STUDY GUIDE Q’s

1. Who shall use the surname of the father?

Art. 367. A natural child acknowledged by both parents shall principally use the surname
of the father. If recognized by only one of the parents, a natural child shall employ the
surname of the recognizing parent.

2. What surname may a married woman use?

ARTICLE 370 - According to prevailing jurisprudence, “a married woman has the option,
but not a duty, to use the surname of the husband.” Therefore, upon marriage, married
women have the option to continuously use their maiden name or:

● Her maiden first name and surname and add her husband’s surname; or
● Her maiden first name and her husband’s surname; or
● Her husband’s full name, but prefixing a word indicating that she is his wife, such
as “Mrs.”

3. What is the effect on the wife’s surname if the marriage is annulled?

ARTICLE 371. In case of annulment of marriage, and the wife is the guilty party, she
shall resume her maiden name and surname. If she is the innocent spouse, she may
resume her maiden name and surname. However, she may choose to continue
employing her former husband’s surname, unless:

4. What surname shall a widow use?

ARTICLE 373. A widow may use the deceased husband’s surname as though he were
still living, in accordance with article 370.

ARTICLE 374. In case of identity of names and surnames, the younger person shall be
obliged to use such additional name or surname as will avoid confusion.

NOTES: I have already used my husband’s surname in my identification cards and other
documents. Can I use my maiden name again?

While there is no blanket prohibition on reverting to one’s maiden name, certain special
laws limit the instances in which a married woman can resume or revert to her maiden
name, such as Republic Act No. 8239 or the Philippine Passport Act of 1996.

The Philippine Passport Act does not prohibit married women from continuously using
their maiden names in their passports. However, once a married woman has opted to
 adopt her husband’s surname in her passport, she may not revert to her maiden name,
except in any of the following instances:
●
● Death of husband;
● Divorce;
● Annulment; or
● Nullity of Marriage.

5. How may a name or surname be changed?

Article 376 prohibits the changing of name or surname of a person without judicial
authority, while Article 412 prohibits any correction or change of entry in a register
without a judicial order. The amendatory provision of R.A. 9048 is Section 1, which
provides: Section 1.

JUDICIAL AUTHORITY: Judicial power rests with the Supreme Court and the lower
courts, as established by law (Art. VIII, sec. 1 of the 1987 Constitution). Its duty is to
settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable

JUDICIAL ORDER: A decision issued by a court or authoritative body. This includes final
and non-final orders issued by a court. Also known as court order or judicial order.

Republic Act No. 9048 amended Articles 376 and 412. Section 1 of this amendatory
law provides: "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.".

CIVIL REGISTER Q’s:

1. What are the specific events or acts to be recorded in the civil register?

Vital acts and events are the births, deaths, fetal deaths, marriages, and all such
events that have something to do with an individual's entrance and departure from life
together with the changes in civil status that may occur to a person during his lifetime.

2. Who is the civil registrar?

 The current National Statistician and Civil Registrar General (NSCRG) is Usec. Dennis
Mapa, Ph. D.

3. What is the civil responsibility of the Registrar?

It shall be responsible for the recording in appropriate registers, events that affect the
civil status of individuals which are birth, marriage, death, annulment of marriage,
declaration of void marriage, foundling, legal separation, legitimation, and judicial
determination of filiations and emancipation of minors.

SURNAMES - Civil Code

Surnames are important for identification. Surnames identify the family to which a person
belongs (transmitted from parent to child).

A name is a word or a combination by which a person is known or identified (Republic vs.

Fernandez)

Characteristics of Surnames:

1. Absolute – intended to protect from confusion

2. Obligatory
3. Fixed – can’t change at one’s leisure
4. Outside the commerce of man – can’t sell or donate
5. Imprescriptible – even if one does not use, still your name

Rules:

1. As far as the state is concerned, your real name is the one in the Civil Registry (not the
baptismal certificate since parish records are no longer official)
2. Change of name can only be done through court proceedings Art. 376. No person can
change his name or surname without judicial authority.
3. However, a person can use other names which are authorized by C.A. No. 142 as amended
by R.A. No. 6085 (use of pseudonym)
C.A. 142 (Commonwealth Act) - AN ACT TO REGULATE THE USE OF ALIASES.

