specpro - change of name

7/28/2019 Specpro - Change of Name

1/14

1. Nature of the petition of change of name

Republic vs. CA 209 SCRA 189

Republic vs. Carlito et.al

FACTS:

Carlito and his siblings Michael, Mercy Nona and Heddy Moira filed before the RTC of Butuan

City a verified petition for correction of entries in the civil registry of Butuan City to effect

changes in their respective birth certificates. Carlito also asked the court in behalf of his minorchildren, Kevin and Kelly, to order the correction of some entries in their birth certificates.

In the case of Carlito, he requested the correction in his birth certificate of the citizenship of hismother to Filipino instead of Chinese, as well as the deletion of the word married opposite

the phrase Date of marriage of parents because his parents, Juan Kho and Epifania Inchoco

(Epifania), were allegedly not legally married.

The same request to delete the married status of their parents from their respective birth

certificates was made by Carlitos siblings Michael, Mercy Nona, and Heddy Moira.

With respect to the birth certificates of Carlitos children, he prayed that the date of his and his

wifes marriage be corrected from April 27, 1989 to January 21, 2000, the date appearing in their

marriage certificate and the name of his wife Maribel be changed to Marivel.

Carlito et al. filed an Amended Petition in which it was additionally prayed that Carlitos second

name of John be deleted from his record of birth; and that the name and citizenship of Carlitos

father in his (Carlitos) marriage certificate be corrected from John Kho to Juan Kho andFilipino to Chinese, respectively.

RTC ordered the local civil registry to correct the entries sought to be changed and the CA

affirmed said decision.

ISSUE: WON changes sought by respondents could only be granted through an adversarialproceeding?

HELD:

The enactment in March 2001 of Republic Act No. 9048, otherwise known as AN ACTAUTHORIZING THE CITY OR MUNICIPAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OR THE CONSULGENERAL 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, has been considered to lend legislative affirmationto the judicial precedence that substantial corrections to the civil status of persons recorded in the

civil registry may be effected through the filing of a petition under Rule 108.


2/14

When all the procedural requirements under Rule 108 are thus followed, the appropriate

adversary proceeding necessary to effect substantial corrections to the entries of the civil register

is satisfied.SEC. 3. Parties. When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil

registrar is sought, the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any

interest which would be affected thereby shall be made parties to theproceeding.

SEC. 4. Notice and publication. Upon the filing of the petition, thecourt 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 in a week for three (3)

consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province.

SEC. 5. Opposition. The civil registrar and any person having or

claiming any interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought

may, within fifteen (15) days from notice of the petition, or from the last date ofpublication of such notice, file his opposition thereto. (Emphasis and underscoring

supplied)

2. Baptismal Name vs. Name in the Civil Register, which shall prevail

Chami vs. Civil Register in Manila 99 Phil 1004

3. Is change of name a matter of right/ valid ground for change of name/ dropping of middlename

IN RE: PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME AND/OR CORRECTION/CANCELLATION OF ENTRY IN

CIVIL REGISTRY OF JULIAN LIN CARULASAN WANG also known as JULIAN LIN WANG, to be

amended/corrected as JULIAN LIN WANG, JULIAN LIN WANG, duly represented by his mother ANNA

LISA WANG vs. CEBU CITY CIVIL REGISTRAR

FACTS:

Petitioner Julian Lin Carulasan Wang, a minor, represented by his mother Anna Lisa Wang, filed

a petition for change of name and/or correction/cancellation of entry in the Civil Registry ofJulian Lin Carulasan Wang. Petitioner sought to drop his middle name and have his registered

name changed from Julian Lin Carulasan Wang to Julian Lin Wang.

The parents of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang plan to stay in Singapore for a long time because theywill let him study there together with his sister named Wang Mei Jasmine who was born in

Singapore. Since in Singapore middle names or the maiden surname of the mother are not

carried in a persons name, they anticipate that Julian Lin Carulasan Wang will be discriminated

against because of his current registered name which carries a middle name. Julian and his sistermight also be asking whether they are brother and sister since they have different surnames.


