MA. VIDIA B.

LARGO

Special Rules and Proceedings

Rules 108-109 of the Revised Rules of Court

RULE 108

Cancellation Or Correction Of Entries In The Civil Registry

Section 1. Who may file petition. — Any person interested in any act, event, order or
decree concerning the civil status of persons which has been recorded in the civil
register, may file a verified petition for the cancellation or correction of any entry
relating thereto, with the Court of First Instance of the province where the
corresponding civil registry is located.

Section 2. Entries subject to cancellation or correction. — Upon good and valid

grounds, the following entries in the civil register may be cancelled or corrected:
births, marriage, deaths, legal separations, judgments of annulments of marriage,
judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning, legitimations, adoptions,
acknowledgments of natural children, naturalization, election, loss or recovery of
citizenship, civil interdiction, judicial determination of filiation, voluntary emancipation
of a minor and changes of name.

Section 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.

Section 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.
Section 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.

Section 6. Expediting proceedings. — The court in which the proceeding is brought

may make orders expediting the proceedings, and may also grant preliminary
injunction for the preservation of the rights of the parties pending such proceedings.

Section 7. Order. — After hearing, the court may either dismiss the petition or issue
an order granting the cancellation or correction prayed for. In either case, a certified
copy of the judgment shall be served upon the civil registrar concerned who shall
annotated the same in his record.
RULE 109

Appeals in Special Proceedings

Section 1. Orders or judgments from which appeals may be taken. — An interested

person may appeal in special proceedings from an order or judgment rendered by a
Court of First Instance or a Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, where such
order or judgment:

(a) Allows or disallows a will;

(b) Determines who are the lawful heirs of a deceased person, or the
distributive share of the estate to which such person is entitled;

(c) Allows or disallows, in whole or in part, any claim against the estate of a
deceased person, or any claim presented on behalf of the estate in offset to a
claim against it;

(d) Settles the account of an executor, administrator, trustee or guardian;

(e) Constitutes, in proceedings relating to the settlement of the estate of a

deceased person, or the administration of a trustee or guardian, a final
determination in the lower court of the rights of the party appealing, except
that no appeal shall be allowed from the appointment of a special
administrator; and

(f) Is the final order or judgment rendered in the case, and affects the
substantial rights of the person appealing unless it be an order granting or
denying a motion for a new trial or for reconsideration.

Section 2. Advance distribution in special proceedings. — Notwithstanding a pending

controversy or appeal in proceedings to settle the estate of a decedent, the court
may, in its discretion and upon such terms as it may deem proper and just, permit
that such part of the estate may not be affected by the controversy or appeal be
distributed among the heirs or legatees, upon compliance with the conditions set
forth in Rule 90 of this rules.
6 CASES RELATED
TO RULE 108 OF
THE REVISED
RULES OF COURT
REPUBLIC vs. VALENCIA

G.R. No. L-32181

March 5, 1986

FACTS:

Respondent Leonor Valencia, for and in behalf of her minor children filed with the
Court of First Instance of Cebu a petition for the cancellation and/or correction of
entries of birth of Bernardo Go and Jessica Go in the Civil Registry of the City of
Cebu. The case was docketed as Special Proceedings No. 3043-R.

The Solicitor General filed an opposition to the petition alleging that the petition for
correction of entry in the Civil Registry pursuant to Article 412 of the New Civil Code
of the Philippines in relation to Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court, contemplates
a summary proceeding and correction of mere clerical errors, those harmless and
innocuous changes such as the correction of a name that is merely mispelled,
occupation of parents, etc., and not changes or corrections involving civil status,
nationality, or citizenship which are substantial and controversial.

Finding the petition to be sufficient in form and substance, the trial court issued an
order directing the publication of the petition and the date of hearing thereof in the
Cebu Advocate, a newspaper of general circulation in the city and province of Cebu,
once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks, and notice thereof, duly served on the
Solicitor General, the Local Civil Registrar of Cebu City and Go Eng.