SECTION 1. Except as a pseudonym for literary purposes, no person shall use any
name different from the one with which he was christened or by which he has been
known since his childhood, or such substitute name as may have been authorized by a
competent court. The name shall comprise the patronymic name and one or two
surnames.

SEC. 2. Any person desiring to use an alias or aliases shall apply for authority therefor in
proceedings like those legally provided to obtain judicial authority for a change of name.
Separate proceedings shall be had for each alias, and each new petition shall set forth
the original name and the alias or aliases for the use of which judicial authority has been
obtained, specifying the proceedings and the date on which such authority was granted.
Judicial authorities for the use of aliases shall be recorded in the proper civil register.

SEC. 3. No person having obtained judicial authority to use an alias or aliases shall sign
or execute any document without stating his real name and all aliases he may have
been authorized to use.

SEC, 4. Any violation of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment for from one month
to six months.

Guidelines regarding Change of Name:

1. In a petition for change of name, courts are generally strict. You have to show sufficient
cause.

The cases of Naldoza vs. Republic and Republic vs. Marcos illustrate what are
sufficient causes. Republic vs. Hernandez added an additional ground. The
enumeration is not an exclusive list of causes. They are merely the ones
frequently cited.

In Republic vs. CA, the child wanted to change to the surname of the stepfather’s. The
Supreme Court said this is not allowed since it will cause confusion as to the child’s
paternity.

2. In a petition for injunction or in a criminal case for violation of C.A. No. 142, courts are
generally liberal for as long as there is no fraud or bad faith.

In Legamia vs. IAC, the Supreme Court allowed the mistress to use her live-in
partner’s name since everyone knew that she was the mistress – no confusion.
 In Tolentino vs. CA, the Supreme Court allowed the former Mrs. Tolentino to
keep on using the surname of Tolentino since the same was not being used for
fraudulent purposes.

3. In case of adoption where the woman adopts alone, it is the maiden name that should be
given the child (Johnston vs. Republic)

Art. 370. A married woman may use:

(1) Her maiden first name and surname and add her husband’s surname, or
(2) Her maiden first name and her husband’s surname or
(3) Her husband’s full name, but prefixing a word indicating that she is his
wife, such as “Mrs.”

A married woman may use only her maiden name and surname. She has an option
and not a duty to use the surname of her husband as provided for in Art. 370. This is
the obiter dictum in Yasin vs. Shari’a which cites Tolentino.

According to Yasin vs. Shari’a, when the husband dies, the woman can revert to her
old name without need for judicial authorization.

Obiter Dictum - Latin for "something said in passing." A comment, suggestion, or

observation made by a judge in an opinion that is not necessary to resolve the case, and
as such, it is not legally binding on other courts but may still be cited as persuasive
authority in future litigation.

Art. 176, Family Code. Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the
parental authority of their mother, and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this Code.
The legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of one-half of the legitime of a legitimate
child. Except for this modification, all other provisions in the Civil Code governing successional
rights shall remain in force.

Illegitimate children shall use the surname of the mother.

Art 367. Natural children by legal fiction shall principally employ the surname of the father.

Art. 377. Usurpation of a name and surname may be the subject of an action for damages and
other relief.

Art. 378. The unauthorized or unlawful use of another person’s surname

gives a right of action to the latter.
 Articles 377 and 378 don’t talk of the same thing. Article 377 deals with the usurpation of
names. There is usurpation when there is confusion of identity (i.e. you claim to be
Jaime Zobel)

USURPATION: the act of taking control of something without having the right to,
especially of a position of power: his unlawful usurpation of power. There are still those
who regard the move as an unconstitutional usurpation of private property.

Elements of Article 377 (Usurpation):

1. There is an actual use of another’s name by the defendant

2. The use is unauthorized
3. The use of another’s name is to designate a personality or identify a person.

Article 378 is using of the name for purposes other than usurpation (i.e., slander; for
example, I will use Daliva’s surname in my product, calling it Daliva see-thru lingerie)
Required readings:

Petition for Correction of Clerical Error in Civil Registry Documents

Registered at the Philippine Embassy

pursuant to Republic Act No. 9048 / 10172

Republic Act (RA) 9048 authorizes the city/municipal civil registrar or the consul general to
correct a clerical error or typographical error in an entry and/or change the first name or
nickname in the civil registrar without need of a judicial order.