3/14

Carulasan sounds funny in Singapores Mandarin language since they do not have the letter R

but if there is, they pronounce it as L. It is for these reasons that the name of Julian Lin

Carulasan Wang is requested to be changed to Julian Lin Wang.

RTC denied the petition.

ISSUE:

a. Is change of name a matter of right?

b. What are the valid grounds for change of name?

c. Can a middle name be dropped?

HELD:

a. A change of name is a privilege and not a right, so that before a person can be authorizedto change his name given him either in his certificate of birth or civil registry, he must

show proper or reasonable cause, or any compelling reason which may justify such

change

b. The touchstone for the grant of a change of name is that there be proper and reasonable

cause for which the change is sought. To justify a request for change of name, petitioner

must show not only some proper or compelling reason therefore but also that he will be

prejudiced by the use of his true and official name. Among the grounds for change ofname which have been held valid are: (a) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or

extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (b) when the change results as a legal

consequence, as in legitimation; (c) when the change will avoid confusion; (d) when onehas continuously used and been known since childhood by a Filipino name, and was

unaware of alien parentage; (e) a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of

former alienage, all in good faith and without prejudicing anybody; and (f) when thesurname causes embarrassment and there is no showing that the desired change of name

was for a fraudulent purpose or that the change of name would prejudice public interest.

c. Middle names serve to identify the maternal lineage or filiation of a person as well as

further distinguish him from others who may have the same given name and surname ashe has.

4. Importance of the publication of order

Republic vs. Hernandez 258 SCRA 509

5. Requisites of a valid publication

REPUBLIC vs. ROSELIE ELOISA BRINGAS BOLANTE a.k.a. MARIA ELOISA

BRINGAS BOLANTE


4/14

G.R. No. 160597, July 20, 2006

FACTS: A petition for change of name was commenced by respondent Roselie Eloisa BringasBolante also known as Maria Eloisa Bringas Bolante on October 18, 2000.

In her petition before the RTC, respondent alleged, among other things, the following:1. That she is a Filipino, of legal age, married, born to spouses Floriano B. Bolante

and Paula B. Bringas and a resident since birth of Bangued, Abra;

2. That per records in the Office of the Municipal Civil Registrar, Bangued, Abra,

her registered name is Roselie Eloisa Bringas Bolante which name, as far as she canremember, she did not use but instead the name Maria Eloisa Bringas Bolante;

3. That the name Maria Eloisa appears in all her school as well as in her other public

and private records; and

4. That her married name is Maria Eloisa B. Bolante-Marbella.

Thus, to prevent confusion, Ms. Bolante prayed that her registered name be changed to conformto the name she has always carried and used.

The trial court ordered respondent, as petitioner, to comply with the jurisdictional requirements

of notice and publication, and set the hearing on February 20, 2001.

At the scheduled February 20, 2001 initial hearing, the trial court issued an Order giving

respondent five (5) days within which to file a written formal offer of evidence to establish

jurisdictional facts and set the presentation of evidence proper on March 26, 2001.

On June 5, 2001, the branch clerk of court, acting upon the trial court's express March 26, 2001

directive for a resetting, issued a notice for a July 18, 2001 hearing. Following another resetting,what actually would be the initial hearing was, after notice, scheduled on September 25, 2001and actually held. At that session, respondent presented and marked in evidence several

documents without any objection on the part of petitioner Republic, represented by the Office of

the Solicitor General (OSG), thru the duly deputized provincial prosecutor of Abra.

Shortly after the trial court has declared its acquisition of jurisdiction over the case, respondent

took the witness stand to state that the purpose of her petition was to have her registered namechanged to that which she had actually been using thru the years. She also categorically stated

she had not been accused of any crime under either her registered name or her present correct

name.

On cross she stated that the purpose of filing the petition is that, she wanted to secure a passport

and wanted that the same be issued in her correct name and that she would not have filed the

petition was it not for the passport. On clarificatory question by the Court she said that her reasonin filing the petition is her realization that there will be a complication upon her retirement.

On January 23, 2002, the trial court rendered judgment granting the basic petition.


5/14

In time, the Republic, through the OSG, went to the Court of Appeals and the latter affirmed the

decision of the trial court.

ISSUE: WON respondent's substantial compliance with sec. 3, rule 103 of the rules of court is

sufficient to vest the trial court with jurisdiction to take cognizance of the petition a quo?

HELD:

YES. There is a substantial compliance with Sec. 3, Rule 103 of the rules of court with respect tothe jurisdictional requirements of notice and publication in Petition for Change of Name.

Sections 2 and 3, Rule 103 of the Rules of Court prescribe the procedural and jurisdictional

requirements for a change of name. In Republic v. Hon. Judge of Branch III of the CFI of Cebu,citing pertinent jurisprudence, non-compliance with these requirements would be fatal to the

jurisdiction of the lower court to hear and determine a petition for change of name.

SEC. 2. Contents of petition. - A petition for change of name shall be signed and verified by theperson 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, .

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.

As gleaned from the records, the basic petition for change of name was filed on October 18,

2000 and set for hearing on February 20, 2001. The notice of hearing was published in the

November 23, and 30, 2000 and December 7, 2000 issues of the Norluzonian Courier. Countedfrom the last day, December 7, 2000, of publication of the Order, the initial hearing scheduled on

February 20, 2001 is indeed within the four-month prohibited period prescribed under Section 3,

Rule 103 of the Rules. The Court, as did the CA, must emphasize, however, that the trial court,evidently upon realizing the error committed respecting the 4-month limitation, lost no time in

rectifying its mistake by rescheduling, with due notice to all concerned, the initial hearing for

several times, finally settling for September 25, 2001.

In the context of Section 3, Rule 103 of the Rules, publication is valid if the following requisites

concur: (1) the petition and the copy of the order indicating the date and place for the hearing

must be published; (2) the publication must be at least once a week for three successive weeks;


6/14

and, (3) the publication must be in some newspaper of general circulation published in the

province, as the court shall deem best. Another validating ingredient relates to the caveat against

the petition being heard within 30 days prior to an election or within four (4) months after thelast publication of the notice of the hearing.

It cannot be over-emphasized that in a petition for change of name, any interested person mayappear at the hearing and oppose the petition. Likewise, the Solicitor General or his deputy shall

appear on behalf of the Government. The government, as an agency of the people, represents the

public and, therefore, the Solicitor General, who appears on behalf of the government,effectively represents the public. In this case, the Solicitor General deputized the provincial

prosecutor of Abra for the purpose of appearing in the trial on his behalf. As it were, the

provincial prosecutor of Abra was fully apprised of the new dates of the initial hearing.

Accordingly, there was no actual need for a republication of the initial notice of the hearing.

Furthermore, during the September 25, 2001 initial hearing which, to reiterate is already outside

the 4-month limitation prescribed by the Rules, the provincial prosecutor of Abra interposed no

objection as to the genuineness, authenticity, relevancy or sufficiency of the exhibits presented toprove the jurisdictional requirements exacted by the Rules. In a very real sense, therefore, the

petitioner Republic fully and knowingly acquiesced in the jurisdiction of the trial court. Thepeculiar circumstances obtaining in this case and the requirements of fair dealing demand that we

accord validity to the proceedings a quo.

5. Consequence of a grant to change name

Ang Chay et. al. vs. RepublicG.R. No. L-28507 July 31, 1970

FACTS:

Josefina Ang Chay and Mercedita Ang Chay prayed for the change of their respective names toJosefina Hernandez and Mercedita Hernandez, upon allegations that ;they were both of legal age,

single and residents of San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City, at least years prior to the filing ofthe petition; that having elected Philippine citizenship on 7 February 1966, they would like to use

Filipino names by having their surnames "Ang Chay changed to "Hernandez", the surname that

they have been using from the time they started schooling until they finished their studies andwent into employment, and by which surname they have come to be known by everybody.

