THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 197174               September 10, 2014

FRANCLER P. ONDE, Petitioner, 
vs.
THE OFFICE OF THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRATION OF LAS PIÑAS CITY, Respondent.

RESOLUTION

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari of the Orders  dated October 7, 2010 and March
1

1, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 201, Las Piñas City, in Special Proceedings
Case No. 10-0043. The RTC dismissed the case filed by petitioner Francler P. Onde for
correction of entries in his certificate of live birth.

The antecedent facts follow:

Petitioner filed a petition  for correction of entries in his certificate of live birth before the R TC
2

and named respondent Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Las Pifias City as sole
respondent. Petitioner alleged that he is the illegitimate child of his parents Guillermo A. Onde
and Matilde DC Pakingan, but his birth certificate stated that his parents were married. His
birth certificate also stated that his mother's first name is Tely and that his first name is Franc
Ler. He prayed that the following entries on his birth certificate be corrected as follows:

Entry From To
1) Date and place of marriage of his parents December 23, 1983 - Bicol Not Married
2) First name of his mother Tely Matilde
3) His first name Franc Ler Francler

In its Order dated October 7, 2010, the RTC dismissed the petition for correction of entries on
the ground thatit is insufficient in form and substance. It ruled that the proceedings must be
adversarial since the first correction is substantial in nature and would affect petitioner’s status
as a legitimate child. It was further held that the correction in the first name of petitioner and
his mother can be done by the city civil registrar under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9048, entitled
An Act Authorizing the City or Municipal Civil Registrar or the ConsulGeneral to Correct a
Clerical or Typographical Error in an Entry and/or Change of First Name or Nickname in the
Civil Registrar Without Need of a Judicial Order, Amending for this Purpose Articles 376 and
412 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

In its Order dated March 1, 2011,the RTC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, as it
found no proof that petitioner’s parents were not married on December 23, 1983.

Essentially, the petition raises fourissues: (1) whether the RTC erred in ruling that the
correction on the first name of petitioner and his mother can be done by the city civil registrar
under R.A. No. 9048; (2) whether the RTC erred in ruling that correcting the entry on
petitioner’s birth certificate that his parents were married on December 23, 1983 in Bicol to
"not married" is substantial in nature requiring adversarial proceedings; (3) whether the RTC
erred in dismissing the petition for correction of entries; and (4) whether the RTC erred in
ruling that there is no proof that petitioner’s parents were not married on December 23, 1983.

Petitioner argues that Rule 108 ofthe Rules of Court allows a substantial correction of entries
in the civil registry, stating that in Eleosida v. Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City,  the case
3

cited by the RTC, we have actually ruled that substantial changes in the civil registry are now
allowed under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. He likewise adds that proof that his parents
were not married will be presented during the trial, not during the filing of the petition for
correction of entries.
In its comment, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) contends that the RTC correctly
dismissed the petition for correction of entries. It points out that the first names of petitioner
and his mother can be corrected thru administrative proceedings under R.A. No. 9048. Such
correction of the entry on petitioner’s birth certificate that his parents were married on
December 23, 1983 in Bicol to "not married" is a substantial correction affecting his legitimacy.
Hence, it must be dealt with in adversarial proceedings where all interested parties are
impleaded.

We deny the petition.

On the first issue, we agree with the RTC that the first name of petitioner and his mother as
appearing in his birth certificate can be corrected by the city civil registrar under R.A. No.
9048. We note that petitioner no longer contested the RTC’s ruling on this point.  Indeed,
4

under Section 1  of R.A. No. 9048, clerical or typographical errors on entries in a civil register
5

can be corrected and changes of first name can be done by the concerned city civil registrar
without need of a judicial order. Aforesaid Section 1, as amended by R.A. No. 10172, now
reads: 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 correctedwithout a
judicial order, except for clerical or typographical errors and change of first name or nickname,
the day and month in the dateof birth or sex of a person where it is patently clear that there
was a clerical or typographical error or mistake in the entry, which can be corrected or
changed by the concerned city or municipalcivil registraror consul general in accordance with
the provisions of this Act and its implementing rules and regulations. (Emphasis supplied.)

In Silverio v. Republic,  we held that under R.A. No. 9048, jurisdiction over applications for
6

change of first name is now primarily lodged with administrative officers. The intent and effect
of said law is to exclude the change of first name from the coverage of Rules 103 (Change of
Name) and 108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) of the Rules of
Court, until and unless an administrative petition for change of name is first filed and
subsequently denied. The remedy and the proceedings regulating change of first name are
primarily administrative in nature, not judicial. In Republic v. Cagandahan,  we said that under
7

R.A.No. 9048, the correction of clerical or typographical errors can now be made through
administrative proceedings and without the need for a judicial order. The law removed from
the ambit of Rule 108 of the Rules ofCourt the correction of clerical or typographical errors.
Thus petitioner can avail of this administrative remedy for the correction of his and his
mother’s first name.