Republic Act (RA) 10172 authorized the city or municipal registrar or the consul general to
correct clerical or typographical errors in the day and month in the date of birth or sex of a
person appearing in the civil register without need of a judicial order (amending for this purpose
RA 9048).

Requirements and contents of the Petition.

1. Duly accomplished application form. ( Click to download the application form for
ROM / ROB / ROD )
2. Certified true machine copy (original issued by the Philippine Statistics Authority
(PSA)) of the civil registry certificate (i.e. Report of Birth, Report of Marriage,
Report of Death)
3. At least two (2) public or private documents showing the correct entry/entries
upon which the correction or change shall be based
4. Other documents which the consul general may consider relevant and necessary
for the approval of the petition.
5. Applicable fee (¥7,000)
In case of change of first name or nickname and sex, the petition shall be
published at least once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of
general circulation. An Affidavit of publication from the publisher and copy of the
newspaper clippings should be attached to the petition as proof of publication.
Furthermore, the petitioner shall submit a certification from the appropriate law
enforcement agencies (NBI Clearance, Police clearance, clearance from the
employer if employed, and other clearances as may be required by the consul
general) that he has no pending case or no criminal record.
No petition for correction of erroneous entry concerning the date of birth or the sex of a person
shall be entertained except if the petition is accompanied by earliest school record or earliest
school documents such as, but not limited to, medical records, baptismal certificate and
other documents issued by religious authorities; nor shall any entry involving change of
gender corrected except if the petition is accompanied by a certification issued by an accredited
government physician attesting to the fact that the petitioner has not undergone sex change or
sex transplant.

Who may file the petition? The petition may be filed by a person of legal age (eighteen years
old and above) who must have a direct and personal interest (owner of the record, owner’s
spouse, children, parents, brothers, sisters, grandparents, guardian, or any other person duly
authorized by law or by the owner of the document sought to be corrected) in the correction of
the error or in the change of first name in the civil register.

Where should the petition be filed? For civil registry documents duly registered in Philippine
Embassy – Tokyo, the petition must be personally filed at the Embassy. Click this link to secure
an appointment. Book Your Appointment with Philippine Embassy in Tokyo, Japan

However, in case the petitioner is a migrant or outside the jurisdiction of the Philippine Embassy,
the petition may be filed in the nearest Local Civil Registry Office in his area. The petition will be
treated as a migrant petition.

Petition filed at the Embassy will be forwarded to the Department of Foreign Affairs – Manila for
onward submission to the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) for its consideration.
Implementing Rules and Regulation of RA 9048, Admin. Order No. 1 series of 2001

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9048 March 22, 2001

AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OR MUNICIPAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OR THE CONSUL

GENERAL TO CORRECT A CLERICAL OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN AN ENTRY
AND/OR CHANGE OF FIRST NAME OR NICKNAME IN THE CIVIL REGISTER WITHOUT
NEED OF A JUDICIAL ORDER, AMENDING FOR THIS PURPOSE ARTICLES 376 AND 412
OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress
assembled:

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.

Section 2. Definition of Terms – As used in this Act, the following terms shall mean:

(1) "City or Municipal civil registrar" refers to the head of the local civil registry office of the city
or municipality, as the case may be, who is appointed as such by the city or municipal mayor in
accordance with the provisions of existing laws.

(2) "Petitioner" refers to a natural person filing the petition and who has direct and personal
interest in the correction of a clerical or typographical error in an entry or change of first name or
nickname in the civil register.

(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.

(4) "Civil Register" refers to the various registry books and related certificates and documents
kept in the archives of the local civil registry offices, Philippine Consulates and of the Office of
the Civil Registrar General.

(5) "Civil registrar general" refers to the Administrator of the National Statistics Office which is
the agency mandated to carry out and administer the provision of laws on civil registration.
(6) "First name" refers to a name or nickname given to a person which may consist of one or
more names in addition to the middle and last names.