Respondent Leonor Valencia, filed her reply to the opposition wherein she admitted
that the present petition seeks substantial changes involving the civil status and
nationality or citizenship of respondents, but alleged that substantial changes in the
civil registry records involving the civil status of parents, their nationality or
citizenship may be allowed if- (1) the proper suit is filed, and (2) evidence is
submitted, either to support the allegations of the petition or to disprove the same;
that respondents have complied with these requirements by filing the present special
proceeding for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry pursuant to
Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court and that they have caused reasonable notice
to be given to the persons named in the petition and have also caused the order for
the hearings of their petition to be published for three (3) consecutive weeks in a
newspaper of general circulation in the province.

Subsequently, the Local Civil Registrar of Cebu City filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground that since the petition seeks to change the nationality or citizenship of
Bernardo Go and Jessica Go from "Chinese" to "Filipino" and their status from
"Legitimate" to Illegitimate", and changing also the status of the mother from
"married" to "single" the corrections sought are not merely clerical but substantial,
involving as they do the citizenship and status of the petitioning minors and the
status of their mother.

The lower court denied the motion to dismiss.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the proper suit or appropriate action was filed by the respondent?

HELD:
The Court held in the affirmative. We are of the opinion that the petition filed by the
respondent in the lower court by way of a special proceeding for cancellation and/or
correction of entries in the civil register with the requisite notice and publication and
the recorded proceedings that actually took place thereafter could very well be
regarded as that proper suit or appropriate action.

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.

In the instant case, a petition for cancellation and/or correction of entries of birth of
Bernardo Go and Jessica Go in the Civil Registry of the City of Cebu was filed by
respondent Leonor Valencia on January 27, 1970, and pursuant to the order of the
trial court dated February 4, 1970, the said petition was published once a week for
three (3) consecutive weeks in the, Cebu Advocate, a newspaper of general
circulation in the City of Cebu. Notice thereof was duly served on the Solicitor
General, the Local Civil Registrar and Go Eng. The order likewise set the case for
hearing and directed the local civil registrar and the other respondents or any person
claiming any interest under the entries whose corrections were sought, to file their
opposition to the said petition. An opposition to the petition was consequently filed by
the Republic on February 26, 1970. Thereafter a full blown trial followed with
respondent Leonor Valencia testifying and presenting her documentary evidence in
support of her petition. The Republic on the other hand cross-examined respondent
Leonor Valencia.
RAMON CORPUS TAN v. OFFICE OF LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF CITY OF
MANILA, GR No. 211435, 2019-04-10

Facts:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari... a special proceeding for correction of

entry in the civil registry under Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court filed by herein
petitioner.

In his Amended Petition, petitioner alleged that he was born on November 13, 1965
at St. Paul Hospital in the City of Manila; that his birth was duly registered in the civil
registry of Manila; that he had been using his real name "Ramon Corpuz Tan" during
his lifetime; that when he later secured a copy of his Certificate of Live Birth, he
discovered that his name was entered as "Ramon Corpus Tan Ko" instead of his true
and correct name which is "Ramon Corpuz Tan"; that the aforesaid material errors
and mistakes in the entries of his Certificate of Live Birth were due to inadvertence
and error of the hospital personnel who prepared the subject certificate; that "Ko,"
which was the first name of his father, was inadvertently included in his last name;
and that the mistake was not immediately rectified because he only discovered the
same, after having his own children.

Issues:

WHETHER THE TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS ERRED WHEN THEY RULED
THAT THE PETITIONER FAILED TO OBSERVE THE REQUIREMENTS OF AN
ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDING IN THIS CASE.

Ruling:

The RTC ratiocinated that the petitioner failed to comply with the requirements of an
adversarial proceeding noting that the correction sought for, is a substantial
correction and is governed by Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, which is not summary,
but an adversarial proceeding.

In its Decision dated September 27, 2013, the CA affirmed the December 27, 2011
and May 18, 2012 Orders of the RTC. The appellate court concurred with the trial
court that the error sought to be corrected is a substantial one which requires an
adversarial proceeding. It observed that the surname "Tan Ko" consistently
appeared in petitioner's Certificate of Live Birth, specifically in the entries of his
name, as well as in the names of both his parents.

