial Court, which will
then issue an order setting a hearing date and directing
the order's publication in a newspaper of general
circulation.61 After finding that there is proper and
reasonable cause to change his or her name, the Regional
Trial Court may grant the petition and order its entry in
the civil register.62
On the other hand, Rule 108 applies when the person is
seeking to correct clerical and innocuous mistakes in his
or her documents with the civil register.63 It also governs
the correction of substantial errors in the entry of the
information enumerated in Section 2 of this Rule64 and
those affecting the civil status, citizenship, and nationality
of a person.65 The proceedings under this rule may either
be summary, if the correction pertains to clerical
mistakes, or adversary, if it pertains to substantial
errors.66
As explained in Republic v. Mercadera:67
Finally in Republic v. Valencia, the above[-]stated views
were adopted by this Court insofar as even substantial
errors or matters in a civil registry may be corrected and
the true facts established, provided the parties aggrieved
avail themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding.
"If the purpose of the petition is merely to correct the
clerical errors which are visible to the eye or obvious to
the understanding, the court may, under a summary
procedure, issue an order for the correction of a mistake.
However, as repeatedly construed, changes which may
affect the civil status from legitimate to illegitimate, as
well as sex, are substantial and controversial alterations
which can only be allowed after appropriate adversary
proceedings depending upon the nature of the issues
involved. 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 ...." "Where such a change is ordered, the Court
will not be establishing a substantive right but only
correcting or rectifying an erroneous entry in the civil
registry as authorized by law. In short, Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court provides only the procedure or mechanism
for the proper enforcement of the substantive law
embodied in Article 412 of the Civil Code and so does not
violate the Constitution."68 (Emphasis in the original)
Following the procedure in Rule 103, Rule 108 also
requires a petition to be filed before the Regional Trial
Court. The trial court then sets a hearing and directs the
publication of its order in a newspaper of general
circulation in the province.69 After the hearing, the trial
court may grant or dismiss the petition and serve a copy
of its judgment to the Civil Registrar.70
Mercadera clarified the applications of Article 376 and Rule
103, and of Article 412 and Rule 108, thus:
The "change of name" contemplated under Article 376 and
Rule 103 must not be confused with Article 412 and Rule
108. A change of one's name under Rule 103 can be
granted, only on grounds provided by law. In order to
justify a request for change of name, there must be a
proper and compelling reason for the change and proof
that the person requesting will be prejudiced by the use of
his official name. To assess the sufficiency of the grounds
invoked therefor, there must be adversarial proceedings.
In petitions for correction, only clerical, spelling,
typographical and other innocuous errors in the civil
registry may be raised. Considering that the enumeration
in Section 2, Rule 108 also includes "changes of name,"
the correction of a patently misspelled name is covered by
Rule 108. Suffice it to say, not all alterations allowed in
one's name are confined under Rule 103. Corrections for
clerical errors may be set right under Rule 108.
This rule in "names," however, does not operate to
entirely limit Rule 108 to the correction of clerical errors in
civil registry entries by way of a summary proceeding. As
explained above, Republic v. Valencia is the authority for
allowing substantial errors in other entries like citizenship,
civil status, and paternity, to be corrected using Rule 108
provided there is an adversary proceeding. "After all, the
role of the Court under Rule 108 is to ascertain the truths
about the facts recorded therein."71 (Citations omitted)
However, Republic Act No. 904872 amended Articles 376
and 412 of the Civil Code, effectively removing clerical
errors and changes of the name outside the ambit of Rule
108 and putting them under the jurisdiction of the civil
register.73
In Silverio v. Republic:74
The State has an interest in the names borne by
individuals and entities for purposes of identification. A
change of name is a privilege, not a right. Petitions for
change of name are controlled by statutes. In this
connection, Article 376 of the Civil Code provides:
ART. 376. No person can change his name or surname
without judicial authority.
This Civil Code provision was amended by RA 9048
(Clerical Error Law) . . .
....
RA 9048 now governs the change of first name. It vests
the power and authority to entertain petitions for change
of first name to the city or municipal civil registrar or
consul general concerned. Under the law, therefore,
jurisdiction over applications for change of first name is
now primarily lodged with the aforementioned
administrative officers. The intent and effect of the law is
to exclude the change of first name from the coverage of
Rules 103 (Change of Name) and 108 (Cancellation or
Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) of the Rules of
Court, until and unless an administrative petition for
change of name is first filed and subsequently denied. It
likewise lays down the corresponding venue, form and
procedure. In sum, the remedy and the proceedings
regulating change of first name are primarily
administrative in nature, not judicial. 75 (Citations
omitted)
In Republic v. Cagandahan:76
The determination of a person's sex appearing in his birth
certificate is a legal issue and the court must look to the
statutes. In this connection, Article 412 of the Civil Code
provides:
ART. 412. No entry in a civil register shall be changed or
corrected without a judicial order.