On the second issue, we also agree with the RTC in ruling that correcting the entry on
petitioner’s birth certificate that his parents were married on December 23, 1983 in Bicol to
"not married" is a substantial correction requiring adversarial proceedings. Said correction is
substantial as it will affect his legitimacy and convert him from a legitimate child to an
illegitimate one. In Republic v. Uy,  we held that corrections of entries in the civil register
8

including those on citizenship, legitimacyof paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of

marriage,involve substantial alterations. Substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected
and the true facts established provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves of
the appropriate adversaryproceedings. 9

On the third issue, we likewise affirm the RTC in dismissing the petition for correction of
entries. As mentioned, petitioner no longer contested the RTC ruling that the correction he
sought on his and his mother’s first name can be done by the city civil registrar. Under the
circumstances, we are constrained to deny his prayer that the petition for correction of entries
before the RTC bereinstated since the same petition includes the correction he sought on his
and his mother’s first name.

We clarify, however, that the RTC’s dismissal is without prejudice. As we said, petitioner can
avail ofthe administrative remedy for the correction of his and his mother’s first name.  He can
1âwphi1

also file a new petition before the RTC to correct the alleged erroneous entry on his birth
certificate that his parents were married on December 23, 1983 in Bicol. This substantial
correction is allowed under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. As we reiterated in Eleosida v.
Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City: 10

x x x This is our ruling in Republic vs. Valenciawhere we held that even substantial errors in a
civil registry may be corrected and the true facts established under Rule 108 [of the Rules of
Court]provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the appropriate
adversary proceeding. x x x

xxxx

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 would affect 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 108in accordance
with our ruling in Republic vs. Valenciaprovided that the appropriate procedural requirements
are complied with. x x x (Emphasis supplied.)

We also stress that a petition seeking a substantial correction of an entry in a civil register
must implead as parties to the proceedings not only the local civil registrar, as petitioner did in
the dismissed petition for correction of entries, but also all persons who have or claim any
interest which would be affected by the correction. This is required by Section 3, Rule 108 of
the Rules of Court:

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. (Emphasis supplied.)

In Eleosida,  we cited Section 3, and Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, as
11

the procedural requirements laid down by the Court to make the proceedings under Rule 108
adversary. In Republic v. Uy,  we have similarly ruled that when a petition for cancellation or
12

correction of an entry in the civil register involves substantial and controversial alterations,
including those on citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, a
strict compliance with the requirements of the Rules of Court is mandated. Thus, in his new
petition, petitioner should at least implead his father and mother as parties since the
substantial correction he is seeking will also affect them.

In view of the foregoing discussion, it is no longer necessary to dwell on the last issue as
petitioner will have his opportunity to prove his claim that his parents were not married on
December 23, 1983 when he files the new petition for the purpose.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition and AFFIRM the Orders dated October 7, 2010 and
March 1, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 201, Las Pifias City, in Special Proceedings
Case No. 10-0043. The dismissal ordered by the Regional Trial Court is, however, declared to
be without prejudice.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO*
Acting Chief Justice

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. DIOSDADO M. PERALTA

Associate Justice Associate Justice

BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of efe opinion of the Court's Division.

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Acting Chief Justice

Footnotes

* Designated additional member per Raffle dated September 3, 2014.

1
 Rollo, pp. 15-17. Penned by Presiding Judge Lorna Navarro-Domingo.

2
 Id. at 23-27.

3
 431 Phil. 612, 619 (2002).

4
 See Petition for Review on Certiorari, rollo, pp. 3-12.

5
 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 cityor municipal civil
registraror consul general in accordance with the provisions of this Act and its
implementing rules and regulations. (Emphasis supplied.)

6
 562 Phil. 953, 964-965 (2007).

7
 586 Phil. 637, 647-648 (2008).

8
 G.R. No. 198010, August 12, 2013, 703 SCRA 425, 438.

9
 Id. at 432.

10
 Supra note 4, at 619-621.

11
 Id. at 619-620.

12
 Supra note 9.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

G.R. No. 189476               February 2, 2011

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, 

vs.
JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON COSETENG-MAGPAYO (A.K.A. JULIAN EDWARD
EMERSON MARQUEZ-LIM COSETENG), Respondent.

DECISION

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

Born in Makati on September 9, 1972, Julian Edward Emerson Coseteng

Magpayo (respondent) is the son of Fulvio M. Magpayo Jr. and Anna Dominique Marquez-Lim
Coseteng who, as respondent’s certificate of live birth1 shows, contracted marriage on March
26, 1972.

Claiming, however, that his parents were never legally married, respondent filed on July 22,
2008 at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City a Petition to change his name to
Julian Edward Emerson Marquez Lim Coseteng. The petition, docketed as SPP No. Q-
0863058, was entitled "IN RE PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME OF JULIAN EDWARD
EMERSON COSETENG MAGPAYO TO JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON MARQUEZ-LIM
COSETENG."

In support of his petition, respondent submitted a certification from the National Statistics
Office stating that his mother Anna Dominique "does not appear in [its] National Indices of
Marriage."2 Respondent also submitted his academic records from elementary up to
college3 showing that he carried the surname "Coseteng," and the birth certificate of his child
where "Coseteng" appears as his surname. 4 In the 1998, 2001 and 2004 Elections,
respondent ran and was elected as Councilor of Quezon City’s 3rd District using the name
"JULIAN M.L. COSETENG."5

On order of Branch 77 of the Quezon City RTC, 6 respondent amended his petition by alleging
therein compliance with the 3-year residency requirement under Section 2, Rule 103] of the
Rules of Court.7

The notice setting the petition for hearing on November 20, 2008 was published in the
newspaper Broadside in its issues of October 31-November 6, 2008, November 7-13, 2008,
and November 14-20, 2008.8 And a copy of the notice was furnished the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG).

No opposition to the petition having been filed, an order of general default was entered by the
trial court which then allowed respondent to present evidence ex parte. 9

By Decision of January 8, 2009,10 the trial court granted respondent’s petition and directed the
Civil Registrar of Makati City to:

1. Delete the entry "March 26, 1972" in Item 24 for "DATE AND PLACE OF
MARRIAGE OF PARTIES" [in herein respondent’s Certificate of live Birth];

2. Correct the entry "MAGPAYO" in the space for the Last Name of the [respondent] to
"COSETENG";

3. Delete the entry "COSETENG" in the space for Middle Name of the [respondent];
and

4. Delete the entry "Fulvio Miranda Magpayo, Jr." in the space for FATHER of the
[respondent]… (emphasis and underscoring supplied; capitalization in the original)

The Republic of the Philippines (Republic) filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied
by the trial court by Order of July 2, 2009, 11 hence, it, thru the OSG, lodged the present petition
for review to the Court on pure question of law.

The Republic assails the decision in this wise:

 I. . . . THE PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME…INVOLVES THE CHANGE OF
[RESPONDENT’S] CIVIL STATUS FROM LEGITIMATE TO ILLEGITIMATE AND,
THEREFORE, SHOULD BE MADE THROUGH APPROPRIATE ADVERSARIAL
PROCEEDINGS…

II. THE TRIAL COURT EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION WHEN IT DIRECTED THE

DELETION OF THE NAME OF RESPONDENT’S FATHER FROM HIS BIRTH
CERTIFICATE.12 (emphasis and underscoring supplied)

The Republic contends that the deletion of the entry on the date and place of marriage of
respondent’s parents from his birth certificate has the effect of changing his civil status from
legitimate to illegitimate, hence, any change in civil status of a person must be effected
through an appropriate adversary proceeding. 13

The Republic adds that by ordering the deletion of respondent’s parents’ date of marriage and
the name of respondent’s father from the entries in respondent’s birth certificate, 14 the trial
court exceeded its jurisdiction, such order not being in accord with respondent’s prayer
reading:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that the Honorable Court
issue an order allowing the change of name of petitioner from JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON
COSETENG MAGPAYO to JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON MARQUEZ-LIM COSETENG, and
that the Honorable Court order the Local Civil Registrar and all other relevant government
agencies to reflect the said change of name in their records.

Petitioner prays for other reliefs deemed proper under the premises. 15 (underscoring supplied)

Respondent counters that the proceeding before the trial court was adversarial in nature. He
cites the serving of copies of the petition and its annexes upon the Civil Registrar of Makati,
the Civil Registrar General, and the OSG; the posting of copies of the notice of hearing in at
least four public places at least ten days before the hearing; the delegation to the OSG by the
City Prosecutor of Quezon City to appear on behalf of the Republic; the publication of the
notice of hearing in a newspaper of general circulation for three consecutive weeks; and the
fact that no oppositors appeared on the scheduled hearing. 16

The petition is impressed with merit.

A person can effect a change of name under Rule 103 (CHANGE OF NAME) using valid and
meritorious grounds including (a) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely
difficult to write or pronounce; (b) when the change results as a legal consequence such as
legitimation; (c) when the change will avoid confusion; (d) when one has continuously used
and been known since childhood by a Filipino name, and was unaware of alien parentage; (e)
a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of former alienage, all in good faith
and without prejudicing anybody; and (f) when the surname causes embarrassment and there
is no showing that the desired change of name was for a fraudulent purpose or that the
change of name would prejudice public interest.17Respondent’s reason for changing his name
cannot be considered as one of, or analogous to, recognized grounds, however.