Thus, it opined that the alleged mistake was not only a misspelled surname but
involves a deletion of a word which entails a change in the surname. It then stressed
that the correction of petitioner's surname from "Tan Ko" to "Tan" would be an
adjudication that indeed his father's first name is "Ko" and his surname is "Tan." In
effect, the correction prayed for would entail not only a substantial change in his
name, but would also affect the identity of his father. Hence, an adversarial
proceeding is required.

The Court considers this variance as a result of a typographical error due perhaps to
the ineptness of petitioner's counsel. Thus, for purposes of this petition, the Court
considers the correction to "Ramon CORPUZ Tan" as petitioner's proper prayer
considering that it is the one consistent with his supporting documents.

Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court governs the proceeding for the cancellation
or correction of any entry concerning the civil status of persons which has been
recorded in the civil register.

A clerical error is one which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding; an
error made by a clerk or a transcriber; a mistake in copying or writing, or a harmless
change such as a correction of name that is clearly misspelled or of a misstatement
of the occupation of the parent. On the other hand, substantial or contentious
alterations may be allowed only in adversarial proceedings, in which all interested
parties are impleaded and due process is properly observed.[25] Substantial and
controversial alterations include those which may affect the citizenship, legitimacy of
paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage.

The Court noted that the entries sought to be corrected are substantial alterations,
and not mere clerical errors, as they touched upon respondent's filiation and
citizenship.

As aptly observed by the appellate court, the name "Tan Ko" has been consistently
used not only in the entries for petitioner's name, but also for that of his parents.
Verily, the "correction" of petitioner's name from "Ramon Corpus Tan Ko" to "Ramon
Corpuz Tan" would necessarily affect not only his name, but also the names of his
parents as entered in his Certificate of Live Birth.

As correctly explained by the appellate court, altering petitioner's surname from "Tan
Ko" to "Tan" would, in effect, be an adjudication that the first name of his father is
indeed "Ko" and his surname "Tan." Clearly, the correction would affect the identity
of petitioner's father. Moreover, there would be a need to correct his mother's name
from "Trinidad Corpus Tan Ko" to "Trinidad Corpuz Tan." This would require deleting
the word "Ko" from "Tan Ko" and changing the letter "s" to "z" in "Corpus." Following
Benemerito, to effect the correction, it would be essential to establish that "Trinidad
Corpus Tan Ko" and "Trinidad Corpuz Tan" refer to the same person. A summary
proceeding would certainly be insufficient to effect such substantial corrections.
REPUBLIC v. MICHELLE SORIANO GALLO,

GR No. 207074, 2018-01-17

Facts:

To accurately reflect these facts in her documents, Gallo prayed before the Regional
Trial Court of Ilagan City, Isabela in Special Proc. No. 2155 for the correction of her
name from "Michael" to "Michelle" and of her biological sex from "Male" to "Female"
under Rule 108 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.

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 the Regional Trial Court, in its December 7, 2010 Order,
granted the petition. It lent credence to the documents Gallo presented and found
that the corrections she sought were "harmless and innocuous."

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. 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." Furthermore, the published Order was also defective for not stating the cause
of the change of name.

The Court of Appeals, in its assailed April 29, 2013 Decision, denied the Office of the
Solicitor General's appeal.It found that Gallo availed of the proper remedy under
Rule 108 as the corrections sought were clerical, harmless, and innocuous

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.
Issues:

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 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... whether or not Michelle Soriano Gallo failed to exhaust
administrative remedies and observe the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.

Ruling:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. Hence, Republic Act No. 9048 governs. Gallo's Petition
involves a mere correction of clerical errors.

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. The applicable law then for the
correction of Gallo's name is Republic Act No. 9048. 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. 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. 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.

Principles:

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.

Rule 108 applies when the person is seeking to correct clerical and innocuous
mistakes in his or her documents with the civil register. It also governs the correction
of substantial errors in the entry of the information enumerated in Section 2 of this
Rule and those affecting the civil status, citizenship, and nationality of a person. The
proceedings under this rule may either be summary, if the correction pertains to
clerical mistakes, or adversary, if it pertains to substantial errors.
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

After the hearing, the trial court may grant or dismiss the petition and serve a copy of
its judgment to the Civil Registrar

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 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

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. 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. 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... failure to
observe the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not affect the
court's jurisdiction. Thus, the doctrine may be waived 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.

or 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.

