Remedial Law Cases From Writ of Amparo to Change of Name

7/30/2019 Remedial Law Cases From Writ of Amparo to Change of Name

1/25

MA. LOURDES BARRIENTOS ELEOSIDA, for and in behalf of her minor child, CHARLES CHRISTIAN ELEOSIDA, petitioner,vs.LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF QUEZON CITY, and CARLOS VILLENA BORBON, respondents.

PUNO, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Order1 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 89, which dismissed motu proprio the petition of MaLourdes Eleosida to correct some entries in the birth certificate of her son, Charles Christian. The birth certificate shows, among others, that the child's fullname is Charles Christian Eleosida Borbon. He was born on May 24, 1992 to Ma. Lourdes Barrientos Eleosida and Carlos Villena Borbon. The birth certificatealso indicates that the child's parents were married on January 10, 1985 in Batangas City.2

On January 30, 1997, petitioner Ma. Lourdes Eleosida filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City seeking to correct the following entries inthe birth certificate of her son, Charles Christian: first, the surname "Borbon" should be changed to "Eleosida;" second, the date of the parents' wedding shouldbe left blank; and third, the informant's name should be "Ma. Lourdes B. Eleosida," instead of "Ma. Lour des E. Borbon." In support of her petition, petitioneralleged that she gave birth to her son out of wedlock on May 24, 1992; that she and the boy's father, Carlos Borbon, were never married; and that the child istherefore illegitimate and should follow the mother's surname. The petition impleaded the Local Registrar of Quezon City and Carlos Villena Borbon asrespondents.3

On April 23, 1997, the trial court issued a notice of hearing stating:

"Verified petition having been filed by petitioner Ma. Lourdes Barrientos Eleosida, praying that the entries in the Certificate of Live Birth of her minor child,Charles Christian Eleosida Borbon, be changed and/or corrected, such that, his last name BORBON be deleted and instead place therein the name ELEOSIDA,which is the surname of his mother-petitioner; the entry "January 10, 1985 Batangas City", be likewise deleted, since the petitioner and respondent CarlosVillena Borbon, at the time of the minor's birth were not legally married; and the surname BORBON of p etitioner Ma. Lourdes E. Borbon under the columnInformant, be also deleted;

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that this petition is set for hearing on June 26, 1997 at 8:30 o'clock in the morning, in the Session Hall of this Court sitting at the

Ground Floor, Room 118, Hall of Justice, Quezon City, which is ordered published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks, in a newspaper of generalcirculation and published in Metro Manila, to be selected by raffle, at the expense of the petitioner, at which date, time and place, the petitioner shall appearand prove her petition, in that all other persons having or claiming any interest thereon shall also appear and show cause why, if any, they have, the petitionshall not be granted.1wphi1.nt

Let copies of this notice be furnished the petitioner, and together with copies of the petition, respondent Carlos Villena Borbon; the Offices of the Local CivilRegistrar of Quezon City and the Solicitor General, who are given fifteen (15) days from notice of the petition, or from the last date of publication of suchnotice, within which to file their opposition thereto, if any. In the event that the Solicitor General may not be able to appear on the scheduled hearing, todesignate the City Prosecutor of Quezon City to appear for and in behalf of the State.

SO ORDERED."4

On June 26, 1997, the trial court issued another order setting the date for the presentation of evidence on July 23, 1997. It stated:

"Considering that there is no opposition filed despite notice to the Solicitor General as contained in the notice of hearing dated April 23, 1997 requiring thatoffice to file their opposition, if any, to the petition for correction of entries in the birth certificate of minor child Charles Christian Eleosida, the petitioner will

be allowed to present compliance with the jurisdictional requirements and at the same time initially present evidence on July 23, 1997, at 8:30 o'clock in themorning."5

On August 25, 1997, the trial court motu proprio dismissed the petition for lack of merit. It ruled:

"It is an established jurisprudence that, only CLERICAL ERRORS OF A HARMLESS AND INNOCUOUS NATURE like: misspelled name, occupation of the parents,etc., may be the subject of a judicial order (contemplated under Article 412 of the New Civil Code), authorizing changes or corrections and: NOT as may affectthe CIVIL STATUS, NATIONALITY OR CITIZENSHIP OF THE PERSONS INVOLVED.

In the present case, it is very clear that the changes desired by the petitioner will ultimately affect the CIVIL STATUS OF CHARLES CHRISTIAN, as she wantsthe Court to Direct the Civil Registrar of Quezon City to substitute her maiden name, ELEOSIDA, with that of BORBON; to delete the information supplied inITEM 12, respecting the date and place of marriage of parents, on the ground that she was never married to respondent CARLOS VILLENA BORBON andamend the information in ITEM 14, respecting the name of the informant, from MA. LOURDES E. BORBON to MA. LOURDES B. ELEOSIDA, and is indicative ofpetitioner's intention and device to establish that CHARLES CHRISTIAN's civil status as ILLEGITIMATE.

With the petition's ultimate purpose on the part of petitioner to secure judicial order, which would authorize a change in the civil status of CHARLES

CHRISTIAN, this Court, finds the action improper. The matters desired to be cancelled and/or changed by petitioner cannot be considered falling under theambit of the words 'clerical errors of a harmless and innocuous nature.'

WHEREFORE, for LACK OF MERIT, the petition is now MOTU PROPIO (sic) dismissed."6

Petitioner fled the instant petition for review raising the issue of whether corrections of entries in the certificate of live birth pursuant to Article 412 of theCivil Code, in relation to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court may be allowed even if the errors to be corrected are substantial and not merely clerical errors of aharmless and innocuous nature.7

The Court required the respondents to comment on the petition. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a Manifestation in Lieu of Comment. The OSGsubmitted that even substantial errors in the civil registry may be corrected provided that the parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves of theappropriate adversary proceeding. Thus it argued that even if the petition seeks the correction and eventual change in the civil status of Charles Christian, thesame can be ordered by the court as long as all the parties who may be affected by the entries are notified and represented.8 Respondent Carlos Borbon, onthe other hand, failed to submit his comment on the petition despite several notices from this Court. Hence, on January 24, 2 001, the Court dispensed with thefiling of respondent Borbon's comment and gave due course to the petition.9


2/25

We find merit in the petition. Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court provides the procedure for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry. Theproceedings under said rule may either be summary or adversary in nature. If the correction sought to be made in the civil register is clerical, then theprocedure to be adopted is summary. If the rectification affects the civil status, citizenship or nationality of a party, it is deemed substantial, and the procedureto be adopted is adversary.10 This is our ruling in Republic vs. Valencia11 where we held that even substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected andthe true facts established under Rule 108 provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding. Anappropriate adversary suit or proceeding is one where the trial court has conducted proceedings where all relevant facts have been fully and properlydeveloped, where opposing counsel have been given opportunity to demolish the opposite party's case, and where the evidence has been thoroughly weighedand considered. The Court further laid down the procedural requirements to make the proceedings under Rule 108 adversary, thus:

"The pertinent sections of Rule 108 provide:

SEC. 3. Parties.When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register is sought, the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interestwhich would be affected thereby shall be made parties to the proceeding.1wphi1.nt

SEC. 4. Notice and publication.Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall, by an order, fix the time and place for the hearing of the same, and causereasonable 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 93)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, withinfifteen (15) days from notice, file his opposition thereto.

Thus, the persons who must be made parties to a proceeding concerning the cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register are(1) the civilregistrar, and (2) all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby. Upon the filing of the petition, it becomes the duty of the courtto(1) issue an order fixing the time and place for the hearing of the petition, and (2) cause the order for hearing to be published once a week for three (3)consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province. The following are likewise entitled to oppose the petition:--(1) the civil registrar, and(2) any person having or claiming any interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought.