The present petition must be differentiated from Alfon v. Republic of the Philippines. 18 In Alfon,
the Court allowed the therein petitioner, Estrella Alfon, to use the name that she had been
known since childhood in order to avoid confusion. Alfon did not deny her legitimacy, however.
She merely sought to use the surname of her mother which she had been using since
childhood. Ruling in her favor, the Court held that she was lawfully entitled to use her mother’s
surname, adding that the avoidance of confusion was justification enough to allow her to do
so. In the present case, however, respondent denies his legitimacy.

The change being sought in respondent’s petition goes so far as to affect his legal status in
relation to his parents. It seeks to change his legitimacy to that of illegitimacy. Rule 103 then
would not suffice to grant respondent’s supplication.
Labayo-Rowe v. Republic19 categorically holds that "changes which may affect the civil status
from legitimate to illegitimate . . . are substantial and controversial alterations which can only
be allowed after appropriate adversary proceedings . . ."

Since respondent’s desired change affects his civil status from legitimate to illegitimate, Rule
108 applies. It reads:

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 [RTC] of
the province where the corresponding civil registry is located.

xxxx

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. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)

Rule 108 clearly directs that a petition which concerns one’s civil status should be filed in the
civil registry in which the entry is sought to be cancelled or corrected – that of Makati in the
present case, and "all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected
thereby" should be made parties to the proceeding.

As earlier stated, however, the petition of respondent was filed not in Makati where his birth
certificate was registered but in Quezon City. And as the above-mentioned title of the petition
filed by respondent before the RTC shows, neither the civil registrar of Makati nor his father
and mother were made parties thereto.

Respondent nevertheless cites Republic v. Capote 20 in support of his claim that his change of
name was effected through an appropriate adversary proceeding.

Republic v. Belmonte,21 illuminates, however:

The procedure recited in Rule 103] regarding change of name and in Rule 108 concerning the
cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry are separate and distinct. They may not
be substituted one for the other for the sole purpose of expediency. To hold otherwise would
render nugatory the provisions of the Rules of Court allowing the change of one’s name or the
correction of entries in the civil registry only upon meritorious grounds. . . . (emphasis,
capitalization and underscoring supplied)

Even assuming arguendo that respondent had simultaneously availed of these two statutory
remedies, respondent cannot be said to have sufficiently complied with Rule 108. For, as
reflected above, aside from improper venue, he failed to implead the civil registrar
of Makati and all affected parties as respondents in the case.

Republic v. Labrador22 mandates that "a petition for a substantial correction or change of

entries in the civil registry should have as respondents the civil registrar, as well as all other
persons who have or claim to have any interestthat would be affected thereby." It cannot be
gainsaid that change of status of a child in relation to his parents is a substantial correction or
change of entry in the civil registry.

Labayo-Rowe23 highlights the necessity of impleading indispensable parties in a petition which

involves substantial and controversial alterations. In that case, the therein petitioner
Emperatriz Labayo-Rowe (Emperatriz) filed a petition for the correction of entries in the birth
certificates of her children, Vicente Miclat, Jr. and Victoria Miclat, in the Civil Registry of San
Fernando, Pampanga. Emperatriz alleged that her name appearing in the birth certificates is
Beatriz, which is her nickname, but her full name is Emperatriz; and her civil status appearing
in the birth certificate of her daughter Victoria as "married" on "1953 Bulan" are erroneous
because she was not married to Vicente Miclat who was the one who furnished the data in
said birth certificate.

The trial court found merit in Emperatriz’s petition and accordingly directed the local civil
registrar to change her name appearing in her children’s birth certificates from Beatriz to
Emperatriz; and to correct her civil status in Victoria’s birth certificate from "married" to "single"
and the date and place of marriage to "no marriage."

On petition before this Court after the Court of Appeals found that the order of the trial court
involved a question of law, the Court nullified the trial court’s order directing the change of
Emperatriz’ civil status and the filiation of her child Victoria in light of the following
observations:

x x x x 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. The truth is best ascertained under an adversary system of justice.

The right of the child Victoria to inherit from her parents would be substantially impaired if her
status would be changed from "legitimate" to "illegitimate." Moreover, she would be exposed
to humiliation and embarrassment resulting from the stigma of an illegitimate filiation that she
will bear thereafter. The fact that the notice of hearing of the petition was published in a
newspaper of general circulation and notice thereof was served upon the State will not change
the nature of the proceedings taken. Rule 108, like all the other provisions of the Rules of
Court, was promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant to its rule-making authority under
Section 13, Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution, which directs that such rules "shall not
diminish, increase or modify substantive rights." If Rule 108 were to be extended beyond
innocuous or harmless changes or corrections of errors which are visible to the eye or obvious
to the understanding, so as to comprehend substantial and controversial alterations
concerning citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, without
observing the proper proceedings as earlier mentioned, said rule would thereby become an
unconstitutional exercise which would tend to increase or modify substantive rights. This
situation is not contemplated under Article 412 of the Civil Code. 24 (emphasis, italics and
underscoring supplied)

As for the requirement of notice and publication, Rule 108 provides:

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.