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.

There are many accepted exceptions, such as: (a) where there is estoppel on the
part of the party invoking the doctrine where there is unreasonable delay or official
inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the complainant;
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES V. JENNIFER B. CAGANDAHAN

G.R. No. 166676

September 12, 2008

TOPIC: Change of Name, Change of Sex, Changes in Birth Certificate, Intersex

FACTS:

Cagandahan filed a Petition for Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate before the
RTC. She alleged that she was born on January 13, 1981 and was registered as a
female in the Certificate of Live Birth but while growing up, she developed secondary
male characteristics and was diagnosed to have Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia
(CAH) – a condition where persons afflicted possess both male and female
characteristics. She alleged that for all interests and appearances as well as in mind
and emotion, she has become a male person. Thus, she prayed that her birth
certificate be corrected such that her gender be changed from female to male and
her first name be changed from Jennifer to Jeff.

Respondent testified and presented the testimony of Dr. Michael Sionzon of the
Department of Psychiatry, University of the Philippines-Philippine General Hospital.
Dr. Sionzon issued a medical certificate stating that respondent’s condition is known
as CAH. He testified that this condition is very rare, that respondent’s uterus is not
fully developed because of lack of female hormones, and that she has no monthly
period. He further testified that respondent’s condition is permanent and
recommended the change of gender because respondent has made up her mind,
adjusted to her chosen role as male, and the gender change would be advantageous
to her.

The RTC granted respondent’s petition. Hence, this petition by the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG) seeking a reversal of the abovementioned ruling. The OSG
contends, among others, that Rule 108 does not allow change of sex or gender in
the birth certificate and respondent’s claimed medical condition known as CAH does
not make her a male.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the RTC erred in granting the petition on the ground of her medical
condition.

RULING:

No.

The determination of a person’s sex appearing in his birth certificate is a legal issue
and the court must look to the statutes. Rule 108 now applies only to substantial
changes and corrections in entries in the civil register.

Under Rep. Act No. 9048, a correction in the civil registry involving the change of sex
is not a mere clerical or typographical error. It is a substantial change for which the
applicable procedure is Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

The entries envisaged in Article 412 of the Civil Code and correctable under Rule
108 of the Rules of Court are those provided in Articles 407 and 408 of the Civil
Code. The acts, events or factual errors contemplated under Article 407 of the Civil
Code include even those that occur after birth.

Respondent undisputedly has CAH. It is one of the many conditions that involve
intersex anatomy. An organism with intersex may have biological characteristics of
both male and female sexes.

In deciding this case, we consider 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.

In the instant case, if we determine respondent to be a female, then there is no basis

for a change in the birth certificate entry for gender. But if we determine, based on
medical testimony and scientific development showing the respondent to be other
than female, then a change in the subject’s birth certificate entry is in order.

Ultimately, we are of the view that where the person is biologically or naturally
intersex the determining factor in his gender classification would be what the
individual, like respondent, having reached the age of majority, with good reason
thinks of his/her sex. Respondent here thinks of himself as a male and considering
that his body produces high levels of male hormones (androgen) there is
preponderant biological support for considering him as being male. Sexual
development in cases of intersex persons makes the gender classification at birth
inconclusive. It is at maturity that the gender of such persons, like respondent, is
fixed.

Respondent here has simply let nature take its course and has not taken unnatural
steps to arrest or interfere with what he was born with. And accordingly, he has
already ordered his life to that of a male. Respondent could have undergone
treatment and taken steps, like taking lifelong medication, to force his body into the
categorical mold of a female but he did not. He chose not to do so. Nature has
instead taken its due course in respondent’s development to reveal more fully his
male characteristics.