If all these procedural requirements have been followed, a petition for correction and/or cancellation of entries in the record of birth even if filed andconducted under Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court can no longer be described as 'summary'. xxx"12

It is true in the case at bar that the changes sought to be made by petitioner are not merely clerical or harmless errors but substantial ones as they wouldaffect the status of the marriage between petitioner and Carlos Borbon, as well as the legitimacy of their son, Charles Christian. Changes of such nature,however, are now allowed under Rule 108 in accordance with our ruling in Republic vs. Valencia provided that the appropriate procedural requirements arecomplied with. The records show that upon receipt of the petition, the trial court issued a notice of hearing setting the hearing on June 26, 1997 at 8:30 in themorning at Room 118, Hall of Justice, Quezon City. The trial court likewise ordered the publication of said notice once a week for three (3) consecutive weeksin a newspaper of general circulation and its posting in selected places in Metro Manila. The notice stated that the petitioner shall prove her petition duringsaid hearing and all other persons having or claiming any interest thereon shall also appear and show if there is any reason why the petition should not begranted. Respondents Carlos Villena Borbon, the Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City and the Solicitor General were all furnished with a copy of the notice ofhearing together with a copy of the petition. On June 26, 1997, the trial court issued a second order giving the petitioner an opportunity to show compliancewith the jurisdictional requirements and to present evidence during the hearing set on July 23, 1997. The foregoing satisfy all the requirements of Rule 108 tomake it an adversary proceeding. It was therefore an error for the trial court to dismiss the petition motu proprio without allowing the petitioner to presentevidence to support her petition and all the other persons who have an interest over the matter to oppose the same.1wphi1.nt

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is GRANTED and the Order dated August 25, 1997 of the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 89, subject of the petition at bar is setaside. The case is REMANDED to the court a quo for further proceedings.

SO ORDERED.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs.CARLITO I. KHO, MICHAEL KHO, MERCY NONA KHO-FORTUN, HEDDY MOIRA KHO-SERRANO, KEVIN DOGMOC KHO (Minor), and KELLY DOGMOC KHO(Minor), respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

Challenged via petition for review on certiorari is the October 27, 2005 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 78124 which affirmed theSeptember 4, 2002 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Butuan City, Branch 5 granting the prayer of respondents Carlito I. Kho (Carlito), Michael

Kho, Mercy Nona Kho-Fortun, and Heddy Moira Kho-Serrano for the correction of entries in their birth certificates as well as those of Carlitos minor childrenKevin and Kelly Dogmoc Kho.

The undisputed facts are as follows:

On February 12, 2001, Carlito and his siblings Michael, Mercy Nona and Heddy Moira filed before the RTC of Butuan City a verified petition for correction ofentries in the civil registry of Butuan City to effect changes in their respective birth certificates. Carlito also asked the court in behalf of his minor children,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 his mother to "Filipino" instead of "Chinese," as well as thedeletion of the word "married" opposite the phrase "Date of marriage of parents" because his parents, Juan Kho and Epifania I nchoco (Epifania), wereallegedly 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.


3/25

With respect to the birth certificates of Carlitoschildren, he prayed that the date of his and his wifes marriage be corrected from April 27, 1989 to January 212000, the date appearing in their marriage certificate.

The Local Civil Registrar of Butuan City was impleaded as respondent.

On April 23, 2001, Carlito et al. filed an Amended Petition3 in which it was additionally prayed that Carlitos second name of "John" be deleted from his recordof birth; and that the name and citizenship of Carlitos father in his (Carlitos) marr iage certificate be corrected from "John Kho" to "Juan Kho" and "Filipino" to"Chinese," respectively.

As required, the petition was published for three consecutive weeks4 in Mindanao Daily Patrol-CARAGA, a newspaper of general circulation, after which it wasset for hearing on August 9, 2001.

In a letter of June 18, 2001 addressed to the trial court, the city civil registrar5 stated her observations and suggestions to the proposed corrections in thebirth records of Carlito and his siblings but interposed no objections to the other amendments.

On the scheduled hearing of the petition on August 9, 2001, only the counsel for respondents appeared as the Office of the So licitor General (OSG) had yet toenter its appearance for the city civil registrar. The trial court thus reset the hearing to October 9, 2001.6 On September 14, 2001,7 the OSG entered itsappearance with an authorization to the city prosecutor of Butuan City to appear in the case and render assistance to it (the OSG).

On January 31, 2002, respondents presented documentary evidence showing compliance with the jurisdictional requirements of the petition. They alsopresented testimonial evidence consisting of the testimonies of Carlito and his mother, Epifania. During the same hearing, an additional correction in the birthcertificates of Carlitos children was requested to the effect that the first name of their mother be rectified from "Maribel" to "Marivel."

By Decision8 of September 4, 2002, the trial court directed the local civil registrar of Butuan City to correct the entries in the record of birth of Carlito, asfollows: (1) change the citizenship of his mother from "Chinese" to "Filipino"; (2) delete "John" from his name; and (3) delete the word "married" opposite thedate of marriage of his parents. The last correction was ordered to be effected likewise in the birth certificates of respondents Michael, Mercy Nona, andHeddy Moira.

Additionally, the trial court ordered the correction of the birth certificates of the minor children of Carlito to reflect the date of marriage of Carlito and MarivelDogmoc (Marivel) as January 21, 2000, instead of April 27, 1989, and the name "Maribel" as "Marivel."

With respect to the marriage certificate of Carlito and Marivel, the corrections ordered pertained to the alteration of the name of Carlitos father from "JohnKho" to "Juan Kho" and the latters cit izenship from "Filipino" to "Chinese."

Petitioner, Republic of the Philippines, appealed the RTC Decision to the CA, faulting the trial court in granting the petition for correction of entries in thesubject documents despite the failure of respondents to implead the minors mother, Marivel, as an indispensable party and to offer sufficient evidence towarrant the corrections with regard to the questioned "married" status of Carlito and his siblings parents, and the latters citizenship.

Petitioner also faulted the trial court for ordering the change of the name "Carlito John Kho" to "Carlito Kho" for non-compliance with jurisdictionalrequirements for a change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court.

By the assailed Decision of October 27, 2005, the CA denied petitioners appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial court.

The CA found that Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court, which outlines the proper procedure for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry,was observed in the case.

Regarding Carlitos minor children Kevin and Kelly, the appellate court held that the correction of their mothers first name from "Maribel" to "Marivel" wasmade to rectify an innocuous error.

As for the change in the date of the marriage of Carlito and Marivel, albeit the CA conceded that it is a substantial alteration, it held that the date would notaffect the minors filiation from "legitimate" to "illegitimate" considering that at the time of their respective births in 1991 and 1993, their father Carlitos first

marriage was still subsisting as it had been annulled only in 1999.

In light of Carlitos legal impediment to marry Marivel at the time they were born, their children Kevin and Kelly were illegitimate. It followed, the CA went onto state, that Marivel was not an indispensable party to the case, the minors having been represented by their father as required under Section 5 of Rule 39 ofthe Revised Rules of Court.

Further, the CA ruled that although Carlito failed to observe the requirements of Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, he had complied nonetheless with thejurisdictional requirements for correction of entries in the civil registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. The petition for correction of entry in Carlitos

birth record, it noted, falls under letter "o" of the enumeration under Section 2 of Rule 108.

In the present petition, petitioner contends that since the changes sought by respondents were substantial in nature, they could only be granted through anadversarial proceeding in which indispensable parties, such as Marivel and respondents parents, should have been notified or impleaded.

Petitioner further contends that the jurisdictional requirements to change Carlitos name under Section 2 of Rule 103 of the Rules of Court were not satisfiedbecause the Amended Petition failed to allege Carlitos prior three-year bona fide residence in Butuan City, and that the title of the petition did not stateCarlitos aliases and his true name as "Carlito John I. Kho." Petitioner concludes that the same jurisdictional defects attached to the change of name of Carlitos

father.

The petition fails.

It can not be gainsaid that the petition, insofar as it sought to change the citizenship of Carlitos mother as it appeared in his birth certificate and delete the"married" status of Carlitos parents in his and his siblings respective birth certificates, as well as change the date of marriage of Carlito and Marivel involvesthe correction of not just clerical errors of a harmless and innocuous nature.10 Rather, the changes entail substantial and controversial amendments.


4/25

For the change involving the nationality of Carlitos mother as reflected in his birth certificate is a grave and important matter that has a bearing and effect onthe citizenship and nationality not only of the parents, but also of the offspring.11

Further, the deletion of the entry that Carlitos and his siblings parents were "married" alters their filiation from "legitimate" to "illegitimate," with significantimplications on their successional and other rights.