Hernandez was the surname of their mothers first husband but the two petitioners were

daughters of the former by her second marriage to a certain Alejandro Ang Chay.

ISSUE: WON petitioners continue to use the surname Hernandez?

HELD:

There is valid reason to justify the continued use by petitioners of the names by which they have

been known, and with which they have always conducted, in good faith, their various social and

business activities. Petitioners had no knowledge that their father is a Chinese and that their

surnames properly should be Ang Chay.


7/14

Petitioners have been carrying the family name, "Hernandez"; that they finished their schooling

and got employments, voted in the local and national elections, and paid their income taxes,

under that surname. it is not difficult to understand that for them to start using the family name"Ang Chay at this time would cause no little amount of confusion and trouble in the lives of

these girls, who do not appear to have any hand at all in creating the situation they now find

themselves in. Besides there is nothing on the record to intimate that herein petitioners' use of thesurname "Hernandez" would cause damage or prejudice, either to the government or to any other

private party, including their mother's children by the first marriage. For, as this Court has

succinctly declared, a mere change of name would not cause a change in one's existing familyrelations, nor create new family rights and duties where none exists before. Neither would it

affect a person's legal capacity, civil status or citizenship. What would only be altered is the word

or group of words by which he is identified and distinguished from the rest of his fellow men.

In The Matter Of The Change Of Names Of Secan Kok And Marilyn Se, Secan Kok vs.

Republic Of The Philippines G.R. No. L-27621 August 30, 1973

FACTS:

Appelee Secan Kok filed a petition to change his name and that of his daughter Marilyn Se

respectively to Antonio Cuakok and Gloria Cuakok, although his petition mentions his other

minor children, namely Perfecto, Romeo, Betty, Tomas, Daniel and Antonio, Jr.

RTC granted the name as prayed for. The name of the petitioner, Secan Kok, is hereby changed

to Antonio Cuakok Petitioner's daughter's name, Marilyn, is hereby changed to Gloria Cuakok.

On January 7, 1966, petitioner-appellee filed a motion for supplemental judgment, alleging that

the Bureau of Immigration refused to change the surname of his wife Lucia O. Tee and their

aforesaid six (6) minor children to Cuakok who were then registered in the Bureau ofImmigration with the surname of Cua.

On January 10, 1966, the government, thru the Assistant City Fiscal, opposed the motion on the

ground that (a) the order dated July 28, 1965 of the trial court authorizing the change of his namefrom Secan Kok to Antonio Cuakok, and the name of his daughter from Marilyn Se to Gloria

Cuakok has long become final and therefore can no longer be supplemented; and (b) that his wife

Lucia O. Tee, being of age, should file a separate petition to change her name, such a petitionbeing an individual and personal matter and not a collective one.

On February 4, 1966, petitioner-appellee replied to the said opposition contending that legitimate

children shall principally use the surname of their father (Article 264, Civil Code of thePhilippines) and that the wife has the right to use the surname of her husband (Article 370, CivilCode)

On February 28, 1966, the court set the hearing of the motion for the reception of evidence on

the full identity of appellee's wife and six (6) minor children.

In an order dated March 30, 1966, the court granted the motion for supplemental judgment.


8/14

ISSUE: WON wife Lucia O. Tee, being of age, should file a separate petition to change her

name?

HELD:

The rules are very explicit. Section 2 of Rule 103 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that apetition for a change of name shall be signed and verified by the person desiring his name to be

changed, or some other person in his behalf. There is need therefore for a separate petition to be

filed by the wife Lucia O. Tee, who is already of age, in her own behalf and in behalf of herminor children.