In the absence of a law on the matter, the Court will not dictate on respondent
concerning a matter so innately private as one’s sexuality and lifestyle preferences,
much less on whether or not to undergo medical treatment to reverse the male
tendency due to CAH. To him belongs the human right to the pursuit of happiness
and of health. Thus, to him should belong the primordial choice of what courses of
action to take along the path of his sexual development and maturation. In the
absence of evidence that respondent is an “incompetent” and in the absence of
evidence to show that classifying respondent as a male will harm other members of
society who are equally entitled to protection under the law, the Court affirms as valid
and justified the respondent’s position and his personal judgment of being a male.

We respect respondent’s congenital condition and his mature decision to be a male.

As for respondent’s change of name under Rule 103, this 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. Such a change will conform with the change of the
entry in his birth certificate from female to male.

The Republic’s petition is denied.

Republic v. Benemerito
G.R. No. 146963, March 15, 2004

FACTS:

Respondent Petronio L. Benemerito, filed a verified petition before the Regional Trial
Court for the correction of the following entries in the record of birth of his son, Joven
Lee Benemerito, a change of his name as father from Peter Laurente Benemerito to
Petronio L. Benemerito, the date of his marriage to Edna V. Sicat from 01 September
1989 to 25 January 1998. A notice of hearing was issued and accordingly published.
At the hearing, Petronio testified that prior to their marriage on 25 January 1998, he
and Edna had been cohabiting, with Joven as the fruit of such cohabitation, he was
surprised to later discover that his name and date of marriage was erroneously
recorded in Joven’s birth certificate. The RTC granted the petition. The Republic
appealed, contending that the petition should have not been granted because:
indispensable parties themselves, including the wife of the respondent or the
grandparents of the child, were not notified of the proceedings, that substantial
changes, such as the date of marriage of parents, name of the father, or filiation of
the child and whether legitimate or illegitimate, could only be threshed out in
adversarial proceedings. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision what
the trial court conducted amounted to an adversarial proceeding why? Opportunity to
contest the petition was afforded to all concerned parties through the publication of
the petition.

In fact, Public Prosecutor appeared for the State but did not interpose any objection
to the petition the corrections sought are innocuous (harmless) alterations. Legal
effect of the change of the date of marriage is merely to change the status of the
child from legitimate to legitimated, not to illegitimate.

ISSUE:
 Whether or not the court erred in granting the petition?

RULING:

Yes, the court erred in granting the petition because it did not follow the
procedure of an adversarial proceeding, considering that the corrections sought are
substantial changes, not to correct mere clerical or innocuous errors. a clerical error
is one which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding; a harmless
change such as a correction of name that is clearly misspelled or of a misstatement.

On the other hand, substantial or contentious alterations may be allowed only

in adversarial proceedings, in which all interested parties are impleaded and due
process is properly observed. Here, the "corrections" sought are substantial. In order
to effect the desired changes, it would be essential to establish that Peter Laurente
Benemerito, and Petronio l. Benemerito refer to the same person. The intended
correction of the date of marriage would, in effect, change the status of the child,
Joven, from being the legitimate to being legitimate. Such changes in the entry in the
certificate of live birth of Joven Lee S. Benemerito, which can possibly affect
successional and other rights of persons related to either or both respondent and his
wife, as well as that of Joven Lee himself.

Thus, since it would result to substantial changes, the proceeding should have
been regular adversarial proceeding, where all interested parties are impleaded, or
at least notified, and allowed to be heard before the proposed changes in the birth
certificate are effected. But, a case does not amount to an adversarial proceeding
simply because an opportunity to contest the petition is afforded by the publication of
the petition in a newspaper of general circulation. The corresponding petition should
also implead as respondents the civil registrar and all other persons who may have
or may claim to have any interest that would be affected thereby. Here, nowhere in
the records would it appear that all possible indispensable parties were duly notified
of the proceedings. Thus, having fall short of the requirements, the court erred in
granting the petition.
OBITER

Parenthetically, the recent enactment of Republic Act 9048, otherwise also

known as "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 Judicial Order," only
empowers the City or Municipal Civil Registrar or the Consul General to correct
clerical or typographical errors and to allow a change in the first name or nickname in
an entry in the civil registry without further need of a judicial order.

