Digest Author: Dodot

Republic v. CA and Caranto (1996) Petition: Petition for Review on Certiorari [Decision of CA] Petitioners: Republic of the Philippines Respondents: The Court of Appeals, Jaime B. Caranto, and Zenaida P. Caranto Ponente: J. Mendoza Date: 15 March 1996 Facts:  To require a separate petition for change of name = additional expenses [also for Gov’t and Courts] SolGen elevated case to SC 

o

Pertinent laws/provisions/concepts: RULES OF COURT [Rule 108] xxx xxx xxx

2 Sep 1988 – petition to adopt Midael C. Manzon [15 yo at the time] o Midael had been living with Jaime since he was 7 yo o Had been under care and custody of Jaime and Zenaida since the two were married on 19 Jan 1986 o Prayer  Declare Midael the child of petitioners for all intents and purposes  Dissolve authority vested in natural parents  Surname be legally changed to that of petitioners; mistakenly registered first name be changed to “Michael” [SolGen opposed this part of the petition – petition for adoption, not correction of entry in the civil reg. (Rule 108, RoC)] RTC Trial o Court set hearing; gave notice thereof by publication in a newspaper of gen. circulation in Cavite; served order upon DSWD and SolGen o Zenaida, Florentina Mazon (nat. mother), and Midael testified; social worker for DSWD also endorsed the adoption of the minor o 30 May 1989 – decision  Dismissed position of SolGen: correction of names in civ. Reg. not among matters enumerated in Sec. 2, Rule 108 [RoC] as “entries subject to cancellation or correction”  Error could be corrected in the same proceeding as adoption: prevent multiplicity of actions  RTC granted all the reliefs prayed for [directed Local Civil Registrar of Cavite City to change the name in its records from “Midael Mazon” to “Michael Caranto” o SolGen appealed to CA  Correction of names cannot be effected in same proceeding  Also, that RTC did not acquire jurisdiction: in the notice published in the newspaper, name given was “Michael” NOT “Midael” o CA affirmed decision of RTC  Cruz v. Republic, case being cited by SolGen, different from case at bar  In Cruz, substantial error

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 the beginning; (g) legitimations; (h) adoptions; (i) acknowledgments of natural children; (j) naturalization (k) election, loss or recovery of citizenship (l) civil interdiction; (m) judicial determination of filiation; (n) voluntary emancipation of a minor; and (o) changes of name. 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 interest which 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 cause reasonable notice thereof to be given to the persons named in the petition. The court shall also cause the order to be published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province. xxx xxx xxx Issues: 1. 2.

Did the RTC acquire jurisdiction, vis-à-vis the adoption proceedings? [YES] Were the RTC and CA mistaken in saying that Rule 108 did not apply? [YES]

Ruling/Ratio: 1. YES.  Difference w/ Cruz v. Republic  In Cruz: name published in notice, Baptismal name instead of name appearing in the record of birth [different surnames] – deemed as substantial defect  Case at bar: obvious clerical error – changing name from “Midael C. Mazon” to “Michael C. Mazon” cannot possibly cause any confusion Purpose of publication: give notice to those who may have objections to adoption [purpose served by notice] CA and RTC erred in granting prayer for change of name [null and void] Sec. 2, Rule 108 applies

2.

YES.  

Digest Author: Dodot
 (o) changes of name – covers “harmless and innocuous changes, such as correction of a name that is clearly misspelled.” (Ansaldo v. Republic, etc.)  Summary Proceeding, appropriate Local civil registrar required to be made a party to the proceedings [Sec. 3, Rule 108, RoC]  Indispensable party – w/o whom no final determination can be had  Absence of indispensable party = renders ineffective all proceedings subsequent to filing of complaint Notice of petition for correction of entry not published [Sec. 4, Rule 108, RoC]  RTC only complied with requirement to publish notice of the petition for adoption  Lack of notice for petition for correction of entry: local civil registrar deprived of notice – an opportunity to be heard In summary, lack of jurisdiction for RTC: as far as correction of entry, null and void

Opinions: No separate opinions Disposition: Decision of CA MODIFIED: delete from decision of trial cour, order to local civil registrar to change the name “Midael” to “Michael”. Other respects relating to adoption of Midael C. Mazon, decision appealed from AFFIRMED. Principles: Adoption  Effects of Adoption

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful