You are on page 1of 23

#1 Republic of the Philippines vs.

Trinidad Capote
GR 157043; February 2, 2007
Nature of Petition: Petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside decision of CA
which affirmed decision of the RTC-San Juan, Southern Leyte granting a petition for change
of name.
1. Respondent Capote filed for petition for change of name of her ward from Giovanni N.
Gallamaso to Giovanni Nadores. The petition cites the following: (1) Giovanni is a
minor and barely 9 years old during the filing of the petition; (2) his mother
authorized his guardian to file in court a petition for change of name; (3) he was left
in the care of the respondents since birth where he and the respondent obtained
permanent resident in San Juan Batangas; (4) it was alleged that he is an illegitimate
natural born son of Corazon Nadores and Diosdado Gallamaso where his mother used
the surname of the father despite absence of marriage, and he was known by that
name since birth (because he was born prior to the effectivity of the Family Code; (5)
his father since he was born until the present time said petition was filed, failed to
take up his responsibilities on matters of financial, physical, emotional and spiritual
concerns; (6) he is aware of the situation and would want to change his surname; (7)
incidentally, his mother wants to petition him to join her in the US and use of his
mothers name would ease the possible complication of his status as natural child;
and (8) he will benefit the change of name.
2. The petition prayed for an order directing the local civil registrar to effect the change
of name in Giovannis birth certificate.
3. Petition found sufficient in form + substance > TC gave due course to petition >
ordered: (1) publication of the petition in a newspaper of general circulation in the
province of Southern Leyte once a week for 3 consecutive weeks; (2) directed that
the local civil registrar be notified; and (3) OSG be sent a copy of the petition and
4. No opposition > respondent moved for leave of court to present evidence ex parte
before a court-appoint commissioner > OSG did not object > TC granted the motion
and subsequently the decision to change the surname from Gallamaso to Nadores.
5. OSG filed for an appeal citing a lone error the court erred in granting the petition in
a summary proceeding.
6. CA affirmed TC proceedings were sufficiently adversarial in nature as required.
ISSUE: Whether the proceedings were sufficiently adversarial.
The issue of non-joinder of alleged indispensable parties in the action before the court a
quo is intertwinced with the nature of proceedings there.
RP contends that CA erred in affirming the TCs decision which granted the petition for
change of name despite the non-joinder of indispensable parties.
a. Cites RP vs Labrador, and
b. Claims that the purported parents and all other persons who may be
adversely affected by the childs change of name should have been made
respondents to make the proceeding adversarial.
HELD/RATIO: Petition is denied

The subject of rights must have a fixed symbol for individualization which serves to
distinguish him from all others; this symbol is his name. Therefore no person can
change his name or surname without judicial authority. A reasonable

requirement for seeking such change because a persons name necessarily affects
his identity, interests, and interactions; the State must be involved in the process and
decision to change the name of any of its citizens.
ROC provides the requirements and procedure for change of name; the appropriate
remedy is covered by R103, a separate and distinct proceeding from R108 on mere
cancellation and correction of entries in the civil registry.
Summary proceeds do not extensively address the issues of a case since the reason
for their conduct is expediency; petitioner contends it is not sufficient to deal with
substantial or contentious issues allegedly resulting from a change of name (ex.
legitimacy as well as successional rights); such issues are ventilated only in
adversarial proceedings wherein all interested parties are impleaded and due process
is observed.
Giovanni was born before the enactment of the Family Code and the pertinent
provision of the CC that applies to his re: the use of a surname is A366 where, a
natural child shall employ the surname of the recognizing parent.
o Giovanni should have carried his mothers surname from birth as records do
not reveal any act or intention on the part of Giovannis father to actually
recognize him.
Said provision was repealed by the Family Code A176 where, illegitimate children
shall use the surname of the mother
o In the case of In Re: Petition for Change of Name and/or
Correction/Cancellation of Entry in Civil Registry of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang
provides that, an illegitimate child whose filiation is not recognized by the
father bears only a given name and his mothers surname, and does not have
a middle name. The name of the unrecognized illegitimate child therefore
identifies him as such.
Giovanni availed of the proper remedy.
o OSG is correct in stating that a petition for change of name must be heard in
an adversarial proceeding unlike petitions for cancellation or correction of
errors in entries under R108 of the ROC, petition for change of name under
R103 cannot be decided through a summary proceeding. The petition does
not fall under R108 but if granted would result in the change in the entry is
also required to reflect the change in name.
o BUT Capote complied with the requirement for an adversarial proceeding by
proceeding by posting in a newspaper of general circulation notice of the filing
of the petition. The lower court also furnished the OSG a copy thereof, despite
the notice no one came forward to oppose the petition including OSG. The fact
that no one opposed the petition does not deprive the court of its jurisdiction
to hear the same nor does it make the proceeding less adversarial in nature.
A petition is adversarial where the party seeking relief has
given legal warning to the other party and afforded the latter
an opportunity to contest it. Respondent gave notice of the
petition thru publication as required by the rules; all parties
are deemed notified and the whole world considered bound by
the judgment therein.
All requirements to make a proceeding adversarial were satisfied and all interested
parties, including petitioner as represented by OSG, were afforded the opportunity to
contest this petition.

2nd case: Republic v Cagandahan

On December 11, 2003, respondent Jennifer Cagandahan filed a Petition for Correction of
Entries in Birth Certificate[2] before the RTC, Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna.
In her petition, she alleged that she was:
born on January 13, 1981 and
was registered as a female in the Certificate of Live Birth
but while growing up, she developed secondary male characteristics and
was diagnosed to have Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) which is a condition
where persons thus afflicted possess both male and female characteristics.
She further alleged that she was diagnosed to have clitoral hyperthropy in her early
years and at age six, underwent an ultrasound where it was discovered that she has small
ovaries. At age thirteen, tests revealed that her ovarian structures had minimized, she has
stopped growing and she has no breast or menstrual development.
She then alleged that for all interests and appearances as well as in mind and
emotion, she has become a male person.
Thus, she prayed that her birth certificate be corrected such that her gender be changed
from female to male and her first name be changed from Jennifer to Jeff.
The petition was published in a newspaper of general circulation for three (3) consecutive
weeks and was posted in conspicuous places by the sheriff of the court.
The Solicitor General entered his appearance and authorized the Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor to appear in his behalf.
To prove her claim, respondent testified and presented the testimony of Dr. Michael Sionzon
of the Department of Psychiatry, University of the Philippines, Philippine General Hospital.
Dr. Sionzon issued a medical certificate stating that respondents condition is known as
He explained that genetically respondent is female but because her body secretes male
hormones, her female organs did not develop normally and she has two sex organs female
and male. He testified that this condition is very rare, that respondents uterus is not fully
developed because of lack of female hormones, and that she has no monthly period. He
further testified that respondents condition is permanent and recommended the change of
gender because respondent has made up her mind, adjusted to her chosen role as male, and
the gender change would be advantageous to her.
The RTC granted respondents petition in a Decision dated January 12, 2005 which reads:
The Court is convinced that petitioner has satisfactorily shown that he is entitled to the
reliefs prayed [for]. Petitioner has adequately presented to the Court very clear and
convincing proofs for the granting of his petition. It was medically proven that petitioners
body produces male hormones, and first his body as well as his action and feelings are that
of a male. He has chosen to be male. He is a normal person and wants to be acknowledged
and identified as a male.
RTC gratnted his petition.
Thus, this petition by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) seeking a reversal of the
abovementioned ruling.