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 underscoring supplied)

A reading of these related provisions readily shows that Rule 108 clearly mandates two sets of
notices to different "potential oppositors." The first notice is that given to the "persons named
in the petition" and the second (which is through publication) is that given to other persons
who are not named in the petition but nonetheless may be considered interested or affected
parties, such as creditors. That two sets of notices are mandated under the above-quoted
Section 4 is validated by the subsequent Section 5, also above-quoted, which provides for two
periods (for the two types of "potential oppositors") within which to file an opposition (15 days
from notice or from the last date of publication).

This is the overriding principle laid down in Barco v. Court of Appeals. 25 In that case, Nadina
Maravilla (Nadina) filed a petition for correction of entries in the birth certificate of her daughter
June from June Salvacion Maravilla to June Salvacion "Gustilo," Armando Gustilo being,
according to Nadina, her daughter’s real father. Gustilo in fact filed before the trial court a
"CONSTANCIA" wherein he acknowledged June as his daughter. The trial court granted the
petition.

After Gustilo died, his son Jose Vicente Gustilo filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for
annulment of the Order of the trial court granting the change of June’s family name to Gustilo.

Milagros Barco (Barco), natural guardian of her minor daughter Mary Joy Ann Gustilo, filed
before the appellate court a motion for intervention, alleging that Mary Joy had a legal interest
in the annulment of the trial court’s Order as Mary Joy was, by Barco’s claim, also fathered by
Gustilo.

The appellate court dismissed the petition for annulment and complaint-in-intervention.

On appeal by Barco, this Court ruled that she should have been impleaded in Nadina’s petition
for correction of entries of the birth certificate of Mary Joy. But since a petitioner, like Nadina,
is not expected to exhaustively identify all the affected parties, the subsequent publication of
the notice cured the omission of Barco as a party to the case. Thus the Court explained:

Undoubtedly, Barco is among the parties referred to in Section 3 of Rule 108.  Her interest
1awphi1

was affected by the petition for correction, as any judicial determination that June was the
daughter of Armando would affect her ward’s share in the estate of her father. It cannot be
established whether Nadina knew of Mary Joy’s existence at the time she filed the petition for
correction. Indeed, doubt may always be cast as to whether a petitioner under Rule 108 would
know of all the parties whose interests may be affected by the granting of a petition. For
example, a petitioner cannot be presumed to be aware of all the legitimate or illegitimate
offsprings of his/her spouse or paramour. x x x x.

xxxx

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 cover even parties who should
have been impleaded under Section 3, Rule 108 but were inadvertently left out. x x x
x.26 (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)

Meanwhile, in Republic v. Kho,27 Carlito Kho (Carlito) and his siblings named the civil registrar
as the sole respondent in the petition they filed for the correction of entries in their respective
birth certificates in the civil registry of Butuan City, and correction of entries in the birth
certificates of Carlito’s minor children. Carlito and his siblings requested the correction in their
birth certificates of the citizenship of their mother Epifania to "Filipino," instead of "Chinese,"
and the deletion of the word "married" opposite the phrase "Date of marriage of parents"
because their parents ─ Juan and Epifania ─ were not married. And Carlito requested the
correction in the birth certificates of their children of his and his wife’s date of marriage to
reflect the actual date of their marriage as appearing in their marriage certificate. In the course
of the hearing of the petition, Carlito also sought the correction of the name of his wife from
Maribel to "Marivel."

The Khos’ mother Epifania took the witness stand where she declared that she was not
married to Juan who died before the filing of the Khos’ petition.

The trial court granted the petition.

On the issue of whether the failure to implead Marivel and the Khos’ parents rendered the trial
of the petition short of the required adversary proceedings and the trial court’s judgment void,
this Court held that when all the procedural requirements under Rule 108 are followed, the
publication of the notice of hearing cures the failure to implead an indispensable party. In so
ruling, the Court noted that the affected parties were already notified of the proceedings in the
case since the petitioner-siblings Khos were the ones who initiated the petition respecting their
prayer for correction of their citizenship, and Carlito respecting the actual date of his marriage
to his wife; and, with respect to the Khos’ petition for change of their civil status from legitimate
to illegitimate, their mother Epifania herself took the witness stand declaring that she was not
married to their father.