Clearly, the changes sought can only be granted in an adversary proceeding. Labayo-Rowe v. Republic12 explains the raison d etre:

x x x. The philosophy behind this requirement lies in the fact that the books making up the civil register and all documents relating thereto shall be prima facieevidence of the facts therein contained. If the entries in the civil register could be corrected or changed through mere summary proceedings and not throughappropriate 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. x x x (Emphasis supplied)

In Republic v. Valencia,13 however, this Court ruled, and has since repeatedly ruled, that even substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected through apetition filed under Rule 108.14

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 involvingnationality 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 theprinciple that even substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected and the true facts established provided the parties aggrieved by the error availthemselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding.

x x x x

What is meant by "appropriate adversary proceeding?" Blacks Law Dictionary defines "adversary proceeding["] as follows:

One having opposing parties; contested, as distinguished from an ex parte application, one of which the party seeking relief has given legal warning to the

other party, and afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it. x x x 15 (Emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)

The enactment in March 2001 of Republic Act No. 9048, otherwise known as "An Act Authorizing the City or Municipal Civil Registrar or the Consul General toCorrect 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 beenconsidered to lend legislative affirmation to the judicial precedence that substantial corrections to the civil sta tus of persons recorded in the civil registry maybe effected through the filing of a petition under Rule 108.16

Thus, this Court in Republic v. Benemerito17 observed that the obvious effect of Republic Act No. 9048 is to make possible the administrative correction ofclerical 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 inthe civil registry in appropriate adversarial proceedings.

When all the procedural requirements under Rule 108 are thus followed, the appropriate adversary proceeding necessary to effect substantial corrections tothe entries of the civil register is satisfied.18 The pertinent provisions of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court read:

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 interestwhich would be affected thereby shall be made parties to the proceeding.

SEC. 4. Notice and publication. Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall, by an order, fix the time and place for the hearing of the same, and causereasonable 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 of publication of such notice, file his opposition thereto. (Emphasis and underscoringsupplied)

There is no dispute that the trial courts Order19 setting the petition for hearing and directing any person or entity having interest in the petition to oppose itwas posted20 as well as published for the required period; that notices of hearings were duly served on the Solicitor General, the city prosecutor of Butuanand the local civil registrar; and that trial was conducted on January 31, 2002 during which the public prosecutor, acting in behalf of the OSG, activelyparticipated by cross-examining Carlito and Epifania.

What surfaces as an issue is whether the failure to implead Marivel and Carlitos parents rendered the trial short of the required adversary proceeding and thetrial courts judgment void.

A similar issue was earlier raised in Barco v. Court of Appeals.21 That case stemmed from a petition for correction of entries in the birth certificate of a minor,June Salvacion Maravilla, to reflect the name of her real father (Armando Gustilo) and to correspondingly change her surname. The petition was granted bythe trial court.

Barco, whose minor daughter was alleged ly fathered also by Gustilo, however, sought to annul the trial courts decision, claiming that she should have beenmade a party to the petition for correction. Failure to implead her deprived the RTC of jurisdiction, she contended.

In dismissing Barcos petition, this Court held that the publication of the order of hearing under Section 4 of Rule 108 cured the failure to implead anindispensable party.

The essential requisite for allowing substantial corrections of entries in the civil registry is that the true facts be established in an appropriate adversarialproceeding. 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 interestwhich would be affected thereby shall be made parties to the proceeding.


5/25

x x x x

Undoubtedly, Barco is among the parties referred to in Section 3 of Rule 108. Her interest was affected by the petition for correction, as any judicialdetermination that June was the daughter of Armando would affect her wards share in the estate of her father. x x x.

Yet, even though Barco was not impleaded in the petition, the Court of Appeals correctly pointed out that the defect was cured by compliance with Section 4,Rule 108, which requires notice by publication x x x.

x x x x

The purpose precisely of Section 4, Rule 108 is to bind the whole world to the subsequent judgment on the petition. The sweep of the decision would covereven parties who should have been impleaded under Section 3, Rule 108, but were inadvertently left out. x x x

x x x x

Verily, a petition for correction is an action in rem, an action against a thing and not against a person. The decision on the petition binds not only the partiesthereto but the whole world. An in rem proceeding is validated essentially through publication. Publication is notice to the whole world that the proceedinghas for its object to bar indefinitely all who might be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established. It is the publication ofsuch notice that brings in the whole world as a party in the case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it.22

Given the above ruling, it becomes unnecessary to rule on whether Marivel or respondents parents should have been impleaded as parties to the proceeding.It may not be amiss to mention, however, that during the hearing on January 31, 2002, the city prosecutor who was acting as representative of the OSG did notraise any objection to the non-inclusion of Marivel and Carlitos parents as parties to the proceeding.

Parenthetically, it seems highly improbable that Marivel was unaware of the proceedings to correct the entries in her childrens birth certificates, especiallysince the notices, orders and decision of the trial court eHe were all sent to the residence23 she shared with Carlito and the children.

It is also well to remember that the role of the court in hearing a petition to correct certain entries in the civil registry is to ascertain the truth about the factsrecorded therein.24

With respect to the date of marriage of Carlito and Marivel, their certificate of marriage25 shows that indeed they were married on January 21, 2000, not onApril 27, 1989. Explaining the error, Carlito declared that the date "April 27, 1989" was supplied by his helper, adding that he was not married to Marivel atthe time his sons were born because his previous marriage was annulled only in 1999.26 Given the evidence presented by respondents, the CA observed thatthe minors were illegitimate at birth, hence, the correction would bring about no change at all in the nature of their filiation.

With respect to Carlitos mother, it bears noting that she declared at the witness stand that she was not married to Juan Kho who died in 1959.27 Again, thattestimony was not challenged by the city prosecutor.

The documentary evidence supporting the deletion from Carlitos and his siblings birth certificates of the entry "Married" opposite the date of marriage of

their parents, moreover, consisted of a certification issued on November 24, 1973 by St. Joseph (Butuan City) Parish priest Eugene van Vught stating that JuanKho and Epifania had been living together as common law couple since 1935 but have never contracted marriage legally.28

A certification from the office of the city registrar, which was appended to respondents Amended Petition, likewise stated that it has no record of marriagebetween Juan Kho and Epifania.29 Under the circumstances, the deletion of the word "Married" opposite the "date of marriage of parents" is warranted.

With respect to the correction in Carlitos birth certificate of his name from "Carlito John" to "Carlito," the same was properly granted under Rule 108 of theRules of Court. As correctly pointed out by the CA, the cancellation or correction of entries involving changes of name falls under letter "o" of the followingprovision of Section 2 of Rule 108:30

Section 2. Entries subject to cancellation or correction. Upon good and valid grounds, the following entries in the civil register may be cancelled orcorrected: (a) births; (b) marriages; (c) deaths; (d) legal separation; (e) judgments of annulment of marriage; (f) judgments declaring marriages void from thebeginning; (g) legitimations; (h) adoptions; (i) acknowledgments of natural children; (j) naturalization; (k) election, loss or recovery of citizenship; (l) civilinterdiction; (m) judicial determination of filiation; (n) voluntary emancipation of a minor; and (o) changes of name. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Hence, while the jurisdictional requirements of Rule 103 (which governs petitions for change of name) were not complied with, observance of the provisionsof Rule 108 suffices to effect the correction sought for.

More importantly, Carlitos official transcript of record from the Urious College in Butuan City,31 certificate of eligibility from the Civil Service Commission,32

and voter registration record33 satisfactorily show that he has been known by his first name only. No prejudice is thus likely to arise from the dropping of thesecond name.

The correction of the mothers citizenship from Chinese to Filipino as appearing in Carlitos birth record was also proper. Of note is the fact that during the

cross examination by the city prosecutor of Epifania, he did not deem fit to question her citizenship. Such failure to oppose the correction prayed for, whichcertainly was not respondents fault, does not in any way change the adversarial nature of the proceedings.

Also significant to note is that the birth certificates of Carlitos siblings uniformly stated the citizenship of Epifania as "Filipino." To disallow the correction inCarlitos birth record of his mothers citizenship would perpetuate an inconsistency in the natal circumstances of the siblings who are unquestionably born ofthe same mother and father.

Outside the ambit of substantial corrections, of course, is the correction of the name of Carlitos wife from "Maribel" to "Marivel." The mistake is clearly clericaor typographical, which is not only visible to the eyes, but is also obvious to the understanding34 considering that the name reflected in the marriagecertificate of Carlito and his wife is "Marivel."