whether the trial court erred in ordering the correction of entries in the birth certificate of
respondent to change her sex or gender, from female to male, on the ground of her medical
condition known as CAH, and her name from Jennifer to Jeff, under Rules 103 and 108 of
the Rules of Court.
The determination of a persons sex appearing in his birth certificate is a legal issue and the
court must look to the statutes. In this connection, Article 412 of the Civil Code provides:
ART. 412. No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order.
Together with Article 376 of the Civil Code, this provision was amended by Republic Act No.
9048 in so far as clerical or typographical errors are involved. The correction or change of
such matters can now be made through administrative proceedings and without the need for
a judicial order. In effect, Rep. Act No. 9048 removed from the ambit of Rule 108 of the Rules
of Court the correction of such errors. Rule 108 now applies only to substantial changes and
corrections in entries in the civil register. [18]
Under Rep. Act No. 9048, a correction in the civil registry involving the change of sex is not a
mere clerical or typographical error. It is a substantial change for which the applicable
procedure is Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. [19]
The entries envisaged in Article 412 of the Civil Code and correctable under Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court are those provided in Articles 407 and 408 of the Civil Code:
ART. 407. Acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons shall be
recorded in the civil register.
ART. 408. The following shall be entered in the civil register:
(1) Births; (2) marriages; (3) deaths; (4) legal separations; (5) annulments of marriage; (6)
judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning; (7) legitimations; (8) adoptions; (9)
acknowledgments of natural children; (10) naturalization; (11) loss, or (12) recovery of
citizenship; (13) civil interdiction; (14) judicial determination of filiation; (15) voluntary
emancipation of a minor; and (16) changes of name.
The acts, events or factual errors contemplated under Article 407 of the Civil Code include
even those that occur after birth.[20]
Respondent undisputedly has CAH. This condition causes the early or inappropriate
appearance of male characteristics. A person, like respondent, with this condition produces
too much androgen, a male hormone. A newborn who has XX chromosomes coupled with
CAH usually has a (1) swollen clitoris with the urethral opening at the base, an ambiguous
genitalia often appearing more male than female; (2) normal internal structures of the
female reproductive tract such as the ovaries, uterus and fallopian tubes; as the child grows
older, some features start to appear male, such as deepening of the voice, facial hair,
and failure to menstruate at puberty. About 1 in 10,000 to 18,000 children are born with
In deciding this case, we consider the compassionate calls for recognition of the various
degrees of intersex as variations which should not be subject to outright denial. It has been
suggested that there is some middle ground between the sexes, a no-mans land for those
individuals who are neither truly male nor truly female. The current state of Philippine
statutes apparently compels that a person be classified either as a male or as a female, but

this Court is not controlled by mere appearances when nature itself fundamentally negates
such rigid classification.
In the instant case, if we determine respondent to be a female, then there is no basis for a
change in the birth certificate entry for gender. But if we determine, based on medical
testimony and scientific development
showing the respondent to be other than female, then a change in the
subjects birth certificate entry is in order.
Biologically, nature endowed respondent with a mixed (neither consistently and categorically
female nor consistently and categorically male) composition. Respondent has female (XX)
chromosomes. However, respondents body system naturally produces high levels of male
hormones (androgen). As a result, respondent has ambiguous genitalia and the phenotypic
features of a male.
Ultimately, we are of the view that where the person is biologically or naturally intersex the
determining factor in his gender classification would be what the individual, like respondent,
having reached the age of majority, with good reason thinks of his/her sex. Respondent here
thinks of himself as a male and considering that his body produces high levels of male
hormones (androgen) there is preponderant biological support for considering him as being
Sexual development in cases of intersex persons makes the gender classification at birth
inconclusive. It is at maturity that the gender of such persons, like respondent, is fixed.
Respondent here has simply let nature take its course and has not taken unnatural steps to
arrest or interfere with what he was born with. And accordingly, he has already ordered his
life to that of a male.
Nature has instead taken its due course in respondents development to reveal more fully
his male characteristics.
In the absence of a law on the matter, the Court will not dictate on respondent concerning a
matter so innately private as ones sexuality and lifestyle preferences, much less on whether
or not to undergo medical treatment to reverse the male tendency due to CAH.
To him belongs the human right to the pursuit of happiness and of health. Thus, to him
should belong the primordial choice of what courses of action to take along the path of his
sexual development and maturation.
In so ruling we do no more than give respect to (1) the diversity of nature; and (2) how an
individual deals with what nature has handed out. In other words, we respect respondents
congenital condition and his mature decision to be a male. Life is already difficult for the
ordinary person. We cannot but respect how respondent deals with his unordinary state and
thus help make his life easier, considering the unique circumstances in this case.
As for respondents change of name under Rule 103, this Court has held that a change of
name is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion, to be exercised in the light of the
reasons adduced and the consequences that will follow. [28] The trial courts grant of
respondents change of name from Jennifer to Jeff implies a change of a feminine name to a
masculine name. Considering the consequence that respondents change of name merely
recognizes his preferred gender, we find merit in respondents change of name. Such a
change will conform with the change of the entry in his birth certificate from female to male.