Then again, to confer jurisdiction on the court, since petitions for change of name are

proceedings in rem, strict compliance with the requirements is essential, namely, that such

verified petition should be published for three (3) successive weeks in some newspapers ofgeneral circulation in the province; and that both the title or caption of the petition and its body

shall recite (1) the name or names or aliases of the applicant; (2) the cause for which the change

of name is sought; and (3) the name or names or aliases of the applicant; (2) the cause for whichthe change of name is sought; and (3) the new name asked for. The reason for these requirements

is that a change of name is a matter of public interest. The petitioner might be in, the rogues'

gallery or hiding to avoid service of sentence or compliance with a judgment in a criminal case,

or could have escaped from prison; or if an alien, he might have given cause for deportation ormight be one against whom an order of deportation was issued or that the new name the

petitioner desires to adopt may be similar to that of a respectable person and the latter might have

evidence that petitioner is of unsavory reputation that might impair his own good name. Being aprivilege and not a right, a change of name lies within the discretion of the court give or

withhold. Failure to comply with these jurisdictional requirements, renders the proceedings a

nullity.

To allow the change of name of the wife and other minor children of petitioner-appellee, upon amere motion as an incident in the proceedings for the change of name of petitioner-appellee, will

not only deprive the government of the required filing fees therefor but will also dispense with

the aforesaid essential requirements respecting the recitals in the title of the petition and thepublication to apprise persons, who may be in possession of adverse information or evidence

against the grant of the petition, so that they will come forward with such information or

evidence in order to protect public interest as well as the interest of private individuals who maybe prejudiced by the change of name of the petitioner.

6. Whom to implead as an indispensable party in a petition of change of name of a minor

Republic vs. Carlito et.al

FACTS:


9/14

Carlito and his siblings Michael, Mercy Nona and Heddy Moira filed before the RTC of Butuan

City a verified petition for correction of entries in the civil registry of Butuan City to effect

changes in their respective birth certificates. Carlito also asked the court in behalf of his minorchildren, Kevin and Kelly, born in 1991 and 1993 respectively, to order the correction of some

entries in their birth certificates.

With respect to the birth certificates of Carlitos children, he prayed that the date of his and his

wifes marriage be corrected from April 27, 1989 to January 21, 2000 (his first marriage was still

subsisting in 1989 and was annulled only in 1999), the date appearing in their marriagecertificate and the name of his wife Maribel be changed to Marivel.

RTC ordered the local civil registry to correct the entries sought to be changed and the CA

affirmed said decision.

ISSUE: WON there is a need to impleadthe minors mother, Marivel, as an indispensable party?

HELD:

It is not necessary for Marivel to be impleaded as an indispensable party.

In Barco v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that the publication of the order of

hearing under Section 4 of Rule 108 cured the failure to implead an indispensable

party.

The essential requisite for allowing substantial corrections ofentries in the civil registry is that the true facts be established in an

appropriate adversarial proceeding. This is embodied in Section 3, Rule

108 of the Rules of Court, which states:

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.

It seems highly improbable that Marivel was unaware of the proceedings to correct the entries inher childrens birth certificates, especially since the notices, orders and decision of the trial

court were all sent to the residence she shared with Carlito and the children.

7. Change of name of unrecognized child


10/14

Republic vs. Capote (page 230)

RULE 108

1. How may correction of entries be effected? What kind of proceedings?

Lee vs. CA (page 262)

FACTS:

Private respondents are the children of Lee Tek Sheng and his lawful wife, Keh Shiok Cheng.

The petitioners are allegedly children of Lee Tek Sheng and his concubine, Tiu Chuan.

Respondents filed two (2) separate petitions for the cancellation and/or correction of entries in

the records of birth petitioners with the exception of Emma Lee before the RTC of Manila. Asimilar petition was filed against Emma Lee before the RTC of Kalookan.

Both petitions sought to cancel and/or correct the false and erroneous entries in all pertinent

records of birth of petitioners by deleting and/or canceling therein the name of "Keh ShiokCheng" as their mother, and by substituting the same with the name "Tiu Chuan", who is

allegedly the petitioners' true birth mother.

The private respondents alleged in their petitions before the trial courts that they are the

legitimate children of spouses Lee Tek Sheng and Keh Shiok Cheng who were legally married inChina sometime in 1931 and petitioners were illegitimate children.