6/25

Apropos is Yu v. Republic35 which held that changing the appellants Christian name of "Sincio" to "Sencio" amounts merely to the righting of a clerical error.The change of name from Beatriz Labayo/Beatriz Labayu to Emperatriz Labayo was also held to be a mere innocuous alteration, which can be granted througha summary proceeding.36 The same ruling holds true with respect to the correction in Carlitos marriage certificate of his fathers name from "John Kho"to"Juan Kho." Except in said marriage certificate, the name "Juan Kho" was uniformly entered in the birth certificates of Carlito and of his siblings.37

WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,

vs.TRINIDAD R.A. CAPOTE, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

CORONA, J.:

This petition for review on certiorari1 seeks to set aside the Court of Appeals (CA) decision2 dated January 13, 2003 in CA -G.R. CV No. 66128, which affirmedthe decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 23 of San Juan, Southern Leyte dated September 14, 1999 granting a petition for change of name.

Respondent Trinidad R. A. Capote filed a petition for change of name of her ward from Giovanni N. Gallamaso to Giovanni Nadores on September 9, 1998. InSpecial Proceeding No. R-481,3 Capote as Giovannis guardian ad litem averred:

xxx xxx xxx

1. [Respondent] is a Filipino citizen, of legal age, married, while minor GIOVANNI N. GALLAMASO, is also a Filipino citizen, sixteen (16) years old and both areresidents of San Juan, Southern Leyte where they can be served with summons and other court processes;

2. [Respondent] was appointed guardian [ad litem] of minor Giovanni N. Gallamaso by virtue of a court order in Special [Proc.] No. R-459, dated [August 18,1998] xxx xxx authorizing her to file in court a petition for change of name of said minor in accordance with the desire of his mother [who is residing andworking abroad];

3. Both [respondent] and minor have permanently resided in San Juan, Southern Leyte, Philippines for more than fifteen (15) years prior to the filing of thisinstant petition, the former since 1970 while the latter since his birth [in 1982];

4. The minor was left under the care of [respondent] since he was yet nine (9) years old up to the present;

5. Minor GIOVANNI N. GALLAMASO is the illegitimate natural child of Corazon P. Nadores and Diosdado Gallamaso. [He] was born on July 9, 1982 [,] prior tothe effectivity of the New Family Code and as such, his mother used the surname of the natural father despite the absence of marriage between them; and[Giovanni] has been known by that name since birth [as per his birth certificate registered at the Local Civil Register of Sa n Juan, Southern Leyte];

6. The father, Diosdado Gallamaso, from the time [Giovanni] was born and up to the present, failed to take up his responsibilities [to him] on matters offinancial, physical, emotional and spiritual concerns. [Giovannis pleas] for attention along that line [fell] on deaf ears xxx xxx xxx;

7. [Giovanni] is now fully aware of how he stands with his father and he desires to have his surname changed to that of his m others surname;

8. [Giovannis] mother might eventually petition [him] to join her in the United States and [his] continued use of the surname Gallamaso, the surname of hisnatural father, may complicate [his] status as natural child; and

9. The change of name [from] GIOVANNI N. GALLAMASO to GIOVANNI NADORES will be for the benefit of the minor.

xxx xxx xxx4

Respondent prayed for an order directing the local c ivil registrar to effect the change of name on Giovannis birth certifica te. Having found respondents

petition sufficient in form and substance, the trial court gave due course to the petition.5 Publication of the petition in a newspaper of general circulation inthe province of Southern Leyte once a week for three consecutive weeks was likewise ordered.6 The trial court also directed that the local civil registrar benotified and that the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) be sent a copy of the petition and order.7

Since there was no opposition to the petition, respondent moved for leave of court to present her evidence ex parte before a court-appointed commissioner.

The OSG, acting through the Provincial Prosecutor, did not object; hence, the lower court granted the motion.

After the reception of evidence, the trial court rendered a decision ordering the change of name from Giovanni N. Gallamaso to Giovanni Nadores.8

From this decision, petitioner Republic of the Philippines, through the OSG, filed an appeal with a lone assignment of error: the court a quo erred in grantingthe petition in a summary proceeding.

Ruling that the proceedings were sufficiently adversarial in nature as required, the CA affirmed the RTC decision ordering the change of name.9

In this petition, the Republic contends that the CA erred in affirming the trial courts decision which granted the petition for change of name despite the non-joinder of indispensable parties.10 Petitioner cites Republic of the Philippines v. Labrador11 and claims that the purported parents and all other persons whomay be adversely affected by the childs change of name should have been made respondents to make the proceeding adversarial.12

We deny the petition.


7/25

"The subject of rights must have a fixed symbol for individualization which serves to distinguish him from all others; this symbol is his name."13Understandably, therefore, no person can change his name or surname without judicial authority.14 This is a reasonable requirement for those seeking suchchange because a persons name necessarily affects his identity, interests and interactions. The State must be involved in the process and decision to changethe name of any of its citizens.

The Rules of Court provides the requirements and procedure for change of name. Here, the appropriate remedy is covered by Rule 103,15 a separate anddistinct proceeding from Rule 108 on mere cancellation and correction of entries in the civil registry (usually dealing only with innocuous or clerical errorsthereon).16

The issue of non-joinder of alleged indispensable parties in the action before the court a quo is intertwined with the nature of the proceedings there. The pointis whether the proceedings were sufficiently adversarial.

Summary proceedings do not extensively address the issues of a case since the reason for their conduct is expediency. This, according to petitioner, is notsufficient to deal with substantial or contentious issues allegedly resulting from a change of name, meaning, legitimacy as well as successional rights.17 Suchissues are ventilated only in adversarial proceedings wherein all interested parties are impleaded and due process is observed.18

When Giovanni was born in 1982 (prior to the enactment and effectivity of the Family Code of the Philippines),19 the pertinent provision of the Civil Codethen as regards his use of a surname, read:

Art. 366. 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 childshall employ the surname of the recognizing parent. (emphasis ours)

Based on this provision, Giovanni should have carried his mothers surname from birth. The records do not reveal any act or intention on the part ofGiovannis putative father to actually recognize him. Meanwhile, according to the Family Code which repealed, among others, Article 366 of the Civil Code:

Art. 176. Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of their mother, and shall be entitled to support in conformitywith this Code. xxx xxx xxx (emphasis ours)

Our ruling in the recent case of In Re: Petition for Change of Name and/or Correction/Cancellation of Entry in Civil Registry of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang20 isenlightening:

Our laws on the use of surnames state that legitimate and legitimated children shall principally use the surname of the father. The Family Code giveslegitimate children the right to bear the surnames of the father and the mother, while illegitimate children shall use the surname of their mother, unless theirfather recognizes their filiation, in which case they may bear the fathers surname.

Applying these laws, an illegitimate child whose filiation is not recognized by the father bears only a given name and his mother surname, and does not have amiddle name. The name of the unrecognized illegitimate child therefore identifies him as such. It is only when the illegitimate child is legitimated by thesubsequent marriage of his parents or acknowledged by the father in a public document or private handwritten instrument that he bears both his motherssurname as his middle name and his fathers surname as his surname, reflecting his status as a legitimated child or an acknowledged child.1awphi1.net21

The foregoing discussion establishes the significant connection of a persons name to his identity, his status in relation to his parents and his successionalrights as a legitimate or illegitimate child. For sure, these matters should not be taken lightly as to deprive those who may, in any way, be affected by the rightto present evidence in favor of or against such change.

The law and facts obtaining here favor Giovannis petition. Giovanni availed of the proper remedy, a petition for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules ofCourt, and complied with all the procedural requirements. After hearing, the trial court found (and the appellate court affirmed) that the evidence presentedduring the hearing of Giovannis petition sufficiently established that, under Art. 176 of the Civil Code, Giovanni is entitled to change his name as he was neverrecognized by his father while his mother has always recognized him as her child. A change of name will erase the impression that he was ever recognized byhis father. It is also to his best interest as it will facilitate his mothers intended petition to have him join her in the United States. This Court will not stand inthe way of the reunification of mother and son.

Moreover, it is noteworthy that the cases cited by petitioner22 in support of its position deal with cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry, aproceeding separate and distinct from the special proceedings for change of name. Those cases deal with the application and i nterpretation of Rule 108 of theRules of Court while this case was correctly filed under Rule 103. Thus, the cases cited by petitioner are irrelevant and have no bearing on respondents case.While the OSG is correct in its stance that the proceedings for change of name should be adversarial, the OSG cannot void the proceedings in the trial court onaccount of its own failure to participate therein. As the CA correctly ruled:

The OSG is correct in stating that a petition for change of name must be heard in an adversarial proceeding. Unlike petitions for the cancellation or correctionof clerical errors in entries in the civil registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, a petition for change of name under Rule 103 cannot be decided through a

summary proceeding. There is no doubt that this petition does not fall under Rule 108 for it is not alleged that the entry in the civil registry suffers fromclerical or typographical errors. The relief sought clearly goes beyond correcting erroneous entries in the civil registry, although by granting the petition, theresult is the same in that a corresponding change in the entry is also required to reflect the change in name. In this regard, [appellee] Capote complied with therequirement for an adversarial proceeding by posting in a newspaper of general circulation notice of the filing of the petition. The lower court also furnishedthe OSG a copy thereof. Despite the notice, no one came forward to oppose the petition including the OSG. The fact that no one opposed the petition did notdeprive the court of its jurisdiction to hear the same nor does it make the proceeding less adversarial in nature. The lower court is still expected to exercise itsjudgment to determine whether the petition is meritorious or not and not merely accept as true the arguments propounded. Considering that the OSG neitheropposed the petition nor the motion to present its evidence ex parte when it had the opportunity to do so, it cannot now complain that the proceedings in thelower court were not adversarial enough.23 (emphasis supplied)

A proceeding is adversarial where the party seeking relief has given legal warning to the other party and afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it.24Respondent gave notice of the petition through publication as required by the rules.25 With this, all interested parties were deemed notified and the wholeworld considered bound by the judgment therein. In addition, the trial court gave due notice to the OSG by serving a copy of the petition on it. Thus, all therequirements to make a proceeding adversarial were satisfied when all interested parties, including petitioner as represented by the OSG, were afforded theopportunity to contest the petition.


8/25

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED and the January 13, 2003 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 66128 AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

IN RE: PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME AND/OR CORRECTION/CANCELLATION OF ENTRY IN CIVIL REGISTRY OF JULIAN LIN CARULASAN WANG alsoknown as JULIAN LIN WANG, to be amended/corrected as JULIAN LIN WANG, JULIAN LIN WANG, duly represented by his mother ANNA LISA WANG,Petitioners,vs.CEBU CITY CIVIL REGISTRAR, duly represented by the Registrar OSCAR B. MOLO, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

TINGA, J.:

I will not blot out his name out of the book of life.

Revelation 3:5

On 22 September 2002, petitioner Julian Lin Carulasan Wang, a minor, represented by his mother Anna Lisa Wang, filed a petition dated 19 September 2002for change of name and/or correction/cancellation of entry in the Civil Registry of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang. Petitioner sought to drop his middle name andhave his registered name changed from Julian Lin Carulasan Wang to Julian Lin Wang.

The petition was docketed as Special Proceedings Case No. 11458 CEB and raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu Cit y, Branch 57.

The RTC established the following facts:

Julian Lin Carulasan Wang was born in Cebu City on February 20, 1998 to parents Anna Lisa Wang and Sing-Foe Wang who were then not yet married to eachother. When his parents subsequently got married on September 22, 1998, ...they executed a deed of legitimation of their son so that the childs name waschanged from Julian Lin Carulasan to Julian Lin Carulasan Wang.

The parents of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang plan to stay in Singapore for a long time because they will let him study there together with his sister named WangMei 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 hissister might also be asking whether they are brother and sister since they have different surnames. Carulasan sounds funny in Singapores Mandarin languagesince 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 tobe changed to Julian Lin Wang.1

On 30 April 2003, the RTC rendered a decision denying the petition.2 The trial court found that the reason given for the change of name sought in thepetitionthat is, that petitioner Julian may be discriminated against when studies in Singapore because of his middle namedid not fall within the groundsrecognized by law. The trial court ruled that the change sought is merely for the convenience of the child. Since the State has an interest in the nam e of aperson, names cannot be changed to suit the convenience of the bearers. Under Article 174 of the Family Code, legitimate children have the right to bear thesurnames of the father and the mother, and there is no reason why this right should now be taken from petitioner Julian, considering that he is still a minor.The trial court added that when petitioner Julian reaches the age of majority, he could then decide whether he will change his name by dropping his middle

name.3

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision but this was denied in a resolution dated 20 May 2004.4 The trial court maintained that theSingaporean practice of not carrying a middle name does not justify the dropping of the middle name of a legitimate Filipino child who intends to study there.The dropping of the middle name would be tantamount to giving due recognition to or application of the laws of Singapore instead of Philippine law which iscontrolling. That the change of name would not prejudice public interest or would not be for a fraudulent purpose would not suffice to grant the petition if thereason for the change of name is itself not reasonable.5

Petitioner then filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari (Under Rule 45)6 arguing that the trial court has decided a question of substance not theretoforedetermined by the Court, that is: whether or not dropping the middle name of a minor child is contrary to Article 1747 of the Family Code. Petitioner contendsthat "[W]ith globalization and mixed marriages, there is a need for the Supreme Court to rule on the matter of dropping of family name for a child to adjust tohis new environment, for consistency and harmony among siblings, taking into consideration the "best interest of the child."8 It is argued that convenience ofthe child is a valid reason for changing the name as long as it will not prejudice the State and others. Petitioner points out that the middle name "Carulasan"will cause him undue embarrassment and the difficulty in writing or pronouncing it will be an obstacle to his social acceptance and integration in theSingaporean community. Petitioner also alleges that it is error for the trial court to have denied the petition for change of name until he had reached the age ofmajority for him to decide the name to use, contrary to previous cases9 decided by this Court that allowed a minor to petition for change of name.10

The Court required the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to comment on the petition. The OSG filed its Comment11 positing that the trial court correctlydenied the petition for change of name. The OSG argues that under Article 174 of the Family Code, legitimate children have the right to bear the surnames oftheir father and mother, and such right cannot be denied by the mere expedient of dropping the same. According to the OSG, there is also no showing that thedropping of the middle name "Carulasan" is in the best interest of petitioner, since mere convenience is not sufficient to support a petition for change of nameand/or cancellation of entry.12 The OSG also adds that the petitioner has not shown any compelling reason to justify the change of name or the dropping ofthe middle name, for that matter. Petitioners allegation that the continued use of the middle name may result in confusion and difficulty is allegedly moreimaginary than real. The OSG reiterates its argument raised before the trial court that the dropping of the childs middle name could only trigger much deeperinquiries regarding the true parentage of petitioner. Hence, while petitioner Julian has a sister named Jasmine Wei Wang, there is no confusion since both usethe surname of their father, Wang. Even assuming that it is customary in Singapore to drop the middle name, it has also not been shown that the use of suchmiddle name is actually proscribed by Singaporean law.13

We affirm the decision of the trial court. The petition should be denied.


9/25

The Court has had occasion to express the view that the State has an interest in the names borne by individuals and entities for purposes of identification, andthat a change of name is a privilege and not a right, so that before a person can be authorized to change his name given him either in his certificate of birth orcivil registry, he must show proper or reasonable cause, or any compelling reason which may justify such change. Otherwise, the request should be denied.14

The touchstone for the grant of a change of name is that there be proper and reasonable cause for which the change is sought.15 To justify a request forchange 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 andofficial name. Among the grounds for change of name which have been held valid are: (a) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult towrite or pronounce; (b) when the change results as a legal consequence, as in legitimation; (c) when the change will avoid confusion; (d) when one hascontinuously 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 toerase signs of former alienage, all in good faith and without prejudicing anybody; and (f) when the surname causes embarrassment and there is no showingthat the desired change of name was for a fraudulent purpose or that the change of name would prejudice public interest.16

In granting or denying petitions for change of name, the question of proper and reasonable cause is left to the sound discretion of the court. The evidencepresented need only be satisfactory to the court and not al l the best evidence available. What is involved is not a mere matter of allowance or disallowance ofthe request, but a judicious evaluation of the sufficiency and propriety of the justifications advanced in support thereof, mindful of the consequent results inthe event of its grant and with the sole prerogative for making such determination being lodged in the courts.17

The petition before us is unlike other petitions for change of name, as it does not simply seek to change the name of the min or petitioner and adopt another,but instead seeks to drop the middle name altogether. Decided cases in this jurisdiction involving petitions for change of name usually deal with requests forchange of surname. There are only a handful of cases involving requests for change of the given name18 and none on requests for changing or dropping of themiddle name. Does the law allow one to drop the middle name from his registered name? We have to answer in the negative.

A discussion on the legal significance of a persons name is relevant at this point. We quote, thus:

For all practical and legal purposes, a man's name is the designation by which he is known and called in the community in wh ich he lives and is best known.It is defined as the word or combination of words by which a person is distinguished from other individuals and, also, as the label or appellation which hebears for the convenience of the world at large addressing him, or in speaking of or dealing with him. Names are used merely as one method of indicating the

identity of persons; they are descriptive of persons for identification, since, the identity is the essential thing and it has frequently been held that, whenidentity is certain, a variance in, or misspelling of, the name is immaterial.

The names of individuals usually have two parts: the given name or proper name, and the surname or family name. The given or proper name is that which isgiven to the individual at birth or baptism, to distinguish him from other individuals. The name or family name is that which identifies the family to which hebelongs and is continued from parent to child. The given name may be freely selected by the parents for the child; but the su rname to which the child isentitled is fixed by law.

A name is said to have the following characteristics: (1) It is absolute, intended to protect the individual from being confused with others. (2) It is obligatory incertain respects, for nobody can be without a name. (3) It is fixed, unchangeable, or immutable, at least at the start, and may be changed only for good causeand by judicial proceedings. (4) It is outside the commerce of man, and, therefore, inalienable and intransmissible by act inter vivos or mortis causa. (5) It isimprescriptible.19

This citation does not make any reference to middle names, but this does not mean that middle names have no practical or legal significance. Middle namesserve to identify the maternal lineage or filiation of a person as well as further distinguish him from others who may have t he same given name and surnameas he has.

Our laws on the use of surnames state that legitimate and legitimated children shall principally use the surname of the fathe r.20 The Family Code giveslegitimate children the right to bear the surnames of the father and the mother,21 while illegitimate children shall use the surname of their mother, unlesstheir father recognizes their filiation, in which case they may bear the fathers surname.22

Applying these laws, an illegitimate child whose filiation is not recognized by the father bears only a given name and his mothers surname, and does not havea middle name. The name of the unrecognized illegitimate child therefore identifies him as such. It is only when the illegitimate child is legitimated by thesubsequent marriage of his parents or acknowledged by the father in a public document or private handwritten instrument that he bears both his motherssurname as his middle name and his fathers surname as his surname, reflecting his status as a legitimated child or an acknowledged illegitimate child.

Accordingly, the registration in the civil registry of the birth of such individuals requires that the middle name be indicated in the certificate. The registeredname of a legitimate, legitimated and recognized illegitimate child thus contains a given or proper name, a middle name, and a surname.

Petitioner theorizes that it would be for his best interest to drop his middle name as this would help him to adjust more easily to and integrate himself intoSingaporean society. In support, he cites Oshita v. Republic23 and Calderon v. Republic,24 which, however, are not apropos both.

In Oshita, the petitioner therein, a legitimate daughter of a Filipino mother, Buena Bartolome, and a Japanese father, Kishimatsu Oshita, sought to change hername from Antonina B. Oshita to Antonina Bartolome. The Court granted her petition based on the following considerations: she had elected Philippinecitizenship upon reaching the age of majority; her other siblings who had also elected Philippine citizenship have been using their mothers surname; she wasembarrassed to bear a Japanese surname there still being ill feeling against the Japanese due to the last World War; and there was no showing that the changeof name was motivated by a fraudulent purpose or that it will prejudice public interest.

In Calderon, the Court allowed petitioner Gertrudes Josefina del Prado, an illegitimate minor child acting through her mother who filed the petition in herbehalf, to change her name to Gertudes Josefina Calderon, taking the surname of her stepfather, Romeo C. Calderon, her mothers husband. The Court held thata petition for change of name of an infant should be granted where to do is clearly for the best interest of the child. The Court took into consideration theopportunity provided for the minor petitioner to eliminate the stigma of illegitimacy which she would carry if she continued to use the surname of herillegitimate father. The Court pronounced that justice dictates that every person be allowed to avail of any opportunity to improve his social standing as longas doing so he does not cause prejudice or injury to the interests of the State or of other people.

Petitioner cites Alfon v. Republic,25 in arguing that although Article 174 of the Family Code gives the legitimate child the right to use the surnames of thefather and the mother, it is not mandatory such that the child could use only one family name, even the family name of the mother. In Alfon, the petitionertherein, the legitimate daughter of Filomeno Duterte and Estrella Alfon, sought to change her name from Maria Estrella Veronica Primitiva Duterte (her name


10/25

as registered in the Local Civil Registry) to Estrella S. Alfon (the name she had been using since childhood, in her school records and in her votersregistration). The trial court denied her petition but this Court overturned the denial, ruling that while Article 364 of the Civil Code states that she, as alegitimate child, should principally use the surname of her father, there is no legal obstacle for her to choose to use the surname of herm other to which she isentitled. In addition, the Court found that there was ample justification to grant her petition, i.e., to avoid confusion.

Weighing petitioners reason of convenience for the change of his name against the standards set in the cases he cites to support his contention would showthat his justification is amorphous, to say the least, and could not warrant favorable action on his petition.

The factual antecedents and unique circumstances of the cited cases are not at all analogous to the case at bar. The instant case is clearly distinguishable fromthe cases of Oshita and Alfon, where the petitioners were already of age when they filed their petitions for change of name. Being of age, they are considered tohave exercised their discretion and judgment, fully knowing the effects of their decision to change their surnames. It can al so be unmistakably observed thatthe reason for the grant of the petitions for change of name in these two cases was the presence of reasonable or compelling grounds therefore. The Court, inOshita, recognized the tangible animosity most Filipinos had during that time against the Japanese as a result of World War II, in addition to the fact of thereinpetitioners election of Philippine citizenship. In Alfon, the Court granted the petition since the petitioner had been known since childhood by a name differentfrom her registered name and she had not used her registered name in her school records and voters registration records; thus, denying the petition wouldonly result to confusion.

Calderon, on the other hand, granted the petition for change of name filed by a mother in behalf of her illegitimate minor child. Petitioner cites this case tobuttress his argument that he does not have to reach the age of majority to petition for change of name. However, it is manifest in Calderon that the Court, ingranting the petition for change of name, gave paramount consideration to the best interests of the minor petitioner therein.

In the case at bar, the only reason advanced by petitioner for the dropping his middle name is convenience. However, how such change of name would makehis integration into Singaporean society easier and convenient is not clearly established. That the continued use of his middle name would cause confusionand difficulty does not constitute proper and reasonable cause to drop it from his registered complete name.

In addition, petitioner is only a minor. Considering the nebulous foundation on which his petition for change of name is based, it is best that the matter ofchange of his name be left to his judgment and discretion when he reaches the age of majority.26 As he is of tender age, he may not yet understand and

appreciate the value of the change of his name and granting of the same at this point may just prejudice him in his rights under our laws.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

MA. CRISTINA TORRES BRAZA, PAOLO JOSEF T. BRAZA and JANELLE ANN T. BRAZA, Petitioners,vs.THE CITY CIVIL REGISTRAR OF HIMAMAYLAN CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, minor PATRICK ALVIN TITULAR BRAZA, represented by LEON TITULAR, CECILIATITULAR and LUCILLE C. TITULAR, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

Petitioner Ma. Cristina Torres (Ma. Cristina) and Pablo Sicad Braza, Jr. (Pablo), also known as "Pablito Sicad Braza," were married1 on January 4, 1978. The

union bore Ma. Cristinas co-petitioners Paolo Josef2 and Janelle Ann3 on May 8, 1978 and June 7, 1983, respectively, and Gian Carlo4 on June 4, 1980.

Pablo died5 on April 15, 2002 in a vehicular accident in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia.

During the wake following the repatriation of his remains to the Philippines, respondent Lucille Titular (Lucille) began introducing her co-respondent minorPatrick Alvin Titular Braza (Patrick) as her and Pablo's son. Ma. Cristina thereupon made inquiries in the course of which she obtained Patrick's birthcertificate6 from the Local Civil Registrar of Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental with the following entries:

Name of Child : PATRICK ALVIN CELESTIAL TITULARDate of Birth : 01 January 1996Mother : Lucille Celestial TitularFather : Pablito S. BrazaDate Received at the Local Civil Registrar : January 13, 1997Annotation : "Late Registration"Annotation/Remarks : "Acknowledge (sic) by the father Pablito Braza on January 13, 1997"Remarks : Legitimated by virtue of subsequent marriage of parents on April 22, 1998 at Manila. Henceforth, the child shall be known as Patrick Alvin Titular

Braza (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)Ma. Cristina likewise obtained a copy7 of a marriage contract showing that Pablo and Lucille were married on April 22, 1998, drawing her and her co-petitioners to file on December 23, 2005 before the Regional Trial Court of Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental a petition8 to correct the entries in the birthrecord of Patrick in the Local Civil Register.

Contending that Patrick could not have been legitimated by the supposed marriage between Lucille and Pablo, said marriage being bigamous on account of thevalid and subsisting marriage between Ma. Cristina and Pablo, petitioners prayed for (1) the correction of the entries in Patrick's birth record with respect tohis legitimation, the name of the father and his acknowledgment, and the use of the last name "Braza"; 2) a directive to Leon , Cecilia and Lucille, all surnamedTitular, as guardians of the minor Patrick, to submit Parick to DNA testing to determine his paternity and filiation; and 3) the declaration of nullity of thelegitimation of Patrick as stated in his birth certificate and, for this purpose, the declaration of the marriage of Lucille and Pablo as bigamous.

On Patricks Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, the trial court, by Order9 of September 6, 2007, dismissed the petition without prejudice, it holdingthat in a special proceeding for correction of entry, the court, which is not acting as a family court under the Family Code, has no jurisdiction over an action toannul the marriage of Lucille and Pablo, impugn the legitimacy of Patrick, and order Patrick to be subjected to a DNA test, hence, the controversy should beventilated in an ordinary adversarial action.


11/25

Petitioners motion for reconsideration having been denied by Order10 of November 29, 2007, they filed the present petition for review.

Petitioners maintain that the court a quo may pass upon the validity of marriage and questions on legitimacy even in an action to correct entries in the civilregistrar. Citing Cario v. Cario,11 Lee v. Court of Appeals12 and Republic v. Kho,13 they contend that even substantial errors, such as those sought to becorrected in the present case, can be the subject of a petition under Rule 108.14

The petition fails. In a special proceeding for correction of entry under Rule 108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Original Registry), the trial courthas no jurisdiction to nullify marriages and rule on legitimacy and filiation.

Rule 108 of the Rules of Court vis a vis Article 412 of the Civil Code15 charts the procedure by which an entry in the civil registry may be cancelled orcorrected. The proceeding contemplated therein may generally be used only to correct clerical, spelling, typographical and other innocuous errors in the civilregistry. 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 orwriting, or a harmless change such as a correction of name that is clearly misspelled or of a misstatement of the occupation of the parent. Substantial orcontentious alterations may be allowed only in adversarial proceedings, in which all interested parties are impleaded and due process is properly observed.16

The allegations of the petition filed before the trial court clearly show that petitioners seek to nullify the marriage between Pablo and Lucille on the groundthat it is bigamous and impugn Patricks filiation in connection with which they ask the court to order Patrick to be subjected to a DNA test.

Petitioners insist, however, that the main cause of action is for the correction of Patricks birth records17 and that the rest of the prayers are merely incidentalthereto.

Petitioners position does not lie. Their cause of action is actually to seek the declaration of Pablo and Lucilles marriage as void for being bigamous andimpugn Patricks legitimacy, which causes of action are governed not by Rule 108 but by A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC which took effect on March 15, 2003, and Art.17118 of the Family Code, respectively, hence, the petition should be filed in a Family Court as expressly provided in said Code.1avvphi1

It is well to emphasize that, doctrinally, validity of marriages as well as legitimacy and filiation can be questioned only in a direct action seasonably filed by theproper party, and not through collateral attack such as the petition filed before the court a quo.

Petitioners reliance on the cases they cited is misplaced.

Cario v. Cario was an action filed by a second wife against the first wife for the return of one-half of the death benefits received by the first after the death ofthe husband. Since the second wife contracted marriage with the husband while the latters marriage to the first wife was still subsisting, the Court ruled onthe validity of the two marriages, it being essential to the determination of who is rightfully entitled to the death benefit s.

In Lee v. Court of Appeals, the Court held that contrary to the contention that the petitions filed by the therein petitioners before the lower courts were actionsto impugn legitimacy, the prayer was not to declare that the petitioners are illegitimate children of Keh Shiok Cheng as stated in their records of birth but toestablish that they are not the latters children, hence, there was nothing to impugn as there was no blood relation at all between

the petitioners and Keh Shiok Cheng. That is why the Court ordered the cancellation of the name ofKeh Shiok Cheng as the petitioners mother and thesubstitution thereof with "Tiu Chuan" who is their biological mother. Thus, the collateral attack was allowed and the petition deemed as adversarialproceeding contemplated under Rule 108.

In Republic v. Kho, it was the petitioners themselves who sought the correction of the entries in their respective birth records to reflect that they were

illegitimate and that their citizenship is "Filipino," not Chinese, because their parents were never legally married. Again, considering that the changes soughtto be made were substantial and not merely innocuous, the Court, finding the proceedings under Rule 108 to be adversarial in nature, upheld the lower courtsgrant of the petition.

It is thus clear that the facts in the above-cited cases are vastly different from those obtaining in the present case.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,vs.MERLYN MERCADERA through her Attorney-in-Fact, EVELYN M. OGA, Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

MENDOZA, J.:

This petition for review on certiorari assails the December 9, 2008 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA G.R. CV No. 00568-MIN, which affirmed theSeptember 28, 2005 Order of the Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City, Branch 8 (RTC), in a petition for correction of entries, docketed as Special ProceedingsNo. R-3427 (SP No. R-3427), filed by respondent Merlyn Mercadera (Mercadera) under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

The Factual and Procedural Antecedents

On June 6, 2005, Merlyn Mercadera (Mercadera), represented by her sister and duly constituted Attorney-in-Fact, Evelyn M. Oga (Oga), sought the correctionof 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 Local CivilRegistrar of Dipolog City pursuant to Republic Act No. 9048 (R.A. No. 9048).2

Under R.A. No. 9048, the city or municipal civil registrar or consul general, as the case may be, is now authorized to effect the change of first name or nicknameand the correction of clerical or typographical errors in civil registry entries. "Under said law, jurisdiction over applications for change of first name is nowprimarily lodged with administrative officers. The law now excludes the change of first name from the coverage of Rules 103 until and unless anadministrative petition for change of name is first filed and subsequently denied"3 and removes "correction or changing of cl erical errors in entries of the civil


12/25

register from the ambit of Rule 108." Hence, what is left for the scope of operation of the rules are substantial changes and corrections in entries of the civilregister.4

The Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Dipolog City, however, refused to effect the correction unless a court order was obtained "because the Civil Registrartherein is not yet equipped with a permanent appointment before he can validly act on petitions for corrections filed before their office as mandated byRepublic Act 9048."5

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 theRegional Trial Court of Dipolog City (RTC). The petition was docketed as Special Proceedings No. R-3427 (SP No. R-3427). Section 2 of Rule 108 reads:

SEC. 2. Entries subject to cancellation or correction. Upon good and valid grounds, the following entries in the civil register may be cancelled or corrected:(a) births; (b) marriages; (c) deaths; (d) legal separations; (e) judgments of annulments of marriage; (f) judgments declaring marriages void from thebeginning; (g) legitimations; (h) adoptions; (i) acknowledgments of natural children; (j) naturalization; (k) election, loss or recovery of citizenship; (l) civilinterdiction; (m) judicial determination of filiation; (n) voluntary emancipation of a minor; and (o) changes of name. [Underscoring supplied]

Upon receipt of the petition for correction of entry, the RTC issued an order, dated June 10, 2005, which reads:

Finding the petition sufficient in form and substance, notice is hereby given that the hearing of said petition is set on JULY 26, 2005 at 8:30 oclock in themorning, at the Session Hall of Branch 8, this Court, Bulwagan ng Katarungan, Dipolog City, on which date, time and place, anyone appearing to contest thepetition shall state in writing his grounds there[for], serving a copy thereof to the petitioner and likewise file copies with this Court on or before the said dateof hearing.

