REPUBLIC vs. QUINONEZ Clarissa J.

Te
and JD3
REPUBLIC vs. UNABIA UMak - SoL
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER,
vs.
REMAR A. QUIÑONEZ, RESPONDENT

G.R. No. JANUARY 06, JUSTICE RULE 107:

237412 2020 CAGUIOA ABSENTEES
FACTS
❑The Requirement of Well-Founded Belief:
฀The law did not define what is meant by '"well-founded belief." It
depends upon the circumstances of each particular case. Its
determination, so to speak, remains on a case-to-case basis.
฀To be able to comply with this requirement, the present spouse must
prove that his/her belief was the result of diligent and reasonable
efforts and inquiries to locate the absent spouse and that based on
these efforts and inquiries, he/she believes that under the
circumstances, the absent spouse is already dead. It requires exertion
of active effort (not a mere passive one).
❑In this case Remar’s efforts fell short of the degree of diligence required by
law and jurisprudence:
฀He failed to allege, much less prove, the extent of his search in the places
where he claims Lovelyn to have gone, leaving no way for the Court to
ascertain such extent.
฀He also failed to identify Lovelyn’s relatives he had communicated with and
disclose what he learned from these communications.
฀He never sought the help of the authorities to locate Loveyn in the course of
her ten-year disappearance.
฀Remar’s allegations in his Petition for Declaration of Presumptive Death
suggest that he is aware of the true cause of Lovelyn 's disappearance
 Even though the Court commiserates with Remar's
plight, the Court, nevertheless, cannot uphold the
issuance of a declaration of presumptive death for the
purpose of remarriage where there appears to be no
well-founded belief of the absentee spouse's death,
but only the likelihood that the absentee spouse does
not want to be found.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER,
vs.
MILLER OMANDAM UNABIA, RESPONDENT

G.R. No. FEBRUARY 11, JUSTICE RA 9048, as amended

213346 2019 DEL CASTILLO by RA 10172
FACTS
❑Special Proceeding No. 2009-018 was filed in 2009
฀the governing law then unamended RA 9048 (2001): correction of clerical or
typographical errors and change of first names or nicknames
฀the passage in RA 10172 (2012) amending RA 9048: clerical or typographical
errors or mistakes in the entries of the day and month in the date of birth or sex of
individuals
❑Even then, the amendments under RA 10172 should still apply, the law
being remedial in nature.
❑Moreover, under Section 11 of RA 9048, retroactive application is
allowed "insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired
rights in accordance with the Civil Code and other laws.
❑In this case, the appellee was able to present all the necessary
documents to support the allegations in his petition.
❑A scrutiny of the foregoing evidence reveals that appellee was actually
using the name Miller Omandam Unabia and not Millie Umandam
Unabia, as that reflected in his birth certificate.
❑The similarity between "Miller" and "Millie" and "Omandam" and
"Umandam" undoubtedly caused confusion in its entry in the birth
certificate of the Respondent.
❑Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Labis: Respondent is "phenotypically
male"
฀respondent's entire physical, physiological, and biochemical makeup - as
determined both genetically and environmentally - is male, which thus
presupposes that he did not undergo sex reassignment.
฀In other words, as determined genetically and environmentally, he was conceived
and born male, he looks male, and he functions biologically as a male.
❑It must be laid down as a rule that when there is a medical finding that
the petitioner in a case for correction of erroneous entry as to gender is
phenotypically male or female, the no-sex change or transplant
certification becomes mere surplusage.
❑Evidently, it can readily be deduced that there were clerical errors in
the aforesaid entries necessitating its rectification.
❑Section 2(3) of R.A. 10172 defines 'clerical of[sic] typographical error'
as:
(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.'
 As far as the Court is concerned, it has been
satisfactorily shown that indeed, there have been
serious errors with respect to specific entries in
respondent's birth record - errors that urgently need to
be rectified with alacrity, if justice is to be served.
THANK YOU!