Together with Article 376 of the Civil Code, this provision
was amended by Republic Act No. 9048 in so far
as clerical or typographical errors are involved. The
correction or change of such matters can now be made
through administrative proceedings and without the need
for a judicial order. In effect, Rep. Act No. 9048 removed
from the ambit of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court the
correction of such errors. Rule 108 now applies only to
substantial changes and corrections in entries in the civil
register.77 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)
In Republic v. Sali:78
The petition for change of first name may be allowed,
among other grounds, if the new first name has been
habitually and continuously used by the petitioner and he
or she has been publicly known by that first name in the
community. The local city or municipal civil registrar or
consul general has the primary jurisdiction to entertain
the petition. It is only when such petition is denied that a
petitioner may either appeal to the civil registrar general
or file the appropriate petition with the proper
court.79 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
Republic Act No. 9048 also dispensed with the need for
judicial proceedings in case of any clerical or typographical
mistakes in the civil register or changes in first names or
nicknames.80
Section 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or Typographical
Error and Change of First Name or Nickname. — No entry
in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a
judicial order, except for clerical or typographical errors
and change of first name or nickname which can be
corrected or changed by the concerned city or municipal
civil registrar or consul general in accordance with the
provisions of this Act and its implementing rules and
regulations.81
Thus, a person may now change his or her first name or
correct clerical errors in his or her name through
administrative proceedings. Rules 103 and 108 only apply
if the administrative petition has been filed and later
denied.
In 2012, Republic Act No. 9048 was amended by Republic
Act No. 10172.82
In addition to the change of the first name, the day and
month of birth, and the sex of a person may now be
changed without judicial proceedings. Republic Act No.
10172 clarifies that these changes may now be
administratively corrected where it is patently clear that
there is a clerical or typographical mistake in the entry. It
may be changed by filing a subscribed and sworn affidavit
with the local civil registry office of the city or municipality
where the record being sought to be corrected or changed
is kept.83
Section 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or Typographical
Error and Change of First Name or Nickname.— No entry
in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a
judicial order, except for clerical or typographical errors
and change of first name or nickname, the day and month
in the date of birth or sex of a person where it is patently
clear that there was a clerical or typographical error or
mistake in the entry, which can be corrected or changed
by the concerned city or municipal civil registrar or consul
general in accordance with the provisions of this Act and
its implementing rules and regulations.84 (Emphasis
supplied)
However, Republic Act No. 10172 does not apply in the
case at bar as it was only enacted on August 15, 2012—
more than two (2) years after Gallo filed her Petition for
Correction of Entry on May 13, 2010.85 Hence, Republic
Act No. 9048 governs.
II.B
As to the issue of which between Rules 103 and 108
applies, it is necessary to determine the nature of the
correction sought by Gallo.
Petitioner maintains that Rule 103 applies as the changes
were substantive while respondent contends that it is Rule
108 which governs as the changes pertain only to
corrections of clerical errors.
Upon scrutiny of the records in this case, this Court rules
that Gallo's Petition involves a mere correction of clerical
errors.
A clerical or typographical error pertains to a
[M]istake committed in the performance of clerical work in
writing, copying, transcribing or typing an entry in the
civil register that is harmless and innocuous ... which is
visible to the eyes or obvious to the , and can be
corrected or changed only by reference to other existing
record or records[.] 86
However, corrections which involve a change in
nationality, age, or status are not considered clerical or
typographical.87
Jurisprudence is replete with cases determining what
constitutes a clerical or typographical error in names with
the civil register.
In Republic v. Mercadera,88 Merlyn Mercadera (Mercadera)
sought to correct her name from "Marilyn" to
"Merlyn."89 She alleged that "she had been known as
MERLYN ever since" and she prayed that the trial court
correct her recorded given name "Marilyn" "to conform to
the one she grew up to."90 The Office of the Solicitor
General argued that this change was substantial which
must comply with the procedure under Rule 103 of the
Rules of Court.91 However, this Court ruled that Rule 103
did not apply because the petition merely sought to
correct a misspelled given name:
In this case, the use of the letter "a" for the letter "e," and
the deletion of the letter "i," so that what appears as
"Marilyn" would read as "Merlyn'' is patently a rectification
of a name that is clearly misspelled. The similarity
between "Marilyn" and "Merlyn" may well be the object of
a mix-up that blemished Mercadera's Certificate of Live
Birth until her adulthood, thus, her interest to correct the
same.
The [Court of Appeals] did not allow Mercadera the
change of her name. What it did allow was the correction
of her misspelled given name which she had been using
ever since she could remember.92
Mercadera also cited similar cases in which this Court
determined what constitutes harmless errors that need
not go through the proceedings under Rule 103:
Indeed, there are decided cases involving mistakes similar
to Mercadera's case which recognize the same a harmless
error. In Yu v. Republic it was held that "to change 'Sincio'
to 'Sencio' which merely involves the substitution of the
first vowel 'i' in the first name into the vowel 'e' amounts
merely to the righting of a clerical error." In Labayo-Rowe
v. Republic, it was held that the change of petitioner's
name from "Beatriz Labayo/Beatriz Labayu" to
"Emperatriz Labayo" was a mere innocuous alteration
wherein a summary proceeding was appropriate.