Section 3. Who May File the Petition and Where. – Any person having direct and personal
interest in the correction of a clerical or typographical error in an entry and/or change of first
name or nickname in the civil register may file, in person, a verified petition with the local civil
registry office of the city or municipality where the record being sought to be corrected or
changed is kept.

In case the petitioner has already migrated to another place in the country and it would not be
practical for such party, in terms of transportation expenses, time and effort to appear in person
before the local civil registrar keeping the documents to be corrected or changed, the petition
may be filed, in person, with the local civil registrar of the place where the interested party is
presently residing or domiciled. The two (2) local civil registrars concerned will then
communicate to facilitate the processing of the petition.

Citizens of the Philippines who are presently residing or domiciled in foreign countries may file
their petition, in person, with the nearest Philippine Consulates.

The petitions filed with the city or municipal civil registrar or the consul general shall be
processed in accordance with this Act and its implementing rules and regulations.

All petitions for the clerical or typographical errors and/or change of first names or nicknames
may be availed of only once.

Section 4. Grounds for Change of First Name or Nickname. – The petition for change of first
name or nickname may be allowed in any of the following cases:

(1) The petitioner finds the first name or nickname to be ridiculous, tainted with dishonor or
extremely difficult to write or pronounce.

(2) The new first name or nickname has been habitually and continuously used by the petitioner
and he has been publicly known by that by that first name or nickname in the community: or

(3) The change will avoid confusion.

Section 5. Form and Contents of the Petition. – The petition shall be in the form of an affidavit,
subscribed and sworn to before any person authorized by the law to administer oaths. The
affidavit shall set forth facts necessary to establish the merits of the petition and shall show
affirmatively that the petitioner is competent to testify to the matters stated. The petitioner shall
state the particular erroneous entry or entries, which are sought to be corrected and/or the
change sought to be made.

The petition shall be supported with the following documents:

(1) A certified true machine copy of the certificate or of the page of the registry book containing
the entry or entries sought to be corrected or changed.

(2) At least two (2) public or private documents showing the correct entry or entries upon which
the correction or change shall be based; and

(3) Other documents which the petitioner or the city or municipal civil registrar or the consul
general may consider relevant and necessary for the approval of the petition.

In case of change of first name or nickname, the petition shall likewise be supported with the
documents mentioned in the immediately preceding paragraph. In addition, the petition shall be
published at least once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
circulation. Furthermore, the petitioner shall submit a certification from the appropriate law
enforcement agencies that he has no pending case or no criminal record.

The petition and its supporting papers shall be filed in three (3) copies to be distributed as
follows: first copy to the concerned city or municipal civil registrar, or the consul general; second
copy to the Office of the Civil Registrar General; and third copy to the petitioner.

Section 6. Duties of the City or Municipal Civil Registrar or the Consul General. – The city or
municipal civil registrar or the consul general to whom the petition is presented shall examine
the petition and its supporting documents. He shall post the petition in a conspicuous place
provided for that purpose for ten (10) consecutive days after he finds the petition and its
supporting documents sufficient in form and substance.

The city or municipal civil registrar or the consul general shall act on the petition and shall
render a decision not later than five (5) working days after the completion of the posting and/or
publication requirement. He shall transmit a copy of his decision together with the records of the
proceedings to the Office of the Civil Registrar General within five (5) working days from the
date of the decision.

Section 7. Duties and Powers of the Civil Registrar General. – The civil registrar general shall,
within ten (10) working days from receipt of the decision granting a petition, exercise the power
to impugn such decision by way of an objection based on the following grounds:

(1) The error is not clerical or typographical;

(2) The correction of an entry or entries in the civil register is substantial or controversial as it
affects the civil status of a person; or

(3) The basis used in changing the first name or nickname of a person does not fall under
Section 4.
The civil registrar general shall immediately notify the city or municipal civil registrar or the
consul general of the action taken on the decision. Upon receipt of the notice thereof, the city or
municipal civil registrar or the consul general shall notify the petitioner of such action.

The petitioner may seek reconsideration with the civil registrar general or file the appropriate
petition with the proper court.

If the civil registrar general fails to exercise his power to impugn the decision of the city or
municipal civil registrar or of the consul general within the period prescribed herein, such
decision shall become final and executory.