Let this order be published at the expense of petitioner once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper edited and published in Dipolog City andof general circulation therein, the City of Dapitan and the province of Zamboanga del Norte, and copies hereof be furnished to the Office of the SolicitorGeneral of (sic) 134 Amorsolo St., Legaspi Village, Makati, Metro Manila, the City Civil Registrar of Dipolog, and posted on the bulletin boards of the City Hall ofDipolog, the Provincial Capitol Building, and of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) entered its appearance for the Republic of the Philippines and deputized the Office of the City Prosecutor to assist inthe case only on the very day of the hearing. This prompted the court to reset the hearing on September 5, 2005. On said day, there being no opposition,counsel for Mercadera moved for leave of court to present evidence ex parte. Without any objection from the City Prosecutor, the trial court designated thebranch clerk of court to receive evidence for Mercadera.

On September 15, 2005, the testimony of Oga and several photocopies of documents were formally offered and marked as evidence to prove that Mercaderanever used the name "Marilyn" in any of her public or private transactions. On September 26, 2005, the RTC issued an order6 admitting Exhibits "A" to "I"7and their submarkings, as relevant to the resolution of the case.

The following facts were gathered from documentary evidence and the oral testimony of Oga, as reported by the lower court:

Petitioner Merlyn M. Mercadera was born on August 19, 1970 at Dipolog City. She is the daughter of spouses Tirso U. Mercadera and Norma C. Lacquiao. Thefact of her birth was reported to the Office of the City Civil Registrar of Dipolog City on September 8, 1970. It was recorded on page 68, book no. 9, in theRegistry of Births of said civil registry. In the certification of birth dated May 9, 2005 issued by the same registry, her g iven name appears as Marilyn and not

Merlyn (Exhibit "C").

On September 29, 1979, petitioner was baptized according to the rites and ceremonies of the United Church of Christ in the Philippines. As reflected in hercertificate of baptism issued by said church, she was baptized by the name Merlyn L. Mercadera (Exhibit "D").

In her elementary diploma issued by the Paaralang Sentral ng Estaka, Dipolog City; her high school diploma issued by the Zamboanga del Norte School of Artsand Trades, Dipolog City; and college diploma issued by the Silliman University, Dumaguete City, where she earned the degree of Bachelor of SecondaryEducation, uniformly show her name as Merlyn L. Mercadera (Exhibits "E", "F", and "G").

Presently, she is working in U.P. Mindanao, Buhangin, Davao City. Her certificate of membership issued by the Government Service Insurance System alsobears his [sic] complete name as Merlyn Lacquiao Mercadera (Exhibit "H").

When she secured an authenticated copy of her certificate of live birth from the National Statistics Office, she discovered that her given name as registered isMarilyn and not Merlyn; hence, this petition.

In its September 28, 2005 Decision,8 the RTC granted Mercaderas petition and directed the Office of the City Civi l Registrar of Dipolog City to correct her

name appearing in her certificate of live birth, Marilyn Lacquiao Mercadera, to MERLYN Lacquiao Mercadera. Specifically, the dispositive portion of the RTCDecision reads:

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Office of the City Civil Registrar of Dipolog City is hereby directed to correct the given name ofpetitioner appearing in her certificate of live birth, from Marilyn Lacquiao Mercadera to MERLYN Lacquiao Mercadera.

In a four-page decision, the RTC ruled that the documentary evidence presented by Mercadera sufficiently supported the circumstances alleged in her petitionConsidering that she had used "Merlyn" as her given name since childhood until she discovered the discrepancy in her Certificate of Live Birth, the RTC wasconvinced that the correction was justified.

The OSG timely interposed an appeal praying for the reversal and setting aside of the RTC decision. It mainly anchored its appeal on the availment ofMercadera of the remedy and procedure under Rule 108. In its Brief9 filed with the CA, the OSG argued that the lower court erred (1) in granting the prayerfor change of name in a petition for correction of entries; and (2) in admitting the photocopies of documentary evidence and hearsay testimony of Oga.

For the OSG, the correction in the spelling of Mercaderas given name might seem innocuous enough to grant but "it is in truth a material correction as itwould modify or increase substantive rights."10 What the lower court actually allowed was a change of Mercaderas given name, which would have been


13/25

proper had she filed a petition under Rule 103 and proved any of the grounds therefor. The lower court, "may not substitute one for the other for purposes ofexpediency."11 Further, because Mercadera failed to invoke a specific ground recognized by the Rules, the lower courts order in effect allowed the change ofones name in the civil registry without basis.

The CA was not persuaded. In its December 9, 2008 Decision, 12 the appellate court affirmed the questioned RTC Order in CA-G.R. CV No. 00568-MIN. The CAassessed the controversy in this wise:

Appellants insistence that the petition should have been filed under Rule 103 and not Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is off the mark. This Court does notentertain any doubt that the petition before the trial court was one for the correction on an entry in petitioners Certifica te of Live Birth and not one in whichshe sought to change her name. In Co v. Civil Register of Manila, G.R. No. 138496, February 23, 2004, the High Court reiterated the distinction between thephrases "to correct" and "to change." Said the High Court:

To correct simply means "to make or set aright; to remove the faults or error from." To cha nge means "to replace something with something else of the samekind or with something that serves as a substitute. Article 412 of the New Civil Code does not qualify as to the kind of entr y to be changed or corrected ordistinguished on the basis of the effect that the correction or change may be. Such entries include not only those clerical in nature but also substantial errors.After all, the role of the Court under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is to ascertain the truths about the facts recorded therein.

That appellee sought to correct an entry and not to change her name is patent to the Court from the allegations in her petition, specifically, paragraphs 7 and 8thereof

x x x x

Anent the RTCs error in admitting the photocopies of Mercaderas documentary evidence and in vesting probative value to Ogas testimony, the CA cited the

well-established rule that "evidence not objected to may be admitted and may be validly considered by the court in arriving at its judgment."13

On March 6, 2009, the OSG filed the present petition. On behalf of Mercadera, the Public Attorneys Office (PAO) filed its Comment14 on July 3, 2009. The OSGdeclined to file a reply claiming that its petition already contained an exhaustive discussion on the following assigned errors:15

I

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW IN GRANTING THE CHANGE IN RESPONDENTS NAME UNDER RULE 103.

II

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION OF LAW IN CONSIDERING SECONDARY EVIDENCE.

Rule 103 procedurally governs judicial petitions for change of given name or surname, or both, pursuant to Article 376 of the Civil Code.16 This rule providesthe 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 inor with regard to, the rest of the community.17 In petitions for change of name, a person avails of a remedy to alter the "designation by which he is known andcalled in the community in which he lives and is best known."18 When granted, a persons identity and interactions are affected as he bears a new "label orappellation for the convenience of the world at large in addressing him, or in speaking of, or dealing with him."19 Judicial permission for a change of nameaims 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 interestedparties to oppose the petition. When complied with, the decision binds not only the parties impleaded but the whole world. As notice to all, publication servesto indefinitely bar all who might make an objection. "It is the publication of such notice that brings in the whole world as a party in the case and vests the courwith jurisdiction to hear and decide it."20

Essentially, a change of name does not define or effect a change of ones existing family relations or in the rights and duties flowing therefrom. It does not alterones legal capacity or civil status.21 However, "there could be instances where the change applied for may be open to objection by parties who already bearthe surname desired by the applicant, not because he would thereby acquire certain family ties with them but because the existence of such ties might beerroneously impressed on the public mind."22 Hence, in requests for a change of name, "what is involved is not a mere matter of allowance or disallowance ofthe request, but a judicious evaluation of the sufficiency and propriety of the justifications advanced x x x mindful of the consequent results in the event of itsgrant x x x."23

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 theCivil Code.24 Entries in the civil register refer to "acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons,"25 also as enumerated in Article 408of the same law.26 Before, only mistakes or errors of a harmless and innocuous nature in the entries in the civil registry may be corrected under Rule 108 andsubstantial errors affecting the civil status, citizenship

Documents

Remedial Law Cases From Writ of Amparo to Change of Name