In Republic v. Court of Appeals, Jaime B. Caranto and
Zenaida P. Caranto, the correction involved the
substitution of the letters "ch" for the letter "d," so that
what appears as "Midael" as given name would read
"Michael." In the latter case, this Court, with the
agreement of the Solicitor General, ruled that the error
was plainly clerical, such that, "changing the name of the
child from 'Midael C. Mazon' to 'Michael C. Mazon' cannot
possibly cause any confusion, because both names can be
read and pronounced with the same rhyme (tugma) and
tone (tono, tunog, himig).93 (Citations omitted)
Likewise, in Republic v. Sali,94 Lorena Omapas Sali (Sali)
sought to correct her Certificate of Live Birth, alleging that
her first name was erroneously entered as "Dorothy"
instead of "Lorena," and her date of birth as "June 24,
1968" instead of "April 24, 1968." She alleged that she
had been using the name "Lorena" and the birth date
"April 24, 1968" ever since. She also averred that she had
always been known as "Lorena" in her community. She
claimed that the petition was just to correct the error and
not to evade any criminal or civil liability, or to affect any
succession of another person.95
In response, the Office of the Solicitor General,
representing the Republic, argued against Sali's claim,
alleging that the petition was for a change of name under
Rule 103 and not for the correction of a simple clerical
error. It averred that there must be a valid ground for the
name change, and the applicant's names and aliases must
be stated in the title of the petition and the order setting
it for hearing. It also contended that assuming Rule 108
was the proper remedy, Sali failed to exhaust her
remedies when she did not file an affidavit under Republic
Act No. 9048.96
In Sali, this Court held that Rule 103 did not apply
because the petition was not for a change of name, but a
petition for correction of errors in the recording of Sali's
name and birth date. Sali had been using the name
"Lorena" since birth, and she merely sought to have her
records conform to the name she had been using as her
true name. She had no intention of changing her name
altogether. Thus, her prayer for the correction of her
misspelled name is not contemplated by Rule 103.97
In the case at bar, petitioner, raising the same arguments
as that in Sali, claims that the change sought by Gallo is
substantial, covered by Rule 103 because the two (2)
names are allegedly entirely different from each other. It
argues that "Michael" could not have been the result of a
misspelling of "Michelle."98
On the other hand, Gallo argues that the corrections are
clerical which fall under Rule 108, with the requirements
of an adversarial proceeding properly complied. 99
Considering that Gallo had shown that the reason for her
petition was not to change the name by which she is
commonly known, this Court rules that her petition is not
covered by Rule 103. Gallo is not filing the petition to
change her current appellation. She is merely correcting
the misspelling of her name.
Correcting and changing have been differentiated, thus:
To correct simply means "to make or set aright; to
remove the faults or error from." To change means "to
replace something with something else of the same kind
or with something that serves as a substitute. 100
Gallo is not attempting to replace her current appellation.
She is merely correcting the misspelling of her given
name. "Michelle" could easily be misspelled as "Michael,"
especially since the first four (4) letters of these two (2)
names are exactly the same. The differences only pertain
to an additional letter "a" in "Michael," and "le" at the end
of "Michelle." "Michelle" and "Michael" may also be
vocalized similarly, considering the possibility of different
accents or intonations of different people. In any case,
Gallo does not seek to be known by a different
appellation. The lower courts have determined that she
has been known as "Michelle" all throughout her life. She
is merely seeking to correct her records to conform to her
true given name.
However, Rule 108 does not apply in this case either.
As stated, Gallo filed her Petition for Correction of Entry
on May 13, 2010.101 The current law, Republic Act No.
10172, does not apply because it was enacted only on
August 19, 2012.102
The applicable law then for the correction of Gallo's name
is Republic Act No. 9048. 103
To reiterate, Republic Act No. 9048 was enacted on March
22, 2001 and removed the correction of clerical or
typographical errors from the scope of Rule 108. It also
dispensed with the need for judicial proceedings in case of
any clerical or typographical mistakes in the civil register,
or changes of first name or nickname. Thus:
Section 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or Typographical
Error and Change of First Name or Nickname. — No entry
in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a
judicial order, except for clerical or typographical errors
and change of first name or nickname which can be
corrected or changed by the concerned city or municipal
civil registrar or consul general in accordance with the
provisions of this Act and its implementing rules and
regulations.104
Therefore, it is the civil registrar who has primary
jurisdiction over Gallo's petition, not the Regional Trial
Court. Only if her petition was denied by the local city or
municipal civil registrar can the Regional Trial Court take
cognizance of her case. In Republic v. Sali,105
Sali's petition is not for a change of name as
contemplated under Rule 103 of the Rules but for
correction of entries under Rule 108. What she seeks is
the correction of clerical errors which were committed in
the recording of her name and birth date. This Court has
held that not all alterations allowed in one's name are
confined under Rule 103 and that corrections for clerical
errors may be set right under Rule 108. The evidence
presented by Sali show that, since birth, she has been
using the name "Lorena." Thus, it is apparent that she
never had any intention to change her name. What she
seeks is simply the removal of the clerical fault or error in
her first name, and to set aright the same to conform to
the name she grew up with.