Where the petition is denied by the city or municipal civil registrar or the consul general, the
petitioner may either appeal the decision to the civil registrar general or file the appropriate
petition with the proper court.

Section 8. Payment of Fees. – The city or municipal civil registrar or the consul general shall be
authorized to collect reasonable fees as a condition for accepting the petition. An indigent
petitioner shall be exempt from the payment of the said fee.

Section 9. Penalty Clause. - A person who violates any of the provisions of this Act shall, upon
conviction, be penalized by imprisonment of not less than six (6) years but not more than twelve
(12) years, or a fine of not less than Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) but not more than One
Hundred Thousand pesos (P100,000.00), or both, at the discretion of the court.

In addition, if the offender is a government official or employee he shall suffer the penalties
provided under civil service laws, rules and regulations.

Section 10. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - The civil registrar general shall, in
consultation with the Department of Justice, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Office of the
Supreme Court Administrator, the University of the Philippines Law Center and the Philippine
Association of Civil Registrars, issue the necessary rules and regulations for the effective
implementation of this Act not later than three (3) months from the effectivity of this law.

Section 11. Retroactivity Clause. - This Act shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not
prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code and other laws.

Section 12. Separability Clause. - If any portion or provision of this Act is declared void or
unconstitutional, the remaining portions or provisions thereof shall not be affected by such
declaration.

Section 13. Repealing Clause - All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations, other
issuances, or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or
modified accordingly.
Section 14. Effectivity Clause. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete
publication in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.
AN ACT FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY OR MUNICIPAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OR THE
CONSUL GENERAL TO CORRECT CLERICAL OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS IN THE
DAY AND MONTH IN THE DATE OF BIRTH OR SEX OF A PERSON APPEARING IN THE
CIVIL REGISTER WITHOUT NEED OF A JUDICIAL ORDER, AMENDING FOR THIS
PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED NINETY FORTY-EIGHT

SECTION 1. Section 1 of Republic Act No. 9048, hereinafter referred to as the Act, is hereby
amended to read as follows:

“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.”

SEC. 2. Section 2, paragraph (3) of the Act is likewise amended to read as follows:

“SEC. 2. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act, the following terms shall mean:

(1) xxx xxx

(2) xxx xxx
(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.”

SEC. 3. Section 5 of the Act is hereby amended to read as follows:

“SEC. 5. Form and Contents of the Petition. – The petition for correction of a clerical or
typographical error, or for change of first name or nickname, as the case may be, shall be in the
form of an affidavit, subscribed and sworn to before any person authorized by law to administer
oaths. The affidavit shall set forth facts necessary to establish the merits of the petition and shall
show affirmatively that the petitioner is competent to testify to the matters stated. The petitioner
shall state the particular erroneous entry or entries, which are sought to be corrected and/or the
change sought to be made.

The petition shall be supported with the following documents:

(1) A certified true machine copy of the certificate or of the page of the registry book containing
the entry or entries sought to be corrected or changed;
(2) At least two (2) public or private documents showing the correct entry or entries upon which
the correction or change shall be based; and
(3) Other documents which the petitioner or the city or municipal civil registrar or the consul
general may consider relevant and necessary for the approval of the petition.

No petition for correction of erroneous entry concerning the date of birth or the sex of a person
shall be entertained except if the petition is accompanied by earliest school record or earliest
school documents such as, but not limited to, medical records, baptismal certificate and other
documents issued by religious authorities; nor shall any entry involving change of gender
corrected except if the petition is accompanied by a certification issued by an accredited
government physician attesting to the fact that the petitioner has not undergone sex change or
sex transplant. The petition for change of first name or nickname, or for correction of erroneous
entry concerning the day and month in the date of birth or the sex of a person, as the case may
be, shall be published at least once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of
general circulation.

Furthermore, the petitioner shall submit a certification from the appropriate law enforcements,
agencies that he has no pending case or no criminal record.
The petition and its supporting papers shall be filed in three (3) copies to be distributed as
follows: first copy to the concerned city or municipal civil registrar, or the consul general; second
copy to the Office of the Civil Registrar General; and third copy to the petitioner.”