What is clear then in Barco and Kho is the mandatory directive under Section 3 of Rule 108 to
implead the civil registrar and the parties who would naturally and legally be affected by the
grant of a petition for correction or cancellation of entries. Non-impleading, however, as party-
respondent of one who is inadvertently left out or is not established to be known by the
petitioner to be affected by the grant of the petition or actually participates in the proceeding is
notified through publication.

IN FINE, when a petition for cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register involves
substantial and controversial alterations including those on citizenship, legitimacy of paternity
or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, a strict compliance with the requirements of Rule 108 of
the Rules of Court is mandated.

WHEREFORE, the petition is, in light of the foregoing discussions, GRANTED. The January 8,
2009 Decision of Branch 77 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in SP Proc. No. Q-
0863058 is NULLIFIED.

SO ORDERED.

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES

Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ARTURO D. BRION LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

Associate Justice Associate Justice

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO

Associate Justice Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES

Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.

RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice

Footnotes

1
 Records, p. 7.

2
 Id. at 8.

3
 Id. at 9-16.
 4
 Id. at 16.

5
 Id. at 17-22.

6
 Presided by Judge Vivencio S. Baclig.

7
 Id. at 23.

8
 Id. at 48-50.

9
 Id. at 45.

10
 Id. at 116-117.

11
 Id. at 135-136. 7

12
 Rollo, pp. 16-17.

13
 Id. at 17-18.

14
 Id. at 18-19.

15
 Rollo, p. 18.

16
 Id. at 53-56.

17
 Vide See Republic v. Hernandez, 323 Phil. 606, 637-638 (1996).

18
 186 Phil. 600 (1980).

19
 G.R. No. L-53417, December 8, 1988, 168 SCRA 294.

20
 G.R. No. 157043, February 2, 2007, 514 SCRA 76.

21
 241 Phil. 966 (1988).

22
 G.R. No. 132980, 305 SCRA 438 (1999).

23
 Supra, note 19.

24
 Id. at p. 301.

25
 465 Phil. 39 (2004).

26
 Id. at 55-56.

27
 G.R. No. 170340, June 29, 2007, 526 SCRA 177.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 189538               February 10, 2014

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, 

vs.
MERLINDA L. OLAYBAR, Respondent.
 DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) Decision  dated May 5, 2009 and Order  dated August 25, 2009 in
1 2 3

SP. Proc. No. 16519-CEB. The assailed decision granted respondent Merlinda L. Olaybar's
petition for cancellation of entries in the latter's marriage contract; while the assailed order
denied the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Republic of the Philippines through the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).

The facts of the case are as follows:

Respondent requested from the National Statistics Office (NSO) a Certificate of No Marriage
(CENOMAR) as one of the requirements for her marriage with her boyfriend of five years.
Upon receipt thereof, she discovered that she was already married to a certain Ye Son Sune,
a Korean National, on June 24, 2002, at the Office of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities
(MTCC), Palace of Justice. She denied having contracted said marriage and claimed that she
did not know the alleged husband; she did not appear before the solemnizing officer; and, that
the signature appearing in the marriage certificate is not hers.  She, thus, filed a Petition for
4

Cancellation of Entries in the Marriage Contract, especially the entries in the wife portion
thereof.  Respondent impleaded the Local Civil Registrar of Cebu City, as well as her alleged
5

husband, as parties to the case.

During trial, respondent testified on her behalf and explained that she could not have
appeared before Judge Mamerto Califlores, the supposed solemnizing officer, at the time the
marriage was allegedly celebrated, because she was then in Makati working as a medical
distributor in Hansao Pharma. She completely denied having known the supposed husband,
but she revealed that she recognized the named witnesses to the marriage as she had met
them while she was working as a receptionist in Tadels Pension House. She believed that her
name was used by a certain Johnny Singh, who owned a travel agency, whom she gave her
personal circumstances in order for her to obtain a passport.  Respondent also presented as
6

witness a certain Eufrocina Natinga, an employee of MTCC, Branch 1, who confirmed that the
marriage of Ye Son Sune was indeed celebrated in their office, but claimed that the alleged
wife who appeared was definitely not respondent.  Lastly, a document examiner testified that
7

the signature appearing in the marriage contract was forged. 8

On May 5, 2009, the RTC rendered the assailed Decision, the dispositive portion of which
reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, the petition is granted in favor of the petitioner,
Merlinda L. Olaybar. The Local Civil Registrar of Cebu City is directed to cancel all the entries
in the WIFE portion of the alleged marriage contract of the petitioner and respondent Ye Son
Sune.

SO ORDERED. 9

Finding that the signature appearing in the subject marriage contract was not that of
respondent, the court found basis in granting the latter’s prayer to straighten her record and
rectify the terrible mistake.
10

Petitioner, however, moved for the reconsideration of the assailed Decision on the grounds
that: (1) there was no clerical spelling, typographical and other innocuous errors in the
marriage contract for it to fall within the provisions of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court; and (2)
granting the cancellation of all the entries in the wife portion of the alleged marriage contract
is, in effect, declaring the marriage void ab initio.
11

In an Order dated August 25, 2009, the RTC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration
couched in this wise:
WHEREFORE, the court hereby denies the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Republic of
the Philippines. Furnish copies of this order to the Office of the Solicitor General, the
petitioner’s counsel, and all concerned government agencies.

SO ORDERED. 12

Contrary to petitioner’s stand, the RTC held that it had jurisdiction to take cognizance of cases
for correction of entries even on substantial errors under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court being
the appropriate adversary proceeding required. Considering that respondent’s identity was
used by an unknown person to contract marriage with a Korean national, it would not be
feasible for respondent to institute an action for declaration of nullity of marriage since it is not
one of the void marriages under Articles 35 and 36 of the Family Code. 13

Petitioner now comes before the Court in this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court seeking the reversal of the assailed RTC Decision and Order based on
the following grounds:

I.

RULE 108 OF THE REVISED RULES OF COURT APPLIES ONLY WHEN THERE ARE
ERRORS IN THE ENTRIES SOUGHT TO BE CANCELLED OR CORRECTED.

II.

GRANTING THE CANCELLATION OF "ALL THE ENTRIES IN THE WIFE PORTION OF THE
ALLEGED MARRIAGE CONTRACT," IS IN EFFECT DECLARING THE MARRIAGE VOID AB
INITIO.14

Petitioner claims that there are no errors in the entries sought to be cancelled or corrected,
because the entries made in the certificate of marriage are the ones provided by the person
who appeared and represented herself as Merlinda L. Olaybar and are, in fact, the latter’s
personal circumstances.  In directing the cancellation of the entries in the wife portion of the
15

certificate of marriage, the RTC, in effect, declared the marriage null and void ab initio. Thus,
16

the petition instituted by respondent is actually a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage in
the guise of a Rule 108 proceeding. 17

We deny the petition.

At the outset, it is necessary to stress that a direct recourse to this Court from the decisions
and final orders of the RTC may be taken where only questions of law are raised or involved.
There is a question of law when the doubt arises as to what the law is on a certain state of
facts, which does not call for the examination of the probative value of the evidence of the
parties.  Here, the issue raised by petitioner is whether or not the cancellation of entries in the
18

marriage contract which, in effect, nullifies the marriage may be undertaken in a Rule 108
proceeding. Verily, petitioner raised a pure question of law.

Rule 108 of the Rules of Court sets forth the rules on cancellation or correction of entries in
the civil registry, to wit:

SEC. 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 Regional Trial Court of the province where the corresponding
civil registry is located.

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.

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.

SEC. 6. Expediting proceedings. – The court in which the proceedings is brought may
make orders expediting the proceedings, and may also grant preliminary injunction for
the preservation of the rights of the parties pending such proceedings.

SEC. 7. Order. – After hearing, the court may either dismiss the petition or issue an
order granting the cancellation or correction prayed for. In either case, a certified copy
of the judgment shall be served upon the civil registrar concerned who shall annotate
the same in his record.

Rule 108 of the Rules of Court provides the procedure for cancellation or correction of entries
in the civil registry. The proceedings may either be summary or adversary. If the correction is
clerical, then the procedure to be adopted is summary. If the rectification affects the civil
status, citizenship or nationality of a party, it is deemed substantial, and the procedure to be
adopted is adversary. Since the promulgation of Republic v. Valencia  in 1986, the Court has
19

repeatedly ruled that "even substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected through a
petition filed under Rule 108, with the true facts established and the parties aggrieved by the
error availing themselves of the appropriate adversarial proceeding."  An appropriate
20

adversary suit or proceeding is one where the trial court has conducted proceedings where all
relevant facts have been fully and properly developed, where opposing counsel have been
given opportunity to demolish the opposite party’s case, and where the evidence has been
thoroughly weighed and considered. 21

It is true that in special proceedings, formal pleadings and a hearing may be dispensed with,
and the remedy [is] granted upon mere application or motion. However, a special proceeding
is not always summary. The procedure laid down in Rule 108 is not a summary proceeding
per se. It requires publication of the petition; it mandates the inclusion as parties of all persons
who may claim interest which would be affected by the cancellation or correction; it also
requires the civil registrar and any person in interest to file their opposition, if any; and it states
that 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. Thus, as long as the
procedural requirements in Rule 108 are followed, it is the appropriate adversary proceeding
to effect substantial corrections and changes in entries of the civil register. 22

In this case, the entries made in the wife portion of the certificate of marriage are admittedly
the personal circumstances of respondent. The latter, however, claims that her signature was
forged and she was not the one who contracted marriage with the purported husband. In other
words, she claims that no such marriage was entered into or if there was, she was not the one
who entered into such contract. It must be recalled that when respondent tried to obtain a
CENOMAR from the NSO, it appeared that she was married to a certain Ye Son Sune. She
then sought the cancellation of entries in the wife portion of the marriage certificate.