4th case: Marcelo, Albina, Mariano, Pablo, Helen, Catalino,

Eusebio, Emma, all LEE and Tiu Chuan versus
Court of Appeals and Hon Venercio (Branch 47, RTC
Manila) and Hon. Hamoy (Branch 130, RTC Kalookan) and
Rita, Leoncio, Rosa, Melody, Lucia, Julian, Henry, Martin,
Victoriano, Natividad, Thomas, all LEE
G.R. No. 118387, October 11, 2001
Ponente: DE LEON, JR., J
Nature: Petition for Review on Certiorari, with Prayer for the Issuance of a TRO and/or Writ
of Preliminary Injunction
1. This is a story of two (2) sets of children sired by one and the same man but begotten
of two (2) different mothers.
i. Private respondents [PR]: Children of Lee Tek Sheng and his lawful wife, Keh Shiok
ii. Petitioners [P]: Allegedly children of Lee Tek Sheng and his concubine, Tiu Chuan
2. PR filed two (2) separate petitions for the cancellation and/or correction of entries in
the records of birth of P.
3. December 2, 1992 - the petition against all petitioners, with the exception of Emma
Lee, was filed before RTC Manila and later assigned to Branch 47 presided over by
Judge Lorenzo B. Veneracion.
4. February 3, 1993 - a similar petition against Emma Lee was filed before RTC of
Kalookan and assigned Judge Jaime T. Hamoy of Branch 130.
5. Both petitions sought to cancel and/or correct the false and erroneous entries in all
pertinent records of birth of petitioners by deleting and/or canceling therein the name
of Keh Shiok Cheng as their mother, and by substituting the same with the name
Tiu Chuan, who is allegedly the petitioners true birth mother.
6. PRs alleged:
- Legitimate children of sps. Lee Tek Sheng and Keh Shiok Cheng who were legally
married in China sometime in 1931. Except for Rita K. Lee who was born and raised
in China, PRs herein were all born and raised in the Philippines.
7. October, 1948 - Lee Tek Sheng facilitated the arrival in the Philippines from China of a
young girl named Tiu Chuan. Who was introduced to his family as their new
housemaid but became Lee Tek Shengs mistress. Tiu Chuan gave birth to
8. Unknown to Keh Shiok Cheng and PRs, Lee Tek Sheng, falsified the entries in the
records of birth of petitioners by making it appear that petitioners mother was Keh
Shiok Cheng.

9. Tiu Chuan gave maternal care and guidance to the petitioners. They all lived in the
same compound. All was well, therefore, before private respondents discovery of
the dishonesty and fraud perpetrated by their father, Lee Tek Sheng.
10. May 9, 1989 - Keh Shiok Cheng died. Lee Tek Sheng insisted that the names of all his
children, including those of petitioners, be included in the obituary notice of Keh
Shiok Chengs death that was to be published in the newspapers. It was this
seemingly irrational act that piqued private respondents curiosity, if not suspicion.
11. PRs requested the NBI to conduct an investigation and the report stated that, among
others, the false entries in the records of birth of Ps.
As per Birth Certificate:
- Marcelo Lee Not 12th child of Mrs. Keh, but GRAVIDA I, PARA I which
means first pregnancy, first live birth delivery of 17 year old mother
- Albina Lee claimed 3rd child when true 3rd child is Melody
- Mariano Lee - claimed 5th child when true is Lucia
- Pablo Lee claimed 16th child when Mrs. Keh actually stopped conceiving
after her 11th child.
- Helen Lee - 6th child when true is Julian
- Emma Lee - no record in the hospital, born at their house, later admitted at
Chinese General Hospital.
- Catalino Lee - claimed 14th child and the age of Mrs. jumped from 28 years
old at the birth Helen to 38 years old at the birth of Catalino
- Eusebio Lee - alleged last son of Mrs. Keh who was already 48 years old. It is
already impossible that she could have given birth to 8 children in a span
of only 10 years at her age.
12. NBI: 8 children are certainly not Mrs. Kehs, but a much younger woman, most
probably Tiu. It elevated the status of his 2nd family and secured their future.
13. Ps filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that:
(1) resort to Rule 108 is improper where the ultimate objective is to assail the
legitimacy and filiation of petitioners;
(2) the petition, which is essentially an action to impugn legitimacy was filed
(3) the action to impugn has already prescribed
14. RTC Manila Judge Veneracion: denied the MTD for failure of Ps to appear at the
hearing. Petition was set for hearing. Notices were given. A copy of the order setting
the case for hearing was ordered published once a week for (3) consecutive weeks in
a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines.
15. RTC Kalookan Judge Hamoy: issued an Order taking cognizance of special
proceeding setting the case for hearing and held that the PRs have complied with the
jurisdictional requirements for the Court to take cognizance of this case. An actual
publication of the order setting the case for hearing in Media Update once a week
for three (3) consecutive weeks.
16. Ps MR of the above-mentioned orders of Judge Veneracion and Judge Hamoy failed
17. Ps go to Court of Appeals via a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Application
for the Issuance of a TRO and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction, claimed judges had
acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in
issuing the assailed orders allowing the petitions for the cancellation and/or
correction of entries in petitioners records of birth to prosper in the LCs.
18. Ps argued:
(1) Rule 108 is inappropriate for impugning the legitimacy and filiation of children;
(2) Respondents judges are sanctioning a collateral attack against the filiation and
legitimacy of children;

(3) Respondents judges are allowing private respondents to impugn the legitimacy
and filiation of their siblings despite the fact that their undisputed common father is
still alive;
(4) Respondents judges are entertaining petitions which are already time-barred;
(5) The petitions below are part of a forum-shopping spree
19. CA: Dismissed Ps petition.
Whether Rule 108 is inappropriate for impugning the legitimacy and filiation of children.

NO. The proceedings were simply aimed at establishing a particular fact, status and/or
right. Stated differently, the thrust of said proceedings was to establish the factual truth
regarding the occurrence of certain events which created or affected the status of persons
and/or otherwise deprived said persons of rights. Substantial errors, such as those sought to
be corrected in the present case, can be the subject of a petition under Rule 108

Affirmed CA. Petition DENIED.
It is precisely the province of a special proceeding such as the one outlined under Rule 108
of the Revised Rules of Court to establish the status or right of a party, or a particular fact.
- The petitions were intended to establish that for physical and/or biological reasons it
was impossible for Keh Shiok Cheng to have conceived and given birth to the
petitioners as shown in their birth records.
Court of Appeals adverted Republic vs. Valencia, 141 SCRA 462 (1986), where the Supreme
Court affirmed the decision of CFI Cebu City ordering the correction in the nationality and
civil status of petitioners minor children as stated in their records of birth from Chinese to
Filipino, and legitimate to illegitimate, respectively. Although recognizing that the
changes or corrections sought to be effected were not mere clerical errors of a harmless or
innocuous nature, the Court, sitting en banc, held therein that even substantial errors in a
civil register may be corrected and the true facts established provided the parties aggrieved
by the error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding. In the said case,
the Supreme Court also laid down the rule that a proceeding for correction and/or
cancellation of entries in the civil register under Rule 108 ceases to be summary in nature
and takes on the characteristics of an appropriate adversary proceeding when all the
procedural requirements under Rule 108 are complied with.
Case of Labayo-Rowe vs. Republic was misapplied by petitioners
- Far from petitioners theory, the Courts ruling in Labayo-Rowe vs. Republic[32] did
not exclude recourse to Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court to effect substantial
changes or corrections in entries of the civil register.
the only requisite is that the proceedings under Rule 108 be an appropriate
adversary proceeding as contra-distinguished from a summary proceeding.
- Special proceedings formal pleadings and a hearing may or may not be dispensed
with, and the remedy granted upon mere application or motion. Hence, a special
proceeding is not always summary.
- One only has to take a look at the procedure outlined in Rule 108 to see that what is
contemplated therein is not a summary proceeding per se. It held that: Rule 108
requires publication of the petition three (3) times, i.e., once a week for three (3)
consecutive weeks (Sec. 4). The Rule also requires inclusion as parties of all persons
who claim any interest which would be affected by the cancellation or correction
(Sec. 3). The civil registrar and any person in interest are also required to file their
opposition, if any, within fifteen (15) days from notice of the petition, or from the last

date of publication of such notice (Sec. 5). Last, but not the least, although the court
may make orders expediting the proceedings, it is after hearing that the court shall
either dismiss the petition or issue an order granting the same (Sec. 7).
It is beyond doubt that the specific matters covered by the preceding provisions
include not only status but also nationality. Therefore, the Ty Kong
Tin pronouncement that Article 412 does not contemplate matters that may
affect civil status, nationality or citizenship is erroneous.
- Article 412 from the rest of the articles in Title XVI, Book I of the New Civil Code, in
clear contravention of the rule of statutory construction that a statute must always
be construed as a whole such that the particular meaning to be attached to any
word or phrase is ascertained from the context and the nature of the subject
Republic Act No. 9048[47] which was passed by Congress on February 8, 2001
substantially amended Article 412 of the New Civil Code, to wit:
SECTION 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or Typographical Error and Change of First
Name or Nickname.- No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without
a judicial order, except for clerical or typographical errors and change of first name or
nickname which can be corrected or changed by the concerned city or municipal civil
registrar or consul general in accordance with the provisions of this Act and its
implementing rules and regulations.
- Clerical or typographical errors in entries of the civil register are now to be corrected
and changed without need of a judicial order and by the city or municipal civil
registrar or consul general. The obvious effect is to remove from the ambit of Rule
108 the correction or changing of such errors in entries of the civil register. Hence,
what is left for the scope of operation of Rule 108 are substantial changes and
corrections in entries of the civil register. This is precisely the opposite of what Ty
Kong Tin and other cases of its genre had said, perhaps another indication that it
was not sound doctrine after all.
PRs cause of action had already prescribed as more than five (5) years had lapsed
between the registration of the latest birth among the petitioners in 1960 and the filing of
the actions in December of 1992 and February of 1993.
The last element of their cause of action, that is, the act of their father in falsifying the
entries in petitioners birth records, occurred more than thirty (30) years ago. Strictly
speaking, it was upon this occurrence that private respondents right of action or right to sue
accrued. However, we must take into account the fact that it was only sometime in 1989
that private respondents discovered that they in fact had a cause of action against
petitioners who continue to use said falsified birth records.
Hence, it would result in manifest injustice if we were to deprive private
respondents of their right to establish the truth about a fact, in this case,
petitioners true mother, and their real status, simply because they had
discovered the dishonesty perpetrated upon them by their common father at
a much later date. This is especially true in the case of private respondents
who, as their fathers legitimate children, did not have any reason to suspect
that he would commit such deception against them and deprive them of their
sole right to inherit from their mothers (Keh Shiok Chengs) estate. It was
only sometime in 1989 that private respondents suspicions were aroused and
confirmed. From that time until 1992 and 1993, less than five (5) years had

Petitioners reckon the 5-year prescriptive period from the date of the registration of
the last birth among the petitioners-siblings in 1960, and not from the date private
respondents had discovered the false entries in petitioners birth records in

1989. This analogy does not hold water. Unlike a title to a parcel of land, a
persons parentage cannot be acquired by prescription. One is either born
of a particular mother or not. It is that simple.


G.R. No. L-36478 April 29, 1983

Petitioners-appellants Cesar Yu and Mapalad Cruz, son and mother, respectively, filed
with the Court of First Instance of Rizal a petition for correction of entry in the Civil
Registry of Manila alleging that both petitioners are residents of San Juan, Rizal; that
petitioner Cesar Yu is the son of petitioner Mapalad Cruz and Aproniano Yu; that Cesar
Yu was born at the Sacred Heart Hospital at Looban, Paco, Manila, on April 2, 1943;
that the physician who attended his delivery erroneously gave the surname "Young"
instead of "YU" to the newly born child when the birth of the child was recorded in the
Civil Registry of Manila; that the entries in the birth certificate of Cesar Yu as recorded
in the Civil Registry of Manila contain the following entries:
Full Name Cesar Young Name of Father Aproniano Young;

and that these erroneous entries in the birth certificate of Cesar Yu in the Civil
Registry of Manila were due to the mistake of the person who supplied the
information to the Local Civil Registrar of Manila. Petitioner Cesar Yu prays that an
order be issued directing the Civil Registrar of Manila to - correct the erroneous
entries in his birth certificate by changing the surname "YOUNG" to "YU" under the
column "Full Name of Child", and the surname "Young" to "Yu" under the column
"Father" so that the full name of the petitioner should read "CESAR YU" instead of
"CESAR YOUNG", and that of his father as "Aproniano Yu" instead of "Aproniano

CFI of Rizal: Dismissed the petition. The civil registry to be corrected is located in the City of
Manila and that the Civil Registrar of the City of Manila has not been made party to this
proceedings as provided for in Sections I and 3 of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court of the

ISSUE: Whether or not Art. 412 of the Civil Code should apply (i.e. the Civil Registrar of the
City of Manila need not be a party) instead of Sec. 1 and 3 of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court

Article 412 allows correction only of clerical mistakes, not those substantial changes which
may affect the civil status or nationality of the persons involved. (Ty Kong Tin vs. Republic, L5609, February 5, 1954; Beduya vs. Republic, 11 SCRA 109). A clerical error is one which is
visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding; an error made by a clerk or a
transcriber; a mistake in copying or writing (Black v. Republic of the Philippines, L-10869,
November 28, 1958); or some harmless and innocuous changes such as correction of a
name that is clearly misspelled or of a misstatement of the occupation of the parties
(Ansaldo v. Republic of the Philippines, L-10226, February 14, 1958).
The correction sought by petitioners-appellants is clearly substantial, not only clerical,
affecting as it does not only their names but also their Identities. Thus, the correction can
only be made in a proper proceeding wherein the person concerned (Civil Registrar of
Manila) should be made a party and be given the opportunity to be heard.
Section 1 of Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:
SECTION 1. Who may file petition. Any person interested in any act, event,
order or decree concerning the civil status of persons which has been
recorded in the civil register, may file a verified petition for the cancellation or
correction of any entry relating thereto, with the Court of First Instance of the
province where the corresponding civil registry is located.
and, Section 3 thereof requires that the Civil Registrar and an persons who have or claim any
interest which may be affected thereby shall be made parties to the proceeding. Thus, the
petition must conform and comply with the provisions of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court and,
petitioners having failed to comply with the requirements thereof, the trial court committed
no error in dismissing the petition. The reason why non-clerical mistakes cannot be corrected
under the summary proceeding set by Article 412 of the new Civil Code "lies in the fact that
the books making up the Civil Register and all documents relating thereto shall be
considered public documents and shall be primar facie evidence of the facts therein
contained, (Article 410, new Civil Code), and if the entries in the civil register could be
corrected or changed through a mere summary proceeding, and not through an appropriate
action, wherein all parties who may be affected by the entries are notified or represented we
would set wide open the door to fraud or other mischief the consequences of which might be
detrimental and far reaching.

7th case: Barco vs Court of Appeals, GR 120587 ( January

20, 2004 )
1. On 24 December 1970, private respondent Nadina Maravilla (Nadina) married
Francisco Maravilla (Francisco).
2. By February of 1977, the spouses had opted to live separately, and in February of the
following year they obtained an ecclesiastical annulment of marriage issued by the
Catholic Diocese of Bacolod City.
3. On 9 June 1978, Nadina gave birth to a daughter named June Salvacion (June) in
Makati, Metro Manila. Junes birth certificate listed Francisco Maravilla as the father,
and Maravilla as the childs surname. Nadina signed the birth certificate shortly after
it was accomplished.
4. Despite the notation in Junes birth certificate, Nadina subsequently claimed that all
along, the real father of her child was Armando Gustilo (Gustilo), a former
Congressman with whom she maintained a relationship.
5. At the time of Junes birth, Gustilo was married to one Consuelo Caraycong, who
would later perish in the MV Don Juan naval accident of 1981.
6. On 21 August 1982, Nadina and Gustilo were married in the United States. This
marriage took place two and a half years before Nadinas marriage to Francisco was
alleged to have been annulled in the Philippines.
7. On 12 March 1985, Nadina apparently was able to obtain a judicial declaration
annulling her marriage to Francisco.
8. On 17 March 1983, Nadina filed in her own name a Petition for Correction of Entries
in the Certificate of Birth of her daughter June with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Makati. Therein, she alleged that she had been living separately from her lawful
spouse Francisco since February of 1977, and that Gustilo was the real father of June.
9. She prayed that the Local Civil Registrar of Makati be directed to correct the birth
certificate of June to the effect that the latters full name be made June Salvacion C.
Gustilo, and that the name of her father be changed from Francisco Maravilla to
Armando Gustilo. Notably, Francisco affixed his signature to the Petition signifying
his conformity thereto.
10. On 20 March 1983. Gustilo filed a Constancia, wherein he acknowledged June as his
daughter with Nadina, and that he was posing no objection to Nadinas petition.
11. On 26 July 1983, the RTC, in accordance with Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, issued
an Order setting the case for hearing and directing that a copy of the order be
published once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
12. On 7 September 1983, Nadina filed an Amended Petition,1[12] this time impleading
Francisco and Gustilo as respondents. Correspondingly, the RTC amended the Order
on 22 September 1983 to reflect the additional impleaded parties.

13. The Office of the Solicitor General filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition on the ground
that the RTC had no jurisdiction over the subject matter and/or the nature of th[e]
suit. They cited various jurisprudence holding that only innocuous or clerical errors
may be corrected under a Rule 108 petition for correction of entries, and that the

Petition seeks changes are substantial and controversial in character which directly
affect the filiation and legitimacy of petitioners daughter.
14. On 23 February 1984, the Motion to Dismiss was denied by the RTC, which also
subsequently denied a Motion for Reconsideration thereto filed by the Solicitor
15. On 7 January 1985, the RTC issued an Order (RTC Order) granting the petition and
ordering the requested corrections to be effected. The RTC considered the claim of
Nadina that she had relied completely on her uncle William R. Veto] to facilitate the
preparation of Junes birth certificate, that it was through his inadvertence that the
mistaken entries were made, and that she was in intense physical discomfort when
she had affixed her signature to the birth certificate containing the incorrect entries.
The RTC also noted that Francisco had signified his conformity to the action by
signing the original petition, and that Gustilo had manifested through a Constancia
dated 20 March 1983 that he was acknowledging June as his daughter and
expressing no objection to the petition.
16. Gustilo died in 19 December 1986] Two estate proceedings arose from his death, one
lodged in Makati, the other in Harris County, Texas.
17. Among the participants in both estate proceedings was Jose Vicente Gustilo (Jose
Vicente), allegedly a biological child of Gustilo.
18. On 5 March 1993, he filed with the Court of Appeals a Petition seeking the annulment
of the RTC Order of 7 January 1985 which had effected changes in the civil status of
19. In her Comment, Nadina countered that Jose Vicente had not sufficiently proven that
he was a child of Armando, and there was neither extrinsic fraud or lack of
jurisdiction that would justify the annulment of the RTC Order. Nadina also pointed
out that the Makati intestate court had approved a compromise agreement wherein
the parties had agreed that the only heirs of the decedent Armando are the
surviving spouse, Nadina G. Gustilo, the daughter, June Salvacion G. Gustilo, the son,
Jose Vicente Gustilo III, and another daughter, Mary Joy Ann Gustilo. 2[26] However,
this compromise agreement was subsequently voided on petition by Jose Vicente to
the Court of Appeals, on the ground that the Civil Code prohibited compromise as to
the civil status of persons
20. After the Court of Appeals commenced hearings on the petition, petitioner Milagros
Barco (Barco), on 11 January 1994, filed in her capacity as the natural guardian
and/or guardian ad litem of her daughter, Mary Joy Ann Gustilo.
21. Barco claimed that she and Gustilo had maintained a relationship since 1967, and to
them was born Mary Joy in 1977. Barco also alleged that she actually moved in with
Gustilo after the death of the latters wife in 1980, and maintained her affair with
Gustilo until 1983, when she was purportedly supplanted by Nadina as Gustilos
common-law companion after Gustilo had become gravely ill.

22. The Court of Appeals rendered a Decision on 13 March 1995, dismissing both the
Petition and the Complaint-in-Intervention.3[31] The appellate court held that neither
Jose Vicente nor Barco were able to establish the existence of lack of jurisdiction and
extrinsic fraud, the two grounds that would justify the annulment of a final judgment.
23. It ruled that while Jose Vicente and Barco had not been made parties in the Petition
for Correction, the subsequent notice and publication of the Order setting the case
for hearing served as constructive notice to all parties who might have an interest to
participate in the case. The publication of the Order conferred upon the RTC the
jurisdiction to try and decide the case.
Issue No. 1
WON Barco should have been made a party to the Nadinas petition and the failure to
implead her deprived the RTC of jurisdiction.
Held: No, 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 parties thereto but the
whole world. An in rem proceeding is validated essentially through publication. Publication is
notice to the whole world that the proceeding has 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 of such notice that brings in the whole world as a party in the case and
vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it.

Issue No. 2
WON that a petition for correction of entries in the civil register is not limited to innocuous or
clerical mistakes, applies only to citizenship cases.

Held: All entries in the civil register may be changed or corrected under Article 412. Republic
Act No. 9048, enacted in 2001, has effectively changed the nature of a proceeding under
Rule 108. Under this new law, clerical or typographical errors and change of first name or
nickname may now be corrected or changed by the concerned city or municipal registrar or
consul general, without need of any judicial order. The obvious effect is to remove from the
ambit of Rule 108 the correction or changing of such errors in entries of the civil register.
Hence, what is left for the scope of operation of Rule 108 are substantial changes and
corrections in entries of the civil register.
1. The law sanctions the annulment of certain judgments which, though final, are
ultimately void. Annulment of judgment is an equitable principle not because it allows
a party-litigant another opportunity to reopen a judgment that has long lapsed into
finality but because it enables him to be discharged from the burden of being bound
to a judgment that is an absolute nullity to begin with. The inevitable conclusion is
that the RTC Order, despite its apparent flaws, is not null and void, and thus cannot
be annulled. Consequently, the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in
issuing the assailed decision

2. Jurisdiction should therefore be distinguished from the exercise of jurisdiction. The

authority to decide a cause at all, and not the decision rendered therein, is what
makes up jurisdiction. Where there is jurisdiction of the person and subject matter
xxx the decision of all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of that
3. Section 2, Rule 47 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly provides only two
grounds for annulment of judgment, namely: extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
This express limitation is significant since previous jurisprudence recognized other
grounds as well

#8 Republic of the Philippines vs. Carlito Kho

GR 17340; June 29, 2007
Nature of Petition: Petition for review on certiorari seeking to set aside the CA Decision
which affirmed the RTC Decision in granting the prayer of respondents Carlito Kho etc. for
the correction of entries in their birth certificates as well as those of Carlitos minor children
Kevin and Kelly Dogmoc Kho.
7. Carlito and his siblings Michael, Mercy Nona and Heddy Moira filed before the RTC a
verified petition for correction of entries in the civil registry to effect change in their
birth certificates. Carlito asked the court in behalf of his minor children, Kevin and
Kelly, to order the correction of some entries in their birth certificates.
8. Carlito requested the correction in his birth certificate of his mother to Filipino
instead of Chinese as well as the deletion of the word married opposite the
phrase date of marriage of parents because his parents, Juan Kho and Ephiphania
Inchoco were allegedly not legally married. The same request to delete the married
status of their parents from their birth certificates was made by Carlitos siblings
Michael, Mercy Nona, and Heddy Moira. With respect to the birth certificates of
Carlitos children, he prayed that the date of his and his wifes marriage be corrected
from April 27, 1989 to January 21, 2000 the date appearing in their marriage
certificate. Carlito filed an Amended Petition praying that Carlitos second name
John be deleted from his record of birth and that the name and citizenship of
Carlitos father in his (Carlitos) marriage certificate be corrected from John Kho to
Juan Kho and Filipino to Chinese.
9. Trial court: directed the local civil registrar to correct the entries: a) change the
citizenship of his mother from Chinese to Filipino; b) delete John from his name; c)
delete the word married opposite the date of marriage of his parents. The last
correction was ordered to be effected also in the birth certificate of Michael, Mercy
Nona and Heddy. Trial court also ordered the correction of the birth certificates of
minor children of Carlito to reflect the date of marriage of Carlito and Marivel Dogmoc
as January 21, 2000, and the name Maribel to Marivel. With respect the marriage
certificate of Carlito and Marivel, the alteration of Carlitos father from john Kho to
Juan Kho and from Filipino to Chinese was made.
10. Republic of the Philippines appealed to the CA alleging that the petition for correction
of entries in the subject documents despite the failure of respondents to implead the

minors mother, Marivel, as an indispensable party and to offer sufficient evidence to

warrant the corrections with regard to the questioned married status of Carlito and
his siblings parents, and latters citizenship. Petitioner also contended the noncompliance with jurisdictional requirements for a change of name under Rule 103 for
ordering the change of name of Carlito John Kho to Carlito Kho.
11. CA: denied petitioners appeal and affirmed decision of TC. CA found that Rule 108 on
the rules on cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry was observed in
this case. CA conceded that the change in the date of marriage of Carlito and Marivel
is a substantial alteration and held that the date would not affect the minors filiation
from legitimate to illegitimate considering that at the time of their respective
births,1991 and 1993, their father Carlitos first marriage was subsisting as it had
been annulled only in 1999. CA held that Marivel was not an indispensable party to
the case. the CA ruled that although Carlito failed to observe the requirements of
Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, he had complied nonetheless with the jurisdictional
requirements for correction of entries in the civil registry under Rule 108 of the Rules
of Court
12. Petitioner contends: a) that since the changes sought by respondents were
substantial in nature, they could only be granted through an adversarial proceeding
in which indispensable parties, such as Marivel and respondents parents, should
have been notified or impleaded; b) the jurisdictional requirements to change
Carlitos name under Section 2 of Rule 103 of the Rules of Court were not satisfied
because 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 state Carlitos
aliases and his true name as Carlito John I. Kho.;
1) Whether or not seeking to:
(a) change the citizenship of Carlitos mother as it appeared in his birth certificate and
(b) delete the married status of Carlitos parents in his and his siblings birth
certificates, and
(c) change of the date of marriage of Carlito and Marivel involves the correction of not
just clerical errors.
2) Whether the failure to implead Marivel and Carlitos parents rendered the trial short of the
required adversary proceeding and the trial courts judgment void
1) Yes, it entails substantial and controversial amendments. CA decision is affirmed.
(a) 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 on the
citizenship and nationality not only of the parents, but also of the offspring.
(b) The deletion of the entry that Carlitos and his siblings parents were married alters
their filiation from legitimate to illegitimate, with significant implications on their
successional and other rights.
(c) With respect to the date of marriage of Carlito and Marivel, their certificate of
marriageshows that indeed they were married on January 21, 2000, not on April 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 at the time his sons were born
because his previous marriage was annulled only in 1999. Given the evidence presented
by respondents, the CA observed that the minors were illegitimate at birth, hence, the
correction would bring about no change at all in the nature of their filiation.