SEC. 4. Section 8 of the Act is hereby amended to read as follows:

“SEC. 8. Payment of Fees. – The city or municipal civil registrar or the consul general shall be
authorized to collect reasonable fees as a condition for accepting the petition. An indigent
petitioner shall be exempt from the payment of the said fee.

The fees collected by the city or municipal civil registrar or the consul general pursuant to this
Act shall accrue to the funds of the Local Civil Registry Office concerned or the Office of the
Consul General for modernization of the office and hiring of new personnel and procurement of
supplies, subject to government accounting and auditing rules.”

SEC. 5. Separability Clause. – If any provision of this Act shall at any time be found to be
unconstitutional or invalid, the remainder thereof not affected by such declaration shall remain in
full force and effect.

SEC. 6. Repealing Clause. – Any laws, decrees, rules or regulations inconsistent with the
provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

SEC. 7. Effectivity Clause. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in the
Official Gazette or in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.
Rule 103 Rules of Court

Change of Name

Sec. 1. Venue. - A person desiring to change his name shall present the petition to the Court of
First Instance of the province in which he resides, or, in the City of Manila, to the Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court.

Sec. 2. Contents of petition. - A petition for change of name shall be signed and verified by the
person desiring his name changed, or some other person on his behalf, and shall set forth:

(a) That the petitioner has been a bona fide resident of the province where the petition is filed
for at least three (3) years prior to the date of such filing;

(b) The cause for which the change of the petitioner's name is sought;

(c) The name asked for.

Sec. 3. Order for hearing. - If the petition filed is sufficient in form and substance, the court, by
an order reciting the purpose of the petition, shall fix a date and place for the hearing thereof,
and shall direct that a copy of the order be published before the hearing at least once a week for
three (3) successive weeks in some newspaper of general circulation published in the province,
as the court shall deem best. The date set for the hearing shall not be within thirty (30) days
prior to an election nor within four (4) months after the last publication of the notice.

Sec. 4. Hearing. - Any interested person may appear at the hearing and oppose the petition.
The Solicitor General or the proper provincial or city fiscal shall appear on behalf of the
Government of the Republic.

Sec. 5. Judgment. - Upon satisfactory proof in open court on the date fixed in the order that
such order has been published as directed and that the allegations of the petition are true, the
court shall, if proper and reasonable cause appears for changing the name of the petitioner,
adjudge that such name be changed in accordance with the prayer of the petition.

Sec. 6. Service of judgment. - Judgments or orders rendered in connection with this rule shall
be furnished the civil registrar of the municipality or city where the court issuing the same is
situated, who shall forthwith enter the same in the civil register.
CASES IN SURNAMES

Remo vs. Secretary of Foreign Affairs, G.R. No. 169202, March 5, 2010
● Petitioner’s passport was expiring in October 2000.
● Passport Entry: Maria Virginia (first name), Remo (middle name), Rallonza (surname of
husband)
● Upon renewal, she requested to revert to her maiden name and surname in the replacement
passport
● The request was denied: Reason: R.A. 8293 (Philippine Passport Act of 1996)
● Upon renewal of passport, presuppose that this is not the first issuance. She requested to
revert to her maiden name and surname in the replacement passport. However, the
Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) denied her request based on R.A. 8239.

Issue: Whether petitioner, who originally used her husbands surname in her expired
passport,can revert to the use of her maiden name in the replacement passport, despite
the subsistence ofher marriage?

Supreme Court says: R.A. 8239 does not prohibit a married woman from using her maiden
name in her passport. The DFA allows a married woman who applies for a passport for the first
time to use her maiden name.
● Supreme Court says: Once a married woman opted to adopt her husband’s surname in her
passport, she may not revert to the use of a maiden name, except:
● Upon the death of husband;
● Divorce;
● Annulment; or
● Nullity of marriage.
● Supreme Court says: The Civil Code and R.A. 8239 must be harmonized. Special law prevails
over general law. There was no implied repeal under R.A. 8239.
● Supreme Court says: Acquisition of a Philippine passport is a privilege. Philippine passport
remains at all times the property of the government. the holder is merely a possessor of the
passport.