Unknown to Keh Shiok Cheng and private respondents, every time Tiu Chuan gave birth to each

of the petitioners, their common father, Lee Tek Sheng, falsified the entries in the records of

birth of petitioners by making it appear that petitioners' mother was Keh Shiok Cheng.

First petition was dismissed for failure of the petitioners (defendants in the lower court) to appear

at the hearing of the said motion.

On the other hand, the second petition was set for hearing.

Motion for reconsiderations were filed in the respective courts, however, said petitions were

denied and the CA dismissed their petitions as well.

2. If surname is the subject of the correction, can it be done administratively?

In the Matter of the Petition for Correction of the Birth Certificates of Minors, JORGE

BATBATAN and his Sister DELIA BATBATAN, and the corresponding entries thereof

in the Civil Registry of Pagadian , Zamboanga del Sur. ELIGIA BATBATAN vs. OFFICE


11/14

OF THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF PAGADIAN, ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR G.R.

No. L-33724 November 29, 1982

FACTS:

Petitioner Eligia Batbatan is the mother of two children whose names were registered in theoffice of the local civil registrar of Pagadian, Zamboanga del Sur as JORGE Batbatan Ang and

Delia Batbatan Luy.

The surnames of the two children were taken from the name and the alias of their father, Ang

Kiu Chuy, alias Sioma Luy. Eligia Batbatan and Ang Kiu Chuy lived in a common-lawrelationship and were never married.

According to the petitioner, Mr. Ang was married to another woman at the time their children

were born. An elder daughter carried the name Jane Batbatan without the father's surname.

Eligia Batbatan filed this petition for the correction of entries as regards the names of the twochildren who were still minors. The mother wanted the "Ang" and the "Luy" surnames dropped

from her children's names such that their corrected names would be Jorge Batbatan and Delia

Batbatan.

RTC denied the petition because entries in the records of birth in the Office of the local civilregistrar are allowed only to correct clerical errors. Corrections are not allowed when the effect is

to change status, citizenship, or any substantial alterations, which should be decided in an

appropriate proceeding.

ISSUE: WON change of surname can be done administratively?

HELD:

Yes, the change of surname can be done administratively.

The corrections sought in the petition would not change the status, citizenship, genealogical

relationship or filiation of the children nor effect any substantial change or alteration which

should be threshed out in a proper action.

The corrections sought in this petition do not go so far as to affect citizenship or status. The error

committed by the clerk have resulted in entries contrary to law. The changes sought , if granted ,

would bring about a compliance with article 363 of the Civil Code which provides: "Illegitimatechildren referred to in Article 287 shall bear the surnames of the mother." Since the petitionerchildren were born of a married man with a woman not his legitimate spouse and are thus

"spurious or adulterous", they should bear the petitioners or mother surnames pursuant to the

above provisions. The petitioner prayer to strike out the surnames not sanctions by the CivilCode should have been granted by the lower court.

3. Concept of clerical error


12/14

In The Matter Of The Correction Of The Surname Of Cesar Young, As Recorded In The

Registry Of Births Of The Local Civil Registrar Of Manila. Cesar Yu And Dra. Mapalad

Cruz-Yu Vs. The Civil Registrar Of Manila G.R. No. L-36478 April 29, 1983

FACTS:

Petitioners-appellants Cesar Yu and Mapalad Cruz, son and mother, respectively, filed with the

Court of First Instance of Rizal a petition for correction of entry in the Civil Registry of Manila

alleging that both petitioners are residents of San Juan, Rizal; that petitioner Cesar Yu is the sonof petitioner Mapalad Cruz and Aproniano Yu; that Cesar Yu was born at the Sacred Heart

Hospital at Looban, Paco, Manila, on April 2, 1943; that the physician who attended his delivery

erroneously gave the surname "Young" instead of "YU" to the newly born child when the birthof the child was recorded in the Civil Registry of Manila; that the entries in the birth certificate

of Cesar Yu as recorded in the Civil Registry of Manila contain the following entries:

Full Name Cesar Young Name of Father Aproniano Young;

and that these erroneous entries in the birth certificate of Cesar Yu in the Civil Registry of

Manila were due to the mistake of the person who supplied the information to the Local CivilRegistrar of Manila. Petitioner Cesar Yu prays that an order be issued directing the Civil

Registrar of Manila to - correct the erroneous entries in his birth certificate by changing the

surname "YOUNG" to "YU" under the column "Full Name of Child", and the surname "Young"to "Yu" under the column "Father" so that the full name of the petitioner should read "CESAR

YU" instead of "CESAR YOUNG", and that of his father as "Aproniano Yu" instead of

"Aproniano Young."