Nevertheless, at the time Sali's petition was filed, R.A. No.
9048 was already in effect . . .
....
The petition for change of first name may be allowed,
among other grounds, if the new first name has been
habitually and continuously used by the petitioner and he
or she has been publicly known by that first name in the
community. The local city or municipal civil registrar or
consul general has the primary jurisdiction to entertain
the petition. It is only when such petition is denied that a
petitioner may either appeal to the civil registrar general
or file the appropriate petition with the proper court . . .
....
In this case, the petition, insofar as it prayed for the
change of Sali's first name, was not within the RTC's
primary jurisdiction. It was improper because the remedy
should have been administrative, i.e., filing of the petition
with the local civil registrar concerned. For failure to
exhaust administrative remedies, the RTC should have
dismissed the petition to correct Sali’s first name.106
Likewise, the prayers to enter Gallo's middle name as
Soriano, the middle names of her parents as Angangan for
her mother and Balingao for her father, and the date of
her parents' marriage as May 23, 1981 fall under clerical
or typographical errors as mentioned in Republic Act No.
9048.
Under Section 2(3) of Republic Act No. 9048:
(3) "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 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, status or sex of the petitioner.107
These corrections may be done by referring to existing
records in the civil register. None of it involves any
change in Gallo's nationality, age, status, or sex.
Moreover, errors "visible to the eyes or obvious to the
understanding"108 fall within the coverage of clerical
mistakes not deemed substantial. If it is "obvious to the
understanding," even if there is no proof that the name or
circumstance in the birth certificate was ever used, the
correction may be made.
Thus, as to these corrections, Gallo should have sought to
correct them administratively before filing a petition under
Rule 108.
However, the petition to correct Gallo's biological sex was
rightfully filed under Rule 108 as this was a substantial
change excluded in the definition of clerical or
typographical errors in Republic Act No. 9048. 109
This was affirmed in Republic v. Cagandahan:110
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.111 (Citation omitted)
It was only when Republic Act No. 10172 was enacted on
August 15, 2012 that errors in entries as to biological sex
may be administratively corrected, provided that they
involve a typographical or clerical error.112
However, this is not true for all cases as corrections in
entries of biological sex may still be considered a
substantive matter.
In Cagandahan,113 this Court ruled that a party who seeks
a change of name and biological sex in his or her
Certificate of Live Birth after a gender reassignment
surgery has to file a petition under Rule 108.114 In that
case, it was held that the change did not involve a mere
correction of an error in recording but a petition for a
change of records because the sex change was initiated
by the petitioner.115
IV
Considering that Gallo did not first file an administrative
case in the civil register before proceeding to the courts,
petitioner contends that respondent failed to exhaust
administrative remedies and observe the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction under Republic Act No. 9048. 116
On the other hand, respondent argues that petitioner has
waived its right to invoke these doctrines because it failed
to file a motion to dismiss before the Regional Trial Court
and only raised these Issues before this Court.117
This Court rules in favor of Gallo.
Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies, a party must first avail of all administrative
processes available before seeking the courts'
intervention. The administrative officer concerned must be
given every opportunity to decide on the matter within his
or her jurisdiction. Failing to exhaust administrative
remedies affects the party's cause of action as these
remedies refer to a precedent condition which must be
complied with prior to filing a case in court.118
However, failure to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies does not affect the court's
jurisdiction.119 Thus, the doctrine may be waived as
in Soto v. Jareno:120
Failure to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of
administrative remedies does not affect the jurisdiction of
the court. We have repeatedly stressed this in a long line
of decisions. The only effect of non compliance with this
rule is that it will deprive the complainant of a cause of
action, which is a ground for a motion to dismiss. If not
invoked at the proper time, this ground is deemed waived
and the court can then take cognizance of the case and
try it. 121 (Citation omitted)
Meanwhile, under the doctrine of primary administrative
jurisdiction, if an administrative tribunal has jurisdiction
over a controversy, courts should not resolve the issue
even if it may be within its proper jurisdiction. This is
especially true when the question involves its sound
discretion requiring special knowledge, experience, and
services to determine technical and intricate matters of
fact.122
In Republic v. Lacap: 123
Corollary to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative
remedies is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction; that is,
courts cannot or will not determine a controversy
involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the
administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that
question by the administrative tribunal, where the
question demands the exercise of sound administrative
discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience and
services of the administrative tribunal to determine
technical and intricate matters of fact.124 (Citation
omitted)
Thus, the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction
refers to the competence of a court to take cognizance of
a case at first instance. Unlike the doctrine of exhaustion
of administrative remedies, it cannot be waived.