2) 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 did not raise any objection to the
non-inclusion of Marivel and Carlitos parents as parties to the proceeding. It seems highly
improbable that Marivel was unaware of the proceedings to correct the entries in her
childrens birth certificates, especially since the notices, orders and decision of the trial court
were all sent to the residence4[23] she shared with Carlito and the children.

The enactment in March 2001 of Republic Act No. 9048, otherwise known as AN ACT
considered to lend legislative affirmation to the judicial precedence that substantial
corrections to the civil status of persons recorded in the civil registry may be effected
through the filing of a petition under Rule 108.
The obvious effect of Republic Act No. 9048 is to make possible the administrative
correction of clerical or typographical errors or change of first name or nickname in entries
in the civil register, leaving to Rule 108 the correction of substantial changes in the civil
registry in appropriate adversarial proceedings.
1. The correction in Carlitos birth certificate of his name from Carlito John to Carlito, the
same was properly granted under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
The cancellation or correction of entries involving changes of name falls under
letter o of the following provision of Section 2 of Rule 108. Hence, while the
jurisdictional requirements of Rule 103 (which governs petitions for change of
name) were not complied with, observance of the provisions of Rule 108 suffices
to effect the correction sought for. Carlitos official transcript of record from the
Urious College in Butuan City, certificate of eligibility from the Civil Service
Commission, and voter registration record, satisfactorily show that he has been
known by his first name only. No prejudice is thus likely to arise from the
dropping of the second name.
2. The correction of the mothers citizenship from Chinese to Filipino as appearing in
Carlitos birth record was also proper.
The birth certificates of Carlitos siblings uniformly stated the citizenship of
Epifania as Filipino. To disallow the correction in Carlitos birth record of his
mothers citizenship would perpetuate an inconsistency in the natal
circumstances of the siblings who are unquestionably born of the same mother
and father.
3. The correction in Carlitos marriage certificate of his fathers name from John Kho to
Juan Kho
amounts to merely righting of a clerical error. Except in said marriage certificate,
the name Juan Kho was uniformly entered in the birth certificates of Carlito and
of his siblings


DOCTRINE: The obvious effect of Republic Act 9048 is merely to make possible the
administrative correction of clerical or typographical errors or change of first name or
nickname in entries in the civil register, leaving to Rule 108 the correction of substantial
changes in the civil registry in appropriate adversarial proceedings.
1. Petronio L. Benemerito filed a verified petition before the RTC of Nueva Ecija asking
for the correction of certain entries in the record of birth of his son, Joven Lee
Benemerito, on filw with the Local Civil Registrat of Guimba, Nueva Ecija.
2. The entries sought to be corrected included:
a. A change of the fathers name from Peter Laurente Benemerito to Petronio L.
Benemerito; and
b. The date of marriage of Joven Lees parents, Edna Sicat & Petronio Benemerito
appearing from September 1, 1989 to January 25, 1998.
3. Notice of Hearing TC directed: be published for 3 consecutive weeks in a newspaper
of general circulation.
4. Benemerito testified that he and Edna were married on January 25, 1998. Prior to
their marriage, they had been living together without the benefit of marriage and
during the cohabitation, a son (Joven) was born to them.
5. TC: granted the petition.
6. Republic appealed to the CA contending that the petition should not have been
granted since indispensable parties themselves were not notified of the proceedings
and the substantial changes (date of marriage of parents, name of the father, or
filiation of the child & whether legitimate or illegitimate).
7. CA affirmed TC. Opportunity to contest the petition was afforded to all parties
through publication. Copies of the Order were furnished to the Office of the SolGen,
the National Census and Statistics Office, the Provincial Prosecutor, and the Office of
the Local Registrar of Guimba, Nueva Ecija. The Correction of the spelling of the
petitioners name is an INNOCUOUS ALTERATION, as well as the change of date of
marriage the legal effect is merely to change the status of the child from legitimate
to legitimated not illegitimare.

8. Republic asserts that the changes sought by respondent are SUBSTANTIAL and not

Rule 108 ROC, in relation to Article 412 CC, states the procedure by which an entry in the
civil register may be cancelled or corrected.

The proceeding there contemplated may generally be used only to correct clerical,
spelling, typographical and other innocuous errors in the civil registry.

A clerical error is one which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding;
an error made by a clerk or a transcriber; a mistake in copying or writing, or a
harmless change such as a correction of name that is clearly misspelled or of a
misstatement of the occupation of the parent.

Substantial or contentious alterations may be allowed only in adversarial

proceedings, in which all interested parties are impleaded and due process is
properly observed.

The corrections sought to be made by respondent in the birth certificate of Joven Lee
could hardly qualify as just clerical errors.

It would be essential to establish that Peter Laurente Benemerito, the person

named as being the father of Joven Lee, and Petronio L. Benemerito refer to the
same person.

The intended correction of the date of marriage of the parents of Joven Lee from
01 September 1989, appearing in his certificate of birth, to 25 January 1998,
would, in effect, change the status of the child, Joven Lee, born on 01 June 1990
at a time when he and his wife were not as yet legally married, from being the
legitimate son of Peter Laurente Benemerito to being instead the legitimated child
of Petronio L. Benemerito and a certain Peter Laurente Benemerito.

The changes in the entry in the Certificate of Live Birth of Joven Lee S. Benemerito, which
can possibly affect successional and other rights of persons related to either or
both respondent and his wife, as well as that of Joven Lee himself, are simply
too substantial to be dealt with in summary, instead of the regular adversarial,
proceedings, where all interested parties are impleaded, or at least notified, and allowed
to be heard before the proposed changes in the birth certificate are effected.

The recent enactment of Republic Act 9048, otherwise also known as An Act
Authorizing the City or Municipal Civil Registrar or the Consul General to
Correct a Clerical or Typographical Error in an Entry and/or Change of First
Name or Nickname in the Civil Register Without Need of Judicial Order, only
empowers the City or Municipal Civil Registrar or the Consul General to correct clerical
or typographical errors and to allow a change in the first name or nickname in
an entry in the civil registry without further need of a judicial order.

The obvious effect of Republic Act 9048 is merely to make possible the
administrative correction of clerical or typographical errors or change of
first name or nickname in entries in the civil register, leaving to Rule 108
the correction of substantial changes in the civil registry in appropriate
adversarial proceedings.

without prejudice on the part of respondent to initiate the appropriate adversarial
proceedings such as may be minded. No costs.