The RTC dismissed the petition for the petitioners failure to make the Civil Registrar of the City

of Manila a party to the proceedings as provided for in Sections I and 3 of Rule 108 of RC. theRules of Court of the Philippines, this case is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice and without

pronouncement as to costs.

It is the submission of the petitioners that the provisions of Article 412 of the Civil Code shouldapply instead of Sections 1 and 3, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court; that the Local Civil Registrar

of Manila need not be specifically mentioned as party and that the case may be filed in the

residence of the petitioner as provided for in Section 2, Rule 4 of the Rules of Court; and that thecourt a quo acquired jurisdiction by publication because the petition for correction of surname is

by its nature a special proceeding. Further, petitioners contend that Rule 108 of the Rules of

Court contemplates cancellation or correction of an error on a substantial matter in the civil

register and that petitioner Cesar Yu's surname was not entered correctly in the civil register andthe correction may therefore be secured judicially pursuant to Article 412 of the Civil Code in

relation with the general provisions of the Rules of Court in special proceedings.

The opposition of the Solicitor General is based on the ground that the changes sought bypetitioners-appellants cannot be effected by a proceeding under Article 412 of the Civil Code.


13/14

The opposition is well-taken. Article 412 allows correction only of clerical mistakes, not those

substantial changes which may affect the civil status or nationality of the persons involved. (Ty

Kong Tin vs. Republic, L-5609, February 5, 1954; Beduya vs. Republic, 11 SCRA 109). Aclerical 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 (Black v. Republic of the Philippines,

L-10869, November 28, 1958); or some harmless and innocuous changes such as correction of aname that is clearly misspelled or of a misstatement of the occupation of the parties (Ansaldo v.

Republic of the Philippines, L-10226, February 14, 1958).

The correction sought by petitioners-appellants is clearly substantial, not only clerical, affecting

as it does not only their names but also their Identities. Thus, the correction can only be made ina proper proceeding wherein the person concerned (Civil Registrar of Manila) should be made a

party and be given the opportunity to be heard.

Section 1 of Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

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.

and, Section 3 thereof requires that the Civil Registrar and an persons who have or claim any

interest which may be affected thereby shall be made parties to the proceeding. Thus, the petition

must conform and comply with the provisions of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court and, petitionershaving failed to comply with the requirements thereof, the trial court committed no error in

dismissing the petition. The reason why non-clerical mistakes cannot be corrected under the

summary proceeding set by Article 412 of the new Civil Code "lies in the fact that the booksmaking up the Civil Register and all documents relating thereto shall be considered publicdocuments and shall be primar facie evidence of the facts therein contained, (Article 410, new

Civil Code), and if the entries in the civil register could be corrected or changed through a mere

summary proceeding, and not through an appropriate action, wherein all parties who may beaffected by the entries are notified or represented we would set wide open the door to fraud or

other mischief the consequences of which might be detrimental and far reaching. (Ansaldo vs.

Republic, 102 Phil. 1047). "

ACCORDINGLY, the order appealed from is AFFIRMED and the petition is herebyDISMISSED, without pronouncement as to costs.

SOORDERED.

4. Appropriate adversary

People vs. Valencia 141 SCRA 462


14/14

5. Change of sex on grounds of sex change

Silverio vs. Republic (

6. Change of gender from female to male by reason of congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia

Republic vs. Cagandahan (page 255)

7. Proceeding of change of entry of birth certificate

Republic vs. Labrador (page 253)

specpro - change of name

Documents