Case Doctrines:

● A married woman has an option, but not an obligation, to use her husband’s surname upon marriage.
She is not prohibited from continuously using her maiden name because when a woman marries, she
does not change her name but only her civil status.
● Once a married woman opted to adopt her husband’s surname in her passport, she may not revert to
the use of her maiden name, except in cases of: (1) death of husband, (2) divorce, (3) annulment, or (4)
nullity of marriage.
● The acquisition of a Philippine passport is a privilege. The law recognizes the passport applicant’s
constitutional right to travel. However, the State is also mandated to protect and maintain the integrity and
credibility of the passport and travel documents proceeding from it as a Philippine passport remains at all
times the property of the Government. The holder is merely a possessor of the passport as long as it is
valid
G.R. No. 216425 – Civil Law – Persons and Family Relations – Family Code – Civil Code – Use of
Surnames

Facts: Abdulhamid Ballaho was born and registered as Anacleto Ballaho Alanis III. He is a legitimate child
of Mario Alanis and Jarmila Ballaho. However, he never used his registered name. In fact, in all his
records growing up, he had been using the name Abdulhamid Ballaho. He filed a petition in court seeking
to change his name and surname so that he may be officially known as Abdulhamid Ballaho.

The Regional Trial Court denied his petition. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC. It was ruled that he
cannot change his first name because doing so will only create more confusion. He cannot change his
last name because according to Article 174 of the Family Code, the use of surnames must be in
accordance with the Civil Code. Article 364 of the Civil Code provides that legitimate and legitimated
children shall principally use the surname of the father. According to the trial court, Abdulhamid’s remedy
was to correct his other records to conform with his birth certificate.

ISSUE: Whether or not a legitimate child may use as surname the surname of his or her mother.

HELD: Yes. Indeed, the provision states that legitimate children shall “principally” use the surname of the
father, but “principally” does not mean “exclusively.” This gives ample room to incorporate into Article 364
the State policy of ensuring the fundamental equality of women and men before the law, and no
discernible reason to ignore it.

Section 14, Art. II of the 1987 Constitution provides: The State recognizes the role of women in
nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of women and men.

Article II, Section 14 implies the State’s positive duty to actively dismantle the existing patriarchy by
addressing the culture that supports it. Courts, like all other government departments and agencies, must
ensure the fundamental equality of women and men before the law. Accordingly, where the text of a law
allows for an interpretation that treats women and men more equally, that is the correct interpretation.

Anent Abdulhamid’s prayer to change his registered first name – it is granted. One of the grounds to allow
a change in registered name is if it avoids confusion. Certainly, to force Abdulhamid to use his registered
name despite the fact that he never used it before will only create confusion.
REPUBLIC v. MICHELLE SORIANO GALLO, GR No. 207074, 2018-01-17

Facts:

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. 2155[5] for the correction of her name from "Michael" to "Michelle" and of her biological sex
from "Male" to "Female" under Rule 108[6] of the Rules of Court

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 certificat

The Regional Trial Court, in its December 7, 2010 Order, granted the petition

Issues:

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.

RULING:
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. 10172[50] defines a clerical or typographical error as a recorded mistake, "which is
visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding

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.
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.

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.

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[.]

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 na

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).
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:

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:

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,[

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

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.[

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... 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.[

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.

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.

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.
Republic vs. Jennifer Cagandahan

Facts:
The plaintiff was registered at birth as female, but developed secondary male characteristics over time.
He was diagnosed with congenital adrenal hyperplasia and displayed both male and female
characteristics. At age six the plaintiff was diagnosed with clitoral hypertrophy and small ovaries; at age
thirteen the ovaries had minimised, he had no breasts and no menstrual cycle. He stated that in his mind,
appearance, emotions and interests he was a male person, and therefore asked that his birth certificate
sex be changed to male, and that his name be changed from Jennifer to Jeff. A medical expert testified
that the plaintiff was genetically female but that, because the plaintiff’s body secreted male hormones, his
female organs had not developed normally. He further testified that the plaintiff’s condition was permanent
and recommended the change of gender because the plaintiff had adjusted to his chosen role as male
and the gender change would be advantageous to him.

Issue:
Whether the court should recognise a new name and gender identity to reflect the chosen gender of an
intersex person who was raised as the opposite gender.

Ruling:

The Court considered the compassionate calls for recognition of the various degrees of intersex as
variations which should not be subject to outright denial. The current state of Philippine statutes
apparently compels that a person be classified either as a male or as a female, but this Court is not
controlled by mere appearances when nature itself fundamentally negates such rigid classification.

Cagandahan thinks of himself as a male and considering that his body produces high levels of male
hormones, there is preponderant biological support for considering him as being a male. Sexual
development in cases of intersex persons makes the gender classification at birth inconclusive.
According to the Court, for intersex persons gender classification at birth was inconclusive. It is at maturity
that the gender of such persons like Cagandahan, is fixed.

The Court considered that the plaintiff had allowed “nature to take its course” and had not interfered with
what “he was born with”. By not forcing his body to become female, he permitted the male characteristics
of the body to develop. Thus the Court rejected the objections of the solicitor general and held that, where
no law governed the matter,

The Court held that where the individual was biologically or naturally intersex, it was reasonable to allow
that person to determine his or her own gender.

Remedial Law (Special Proceedings; Rule 103 on regulating name change & 108 on cancellation or
correction of civil registry entries)
Court has held that a change of name is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion, to be exercised in
the light of the reasons adduced and the consequences that will follow. The trial court’s grant of
respondent’s change of name from Jennifer to Jeff implies a change of a feminine name to a masculine
name. Considering the consequence that respondent’s change of name merely recognizes his preferred
gender, we find merit in respondent’s change of name
G.R. No. 186027 December 8, 2010 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. MERLYN
MERCADERA through her Attorney-in-Fact, EVELYN M. OGA, Respondent.

Facts: Merlyn Mercadera sought the correction of her given name as it appeared in her Certificate of Live
Birth - from Marilyn L. Mercadera to Merlyn L. Mercadera before the Office of the LCR of Dipolog City
pursuant to R.A. No. 9048, as she never used the name "Marilyn" in any of her public or private
transactions. However, it refused to effect the correction unless a court order was obtained because the
Civil Registrar therein is not yet equipped with a permanent appointment before he can validly act on
petitions for corrections filed before their office as mandated by RA 9048.

Mercadera was then constrained to file a Petition For Correction of Some Entries as Appearing in the
Certificate of Live Birth under Rule 108 before the RTC of Dipolog City.

The OSG posits that the conversion from "MARILYN" to "MERLYN" is not a correction of an innocuous
error but a material correction tantamount to a change of name which entails a modification or increase in
substantive rights. For the OSG, this is a substantial error that requires compliance with the procedure
under Rule 103, and not Rule 108.

Issue: Whether or not the petition correctly falls under Rule 108

Ruling: Yes. The petition filed by Mercadera before the RTC correctly falls under Rule 108 as it simply
sought a correction of a misspelled given name.

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.

Rule 108, on the other hand, implements judicial proceedings for the correction or cancellation of entries
in the civil registry pursuant to Article 412 of the Civil Code. Entries in the civil register refer to "acts,
events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons,” also as enumerated in Article 408 of
the same law.

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.

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." 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.
ROMMEL JACINTO DANTES SILVERIO vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 174689,
October 22, 2007

FACTS:

Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio filed a petition for the change of his first name to “Mely” and sex
(gender) in his birth certificate be changed to female since he underwent sex reassignment surgery. The
OSG alleges that there is no law allo wing the change of entries in the live birth certificate by reason of
sex reassignment surgery.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a person may successfully petition for a change of name and sex appearing in the live
birth certificate to reflect the result of a sex reassignment surgery.

RULING:

No. It is the statutes that defines who may file petitions for change of first name and for correction or
change of entries in the civil registry, where they may be filed, what grounds may be invoked, what proof
must be presented and what procedures shall be observed. Presently, there is no law allowing the change
of entries in the birth certificate by reason of sex alteration.

The birth certificate of petitioner contained no error. All entries, including those corresponding to his first
name and sex, were all correct. No correction is necessary. A law has to be enacted by the legislative
body laying down the guidelines governing the change of entries in birth certificate due to sex
reassignment in order to enter the same in civil registry.