However, for reasons of equity, in cases where jurisdiction
is lacking, this Court has ruled that failure to raise the
issue of non-compliance with the doctrine of primary
administrative jurisdiction at an opportune time may bar a
subsequent filing of a motion to dismiss based on that
ground by way of laches.125
In Tijam v. Sibonghanoy:126
True also is the rule that jurisdiction over the subject-
matter is conferred upon the courts exclusively by law,
and as the lack of it affects the very authority of the court
to take cognizance of the case, the objection may be
raised at any stage of the proceedings. However,
considering the facts and circumstances of the present
case — which shall forthwith be set forth — We are of the
opinion that the Surety is now barred by laches from
invoking this plea at this late hour for the purpose of
annulling everything done heretofore in the case with its
active participation ...
....
A party may be estopped or barred from raising a
question in different ways and for different reasons. Thus
we speak of estoppels in pais, of estoppel by deed or by
record, and of estoppel by laches.
great and irreparable damage; (h) where the controverted
acts violate due process; (i) when the issue of non-
exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered
moot; (j) when there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy; (k) when strong public interest is
involved; and, (l) in quo warranto proceedings . .
.128 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

Laches, in a general sense, is failure or neglect, for an

unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that
which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have
been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a
right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption
that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it
or declined to assert it.
The doctrine of laches or of "stale demands" is based
upon grounds of public policy which requires, for the
peace of society, the discouragement of stale claims and,
unlike the statute of limitations, is not a mere question of
time but is principally a question of the inequity or
unfairness of permitting a right or claim to be enforced or
asserted.
It has been held that a party cannot invoke the
jurisdiction of a court to secure affirmative relief against
his opponent and, after obtaining or failing to obtain such
relief, repudiate or question that same jurisdiction ... In
the case just cited, by way of explaining the rule, it was
further said that the question whether the court had
jurisdiction either of the subject-matter of the action or of
the parties was not important in such cases because the
party is barred from such conduct not because the
judgment or order of the court is valid and conclusive as
an adjudication, but for the reason that such a practice
cannot be tolerated— obviously for reasons of public
policy.
Petitioner does not deny that the issue of non-compliance
with these two (2) doctrines was only raised in this Court.
Thus, in failing to invoke these contentions before the
Regional Trial Court, it is estopped from invoking these
doctrines as grounds for dismissal.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition
is DENIED. The April 29, 2013 Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 96358 is AFFIRMED. The
Petition for Correction of Entry in the Certificate of Live
Birth of Michelle Soriano Gallo is GRANTED. This Court
directs that the Certificate of Live Birth of Michelle Soriano
Gallo be corrected as follows:
1) Correct her first name from "Michael" to "Michelle";
2) Correct her biological sex from "Male" to "Female";
3) Enter her middle name as "Soriano";
4) Enter the middle name of her mother as "Angangan";
5) Enter the middle name of her father as "Balingao"; and
6) Enter the date of her parents' marriage as "May 23,
1981."
SO ORDERED.

Furthermore, it has also been held that after voluntarily

submitting a cause and encountering an adverse decision
on the merits, it is too late for the loser to question the
jurisdiction or power of the court ... And in Littleton vs.
Burgess, ... the Court said that it is not right for a party
who has affirmed and invoked the jurisdiction of a court in
a particular matter to secure an affirmative relief, to
afterwards deny that same jurisdiction to escape a
penalty.127 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

Thus, where a party participated in the proceedings and

the issue of non-compliance was raised only as an
afterthought at the final stage of appeal, the party
invoking it may be estopped from doing so.

Nonetheless, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative

remedies and the corollary doctrine of primary
jurisdiction, which are based on sound public policy and
practical considerations, are not inflexible rules. There are
many accepted exceptions, such as: (a) where there is
estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine;
(b) where the challenged administrative act is patently
illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction; (c) where there
is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will
irretrievably prejudice the complainant; (d) where the
amount involved is relatively small so as to make the rule
impractical and oppressive; (e) where the question
involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be
decided by the courts of justice; (f) where judicial
intervention is urgent; (g) when its application may cause
 G.R. No. 209527, February 14, 2018
THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. VIRGIE (VIRGEL) L.
TIPAY, Respondent.
DECISION
REYES, JR., J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari1 brought under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse and set
aside the October 9, 2013 Decision2 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) that denied the appeal of petitioner Republic
of the Philippines (Republic) from the Decision 3 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lupon, Davao Oriental. The
trial court, in turn, granted respondent Virgie (Virgel) L.