The obvious effect of Republic Act 9048 is merely to make possible the
administrative correction of clerical or typographical errors or change of first name or
nickname in entries in the civil register, leaving to Rule 108 the correction of
substantial changes in the civil registry in appropriate adversarial proceedings.
REPUBLIC v. DR. NORMA S. LUGSANAY UY, GR No. 198010, 2013-08-12

Facts:

Respondent filed a Petition for Correction of Entry in her Certificate of Live Birth.
Impleaded as respondent is the Local Civil Registrar of Gingoog City. She alleged
that she was born on February 8, 1952 and is the illegitimate daughter of Sy Ton and
Sotera Lugsanay. Her Certificate of Live Birth shows that her full name is "Anita Sy"
when in fact she is allegedly known to her family and friends as "Norma S.
Lugsanay." She further claimed that her school records, Professional Regulation
Commission (PRC) Board of Medicine Certificate and passport bear the name
"Norma S. Lugsanay." She also alleged that she is an illegitimate child considering
that her parents were never married, so she had to follow the surname of her
mother. She also contended that she is a Filipino citizen and not Chinese, and all her
siblings bear the surname Lugsanay and are all Filipinos.

Respondent allegedly filed earlier a petition for correction of entries with the Office of
the Local Civil Registrar of Gingoog City to effect the corrections on her name and
citizenship which was supposedly granted. However, the National Statistics Office
(NSO) records did not bear such changes. Hence, the petition before the RTC. RTC
issued an Order in favor of respondent the CA affirmed in toto the RTC Order.

The CA held that respondent's failure to implead other indispensable parties was
cured upon the publication of the Order setting the case for hearing in a newspaper
of general circulation for three (3) consecutive weeks and by serving a copy of the
notice to the Local Civil Registrar, the OSG and the City Prosecutor's Office. As to
whether the petition is a collateral attack on respondent's filiation, the CA ruled in
favor of respondent, considering that her parents were not legally married and that
her siblings' birth certificates uniformly state that their surname is Lugsanay and their
citizenship is Filipino.

Issues:

YES. Petition is dismissible for failure to implead indispensable parties.

Ruling:
In changing her surname from "Sy" (which is the surname of her father) to
"Lugsanay" (which is the surname of her mother), she, in effect, changes her status
from legitimate to illegitimate and in changing her citizenship from Chinese to
Filipino, the same affects her rights and obligations in this country. Clearly, the
changes are substantial. 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.

In sustaining the RTC decision, the CA did not strictly apply the provisions of Rule
108, because it opined that it was highly improbable that the mother was unaware of
the proceedings to correct the entries in her children's birth certificates especially
since the notices, orders and decision of the trial court were all sent to the residence
she shared with them. Respondent should have impleaded and notified not only the
Local Civil Registrar but also her parents and siblings as the persons who have
interest and are affected by the changes or corrections respondent wanted to make.

The fact that the notice of hearing was published in a newspaper of general
circulation and notice thereof was served upon the State will not change the nature
of the proceedings taken. A reading of Sections 4 and 5, Rule 108 of the Rules of
Court shows that the Rules mandate two sets of notices to different potential
oppositors: one given to the persons named in the petition and another given to
other persons who are not named in the petition but nonetheless may be considered
interested or affected parties. Summons must, therefore, be served not for the
purpose of vesting the courts with jurisdiction but to comply with the requirements of
fair play and due process to afford the person concerned the opportunity to protect
his interest if he so chooses. While there may be cases where the Court held that the
failure to implead and notify the affected or interested parties may be cured by the
publication of the notice of hearing, earnest efforts were made by petitioners in
bringing to court all possible interested parties. Such failure was likewise excused
where the interested parties themselves initiated the corrections proceedings, when
there is no actual or presumptive awareness of the existence of the interested
parties or when a party is inadvertently left out. When a petition for cancellation or
correction of an entry in the civil register involves substantial and controversial
alterations, including those on citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or
legitimacy of marriage, a strict compliance with the requirements of Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court is mandated. If the entries in the civil register could be corrected or
changed through mere summary proceedings and not through appropriate action
wherein all parties who may be affected by the entries are notified or represented,
the door to fraud or other mischief would be set open, the consequence of which
might be detrimental and far reaching.