11th case: CERUILA v DELANTAR (GR 140305 December 9,

1. Petitioners-spouses Platon Ceruila and Librada D. Ceruila filed an action with the RTC
of Manila, for the annulment and cancellation of the birth certificate of Maria Rosilyn
Telin Delantar the child-victim in the rape case involving Romeo Jaloslos.
2. 1996 Rosilyn complained against her father Simplicio Delantar for child abuse,
particularly prostitution.
3. Simplicio was incarcerated at the Pasay City Jail which prompted the filing of a
petition for involuntary commitment of Rosilyn in facor of the DSWD, as the
whereabouts of her mother, Librada Ceruila, was unknown. RTC granted petition.
4. February 1997 - the Ceruilas filed a petition before the RTC of Manila, entitled IN THE
ROSILYN TELIN DELANTAR, praying that the birth certificate of Rosilyn be canceled
and declared null and void for the reasons that said birth certificate was made an
instrument of the crime of simulation of birth and therefore invalid and spurious, and
it falsified all material entries, to wit:
a. Name of her mother should not be Librada;
b. Signature of Librada being a forgery;
c. Simplicio is merely the foster father and co-guardian in fact of Maria Rosilyn
and the name of the natural father is unknown;
d. Date of marriage of the supposed parents who were actually full blood
brother and sister so impossible;
e. Status of Maria Rosilyn as a Legitimate child which is wrong;
f. Rosilyns actual date of birth; and
g. Name of the physician being fictitious.
5. RTC: Directed the publication of said order. It also stated that any person who is
interested in the petition may interpose his/her comment or opposition thereto on or
before the scheduled hearing. Summons was sent to the Civil Register of Manila (no
representative appeared during hearing).
6. RTC: granted the petition of the Ceruilas. It declared the certificate of live birth of the
Minor Maria Rosilyn Telin Delantar as null and void ab initio and ordered the City Civil
Registrar of Manila and the NSO, to expunge from their respective marriage registers
the entry of the birth of said minor and such other documents pertaining there.

7. The evidence on record revealed that:

On May 11, 1985, a child was born at the Dr. Jose Fabella Memorial
Hospital in Sta. Cruz, Manila. The name of the child was entered in her birth
certificate as Maria Rosilyn Telin Delantar. In the said birth certificate the
name of the childs mother appear as Librada A. Telin while that of her father
as Simplicio R. Delantar. The birth certificate likewise shows that the parents
of the child, were married on February 14, 1977 in Manila. It is made to appear
that the mother of the child was 27 years old when the child was born and
that she was attended in her delivery by Dr. Santos.

Petitioners submitted the baptismal certificates of Simplicio Delantar

and Librada Delantar to prove that they are full blood brother and sister and
could not have been possible for them to have sired Rosilyn. In the said
baptismal certificates, the names of the parents of Simplicio and Librada are
similarly entered as Juan Delantar and Carila Telen.
It is highly unlikely that the alleged parents of Rosilyn would
commit an incestuous act and proclaim to the whole world that
they are the parents of the minor.
In the baptismal certificate of Librada Delantar, it is entered
that she was born on January 8, 1940 in Tubod,
Manglanilla, Cebu. Such being the case, then Librada must have
been 45 years of age at the time of the birth of Rosilyn in stark
contrast to her age appearing in the birth certificate of the
latter which shows that Librada was 27 years old at the time of
her delivery.
The Local Civil Registrar of Minglanilla, Cebu gave a certification
to the effect that the records of birth on file with the office for
the period January, 1940 to April, 1945 were all destroyed by
The signature of the person named Librada T. delos Santos in
the birth certificate purporting to be that of the petitioner wife
and the signature of the latter appearing in the verification of
the petitioner are so strikingly dissimilar that they could not
have but proceeded from two different hands.
8. 1997 - Rosilyn, represented by her legal guardian, the DSWD, filed, with the
CA, a petition for the annulment of judgment in the petition for cancellation of
entry of her birth certificate. She claimed that she and her guardian were not
notified of the petition and the subsequent judgment and learned about the
same only from the news on May 16, 1997. CA granted. It declared the RTC
decision Null and Void. Rosilyn Delantar was not made a party-respondent
contrary to the mandatory provision of Section 3 of Rule 108 of the ROC.
Petitioner and her guardian are undoubtedly persons who have interest which
would be affected by the petition for the obvious reason that it is the entry of
her birth which is being sought to be annulled and cancelled.
ISSUE: Is the petition for annulment and cancellation of the birth certificate of
Rosilyn an ordinary civil action or a special proceeding?


a. Considering that the petition, based on its allegations, does not question the
fact of birth of Rosilyn, all matters assailing the truthfulness of any entry in
the birth certificate properly, including the date of birth, fall under Rule 108
of the Rules of Court which governs cancellation or correction of entries in the
Civil Registry.
b. Thus, the petition filed by the Ceruilas, alleging material entries in the
certificate as having been falsified, is properly considered as a special
proceeding pursuant to Section 3(c), Rule 1 and Rule 108 of the ROC.
c. The Ceruilas did NOT comply with the requirements of Rule 108, Section 3:
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


Indeed, not only the civil registrar but also all persons who have or claim any
interest which would be affected by a proceeding concerning the cancellation
or correction of an entry in the civil register must be made parties thereto unless all possible indispensable parties were duly notified of the
proceedings, the same shall be considered as falling much too short of the
requirements of the rules.

e. It is NOT enough that her name was included in the caption of the petition.
Labayo-Rowe vs. Republic:
short of what is required in cases where substantial alterations are
sought. Aside from the Office of the Solicitor General, all other
indispensable parties should have been made respondents. They
include not only the declared father of the child but the child as well,
together with the paternal grandparents, if any, as their hereditary
rights would be adversely affected thereby. All other persons who may be
affected by the change should be notified or represented . . ..


Lack of summons on Rosilyn was NOT cured by the publication of the order of
the trial court. Summons must still be served, not for the purpose of vesting
the courts with jurisdiction, but to comply with the requirements of fair play
and due process to afford the person concerned the opportunity to protect
her interest if she so chooses.

2. There is also no merit in the contention of petitioners that because of the false
entries in the birth certificate of Rosilyn, the same is void ab initio, hence should be

nullified under Art. 5 of the Civil Code, or should be nullified by the CA in exercise of
its peremptory power to declare null and void the said certificate.
a. The function of a petition for annulment of judgment, under Rule 47 of the
Rules of Court, is not to replace the trial courts decision sought to be
annulled. It is merely for the annulment of the RTC Decision on grounds of
extrinsic fraud and lack of jurisdiction, nothing more. The Rules do not allow
the CA to resolve the merits of the petition for the amendment and
cancellation of the birth certificate of Rosilyn or to substitute its own findings
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.