Tipay's (Virgel) petition for the correction of certain
entries in his birth certificate.4
Factual Antecedents
In a petition dated February 13, 2009, Virgel sought the
correction of several entries in his birth certificate.
Attached to the petition are two (2) copies of his birth
certificate, respectively issued by the Municipal Civil
Registrar of Governor Generoso, Davao Oriental and the
National Statistics Office5 (NSO). Both copies reflect his
gender as "FEMALE" and his first name as "Virgie." It
further appears that the month and day of birth in the
local civil registrar's copy was blank, while the NSO-issued
birth certificate indicates that he was born on May 12,
1976.6 Virgel alleged that these entries are erroneous,
and sought the correction of his birth certificate as
follows: (a) his gender, from "FEMALE" to "MALE;" (b) his
first name, from "VIRGIE" to "VIRGEL;" and (c) his month
and date of birth to "FEBRUARY 25, 1976."7
The petition was found sufficient in form and substance,
and the case proceeded to trial. Aside from his own
personal testimony, Virgel's mother, Susan L. Tipay,
testified that she gave birth to a son on February 25,
1976, who was baptized as "Virgel." The Certificate of
Baptism, including other documentary evidence such as a
medical certificate stating that Virgel is phenotypically
male, were also presented to the trial court.8
Ruling of the RTC
There was no opposition to the petition. Soon after, the
RTC rendered its Decision9 dated July 27, 2010 granting
Virgel's petition:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, an Order is hereby
issued: 1. Directing the Local Civil Registrar of Governor
Generoso, Davao Oriental to cause the appropriate change
in the Certificate of Live Birth of VIRGIE L. TIPAY upon
payment of the required legal fees, particularly:
First : From: VIRGIE
Name To: VIRGEL
Sex : From: Female
To: MALE
Date of : From: no entry
Birth of To: FEBRUARY
Child 25, 1976
SO ORDERED.10
From this decision, the Republic filed a Notice of Appeal,
which was given due course by the trial court.11 The
Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
argued that the change of Virgel's name from Virgie
should have been made through a proceeding under Rule
103, and not Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. This
argument was premised on the assumption that the
summary procedure under Rule 108 is confined to the
correction of clerical or innocuous errors, which excludes
one's name or date of birth. Since the petition lodged with
the RTC was not filed pursuant to Rule 103 of the Rules of
Court, the Republic asserted that the trial court did not
acquire jurisdiction over the case.12
Virgel refuted these arguments, alleging that changes of
name are within the purview of Rule 108 of the Rules of
Court. He further disagreed with the position of the
Republic and asserted that substantial errors may be
corrected provided that the proceedings before the trial
court were adversarial. He also argued that the
proceedings before the RTC were in rem, which
substantially complies with the requirements of either
Rule 103 or Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.13
Ruling of the CA
The CA denied the Republic's appeal in its
Decision14 dated October 9, 2013, the dispositive of which
reads:
ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DENIED. The July 27, 2010
Decision of the [RTC], 11th Judicial Region, Branch No.
32, Lupon, Davao Oriental, in Special Proceedings Case
No. 243-09 is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.15
In its assailed decision, the CA ruled in favor of Virgel,
stating that while the correction of the entry on his gender
is considered a substantial change, it is nonetheless within
the jurisdiction of the trial court under Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court. The CA also held that the petition filed
with the trial court fully complied with the jurisdictional
requirements of Rule 108 because notices were sent to
the concerned local civil registrar and the OSG. Since
Virgel was able to establish that he is indeed male, a fact
which remains undisputed, the CA upheld the trial court's
decision.16
As to the change of Virgel's name from "Virgie" to
"Virgel," the CA did not find any reason to depart from the
decision of the RTC because it was more expeditious to
change the entry in the same proceeding. The CA found
that the correction of Virgel's name was necessary to
avoid confusion, especially since his correct gender is
male. In the same vein, the CA ruled that even if the
petition with the RTC was considered a Rule 103
proceeding, the requirements under Rule 108 are
substantially the same as that under Rule 103. Thus, the
CA already deemed these requirements complied
with.17 Finally, regarding the month and date of Virgel's
birth, the CA found the documentary evidence credible
enough to establish that he was indeed born on February
25, 1976.18
Unsatisfied with the ruling of the CA, the Republic
appealed to this Court insisting that the entries sought to
be corrected are substantial changes outside the
jurisdiction of the trial court. The Republic also reiterated
its earlier arguments, adding that the CA should not have
equated the procedural requirements under Rule 103 with
that of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.19
Ruling of the Court
The Court denies the petition. However, this Court finds
that the evidence is insufficient to establish that Virgel
was born on February 25, 1976.
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court
governs the procedure for the
correction of substantial changes
in the civil registry.
It is true that initially, the changes that may be corrected
under the summary procedure of Rule 108 of the Rules of
Court are clerical or harmless errors. Errors that affect the
civil status, citizenship or nationality of a person, are
considered substantial errors that were beyond the
purview of the rule.20
Jurisprudence on this matter later developed, giving room
for the correction of substantial errors. The Court
ultimately recognized that substantial or controversial
alterations in the civil registry are allowable in an action
filed under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, as long as the
issues are properly threshed out in appropriate
adversarial proceedings— effectively limiting the
application of the summary procedure to the correction of
clerical or innocuous errors.21 The Court's ruling
in Republic v. Valencia,22 explained the adversarial
procedure to be followed in correcting substantial errors in
this wise:
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. As a matter
of fact, the opposition of the Solicitor General dated
February 20, 1970 while questioning the use of Article 412
of the Civil Code in relation to Rule 108 of the Revised
Rules of Court admits that "the entries sought to be
corrected should be threshed out in an appropriate
proceeding."
xxxx
Thus, the persons who must be made parties to a
proceeding concerning the cancellation or correction of an
entry in the civil register are-(l) the civil registrar, and (2)
all persons who have or claim any interest which would be
affected thereby. Upon the filing of the petition, it
becomes the duty of the court to-(l) issue an order fixing
the time and place for the hearing of the petition, and (2)
cause the order for hearing to be published once a week
for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
circulation in the province. The following are likewise
entitled to oppose the petition: (1) the civil registrar, and
(2) any person having or claiming any interest under the
entry whose cancellation or correction is sought.
If all these procedural requirements have been followed, a
petition for correction and/or cancellation of entries in the
record of birth even if filed and conducted under Rule 108
of the Revised Rules of Court can no longer be described
as "summary". There can be no doubt that when an
opposition to the petition is filed either by the Civil
Registrar or any person having or claiming any interest in
the entries sought to be cancelled and/or corrected and
the opposition is actively prosecuted, the proceedings
thereon become adversary proceedings.23 (Emphasis
Ours)
Evidently, the Republic incorrectly argued that the
petition for correction under Rule 108 of the Rules
of Court is limited to changes in entries containing
harmless and innocuous errors.24 The cited cases in
the petition were already superseded by much later
jurisprudence.25 Most importantly, with the enactment of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 904826 in 2001, the local civil
registrars, or the Consul General as the case may be, are
now authorized to correct clerical or typographical errors
in the civil registry, or make changes in the first name or
nickname, without need of a judicial order. 27 This law
provided an administrative recourse for the correction of
clerical or typographical errors, essentially leaving the
substantial corrections in the civil registry to Rule 108 of
the Rules of Court.28
The RTC was correct in taking
cognizance of the petition for
correction of entries in Virgel’s
birth certificate.
R.A. No. 9048 defined a clerical or typographical error as
a mistake committed in. the performance of clerical work,
which is harmless and immediately obvious to the
understanding.29 It was further amended in 2011, when
R.A. No. 1017230 was passed to expand the authority of
local civil registrars and the Consul General to make
changes in the day and month in the date of birth, as well
as in the recorded sex of a person when it is patently clear
that there was a typographical error or mistake in the
entry.31
Unfortunately, however, when Virgel filed the petition for
correction with the RTC in 2009, R.A. No. 10172 was not
yet in effect. As such, to correct the erroneous
gender and date of birth in Virgel's birth certificate,
the proper remedy was to commence the
appropriate adversarial proceedings with the RTC,
pursuant to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.32 The
changes in the entries pertaining to the gender and date
of birth are indisputably substantial corrections, outside
the contemplation of a clerical or typographical error that
may be corrected administratively.
The records of this case show that Virgel complied with
the procedural requirements under Rule 108 of the Rules
of Court. He impleaded the local civil registrar of Governor
Generoso, Davao Oriental, the Solicitor General, and the
Provincial Prosecutor of Davao Oriental as parties to his
petition for correction of entries.33 The RTC then issued an
order, which set the case for hearing on July 10, 2009. In
compliance with Rule 108, Section 4 of the Rules of Court,
the order was published for three (3) consecutive weeks
in a newspaper of general circulation in the province of
Davao Oriental. Additionally, the local civil registrar and
the OSG were notified of the petition through registered
mail.34
The OSG entered its appearance and deputized the Office
of the Provincial Prosecutor of Mati, Davao City for
purposes of the proceedings before the RTC. Accordingly,
the prosecutor assigned to the case was present during
the hearing but opted not to cross-examine Virgel or his
mother after their respective testimonies. There was also
no opposition filed against the petition of Virgel before the
RTC.35
From the foregoing, it is clear that the parties who have a
claim or whose interests may be affected were notified
and granted an opportunity to oppose the petition. Two
sets of notices were sent to potential oppositors—through
registered mail for the persons named in the petition, and
through publication, for all other persons who are not
named but may be considered interested or affected
parties.36 A hearing was scheduled for the presentation of
Virgel's testimonial and documentary evidence, during
which time, the deputized prosecutor of the OSG was
present, and allowed to participate in the proceedings.
While none of the parties questioned the veracity of
Virgel's allegations, much less present any controverting
evidence before the trial court,37 the RTC proceedings
were clearly adversarial in nature. It dutifully
complied with the requirements of Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court.
Notably, the Republic does not assail whether the
proceedings before the trial court were adversarial, but
merely insists on the erroneous premise that a Rule 108
proceeding is limited to the correction of harmless, clerical
or typographical errors in the civil registry. 38 Having
established that the proper recourse for the correction of
substantial changes in the civil registry is Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court, the Court cannot sustain the Republic's
assertion on this matter. The Court has long settled
in Republic v. Olaybar39 that as long as the procedural
requirements in Rule 108 were observed, substantial
corrections and changes in the civil registry, such as those
involving the entries on sex and date of birth, may
already be effected, viz.:
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court provides the procedure for
cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry.
The proceedings may either be summary or adversary. If
the correction is clerical, then the procedure to be
adopted is summary. If the rectification affects the civil
status, citizenship or nationality of a party, it is deemed
substantial, and the procedure to be adopted is adversary.
Since the promulgation of Republic v. Valencia in 1986,
the Court has repeatedly ruled that "even substantial
errors in a civil registry may be corrected through a
petition filed under Rule 108, with the true facts
established and the parties aggrieved by the error availing
themselves of the appropriate adversarial proceeding." An
appropriate adversary suit or proceeding is one
where the trial court has conducted proceedings
where all relevant facts have been fully and
properly developed, where opposing counsel have
been given opportunity to demolish the opposite
party's case, and where the evidence has been
thoroughly weighed and considered.
It is true that in special proceedings, formal pleadings and
a hearing may be dispensed with, and the remedy [is]
granted upon mere application or motion. However, a
special proceeding is not always summary. The
procedure laid down in Rule 108 is not a summary
proceeding per se. It requires publication of the petition;
it mandates the inclusion as parties of all persons who
may claim interest which would be affected by the
cancellation or correction; it also requires the civil
registrar and any person in interest to file their opposition,
if any; and it states that although the court may make
orders expediting the proceedings, it is after hearing that
the court shall either dismiss the petition or issue an order
granting the same. Thus, as long as the procedural
requirements in Rule 108 are followed, it is the
appropriate adversary proceeding to effect
substantial corrections and changes in entries of the
civil register.40 (Emphases Ours)
Since the Republic was unable to substantiate its
arguments, or even cite a specific rule of procedure that
Virgel failed to follow, the Court has no reason to depart
from the factual findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the
CA. Furthermore, in the absence of evidence refuting
Virgel's assertion that he is indeed phenotypically male,
the correction of the entry on Virgel's sex in his birth
certificate, from "FEMALE" to "MALE," was correctly
granted.
With respect to the change of his name to "Virgel" the
Court does not agree with the CA that the requirements
under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court may be substituted
with that of Rule 108. These remedies are distinct and
separate from one another, and compliance with one rule
cannot serve as a fulfillment of the requisites prescribed
by the other.41 Nonetheless, the Court has settled
in Republic v. Mercadera42 that changes in one's name are
not necessarily confined to a petition filed under Rule 103
of the Rules of Court. Rule 108, Section 2 of the Rules of
Court include "changes of name" in the enumeration of
entries in the civil register that may be cancelled or
corrected. Thus, the name "Virgie" may be corrected to
"Virgel" as a necessary consequence of the substantial
correction on Virgel's gender, and to allow the record to
conform to the truth.

With respect to the date of Virgel's birth, the Court again

disagrees with the CA that the alleged date (i.e., February
25, 1976) is undisputed. The NSO copy of Virgel's birth
certificate indicates that he was born on May 12, 1976, a
date obviously different from that alleged in the petition
for correction.43 As a public document, the date of birth
appearing in the NSO copy is presumed valid and prima
facie evidence of the facts stated in it. Virgel bore the
burden of proving its supposed falsity.44

Virgel failed to discharge this burden. The police clearance

presented to the trial court corroborates the entry in the
NSO copy, indicating Virgel's date of birth as May 12,
1976.45 The Court is also unconvinced by the other
documentary evidence supposedly showing that Virgel
was born on February 25, 1976 because the information
indicated in the identification card from the Bureau of
Internal Revenue and the Member Data Record from the
Philippine Health Insurance Corporation, were all supplied
by Virgel.46 These are self-serving information, which do
not suffice to overcome the presumption of validity
accorded to the date of birth reflected in the NSO copy of
Virgel's birth certificate.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for

review on certiorari is DENIED. The Decision dated
October 9, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No.
02286 is AFFIRMED, only insofar as the corrections of
the following entries in the birth certificate are concerned:
(a) first name, from "Virgie" to "Virgel;" and (b) gender,
from "FEMALE" to "MALE."

SO ORDERED.