In filing the petition for correction of entry under Rule 108, respondent made the Local Civil
Registrar of Cebu City, as well as her alleged husband Ye Son Sune, as parties-respondents.
It is likewise undisputed that the procedural requirements set forth in Rule 108 were complied
with. The Office of the Solicitor General was likewise notified of the petition which in turn
authorized the Office of the City Prosecutor to participate in the proceedings. More
importantly, trial was conducted where respondent herself, the stenographer of the court
where the alleged marriage was conducted, as well as a document examiner, testified.
Several documents were also considered as evidence. With the testimonies and other
evidence presented, the trial court found that the signature appearing in the subject marriage
certificate was different from respondent’s signature appearing in some of her government
issued identification cards.  The court thus made a categorical conclusion that respondent’s
23

signature in the marriage certificate was not hers and, therefore, was forged. Clearly, it was
established that, as she claimed in her petition, no such marriage was celebrated.

Indeed the Court made a pronouncement in the recent case of Minoru Fujiki v. Maria Paz
Galela Marinay, Shinichi Maekara, Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City, and the Administrator
and Civil Registrar General of the National Statistics Office  that:
24

To be sure, a petition for correction or cancellation of an entry in the civil registry cannot
substitute for an action to invalidate a marriage. A direct action is necessary to prevent
circumvention of the substantive and procedural safeguards of marriage under the Family
Code, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC and other related laws. Among these safeguards are the
requirement of proving the limited grounds for the dissolution of marriage, support pendente
lite of the spouses and children, the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of
the spouses and the investigation of the public prosecutor to determine collusion. A direct
action for declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage is also necessary to prevent
circumvention of the jurisdiction of the Family Courts under the Family Courts Act of 1997
(Republic Act No. 8369), as a petition for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil
registry may be filed in the Regional Trial Court where the corresponding civil registry is
located. In other words, a Filipino citizen cannot dissolve his marriage by the mere expedient
of changing his entry of marriage in the civil registry.

Aside from the certificate of marriage, no such evidence was presented to show the existence
of marriage.  Rather, respondent showed by overwhelming evidence that no marriage was
1âwphi1

entered into and that she was not even aware of such existence. The testimonial and
documentary evidence clearly established that the only "evidence" of marriage which is the
marriage certificate was a forgery. While we maintain that Rule 108 cannot be availed of to
determine the validity of marriage, we cannot nullify the proceedings before the trial court
where all the parties had been given the opportunity to contest the allegations of respondent;
the procedures were followed, and all the evidence of the parties had already been admitted
and examined. Respondent indeed sought, not the nullification of marriage as there was no
marriage to speak of, but the correction of the record of such marriage to reflect the truth as
set forth by the evidence. Otherwise stated, in allowing the correction of the subject certificate
of marriage by cancelling the wife portion thereof, the trial court did not, in any way, declare
the marriage void as there was no marriage to speak of.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Regional
Trial Court Decision dated May 5, 2009 and Order dated August 25, 2009 in SP. Proc. No.
16519-CEB, are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice
Chairperson

ROBERTO A. ABAD JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

Associate Justice Associate Justice

MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.

Associate Justice 
Chairperson, Third Division

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 131, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice

Footnotes

1
 Branch 6, Cebu City.

2
 Penned by Presiding Judge Ester M. Veloso; rollo, pp. 32-34.

3
 Rollo, pp. 36-41.

4
 Id. at 32.

5
 Id.

6
 Id. at 33.

7
 Id.

8
 Id. at 33-34.

9
 Id. at 34.

10
 Id.

11
 Id. at 36.

12
 Id. at 41. (Emphasis in the original)

13
 Id. at 40-41.

14
 Id. at 18.

15
 Id. at 21.

16
 Id. at 23.

17
 Id. at 24.

18
 Republic v. Sagun, G.R. No. 187567, February 15, 2012, 666 SCRA 321, 329.

19
 225 Phil. 408 (1986).

20
 Barco v. Court of Appeals, 465 Phil. 39, 58 (2004).
  Republic of the Philippines v. Lim, 464 Phil. 151, 157 (2004); Eleosida v. Local Civil
21

Registrar of Quezon City, 431 Phil. 612, 619 (2002).

 Lee v. Court of Appeals, 419 Phil. 392, 410 (2001).

22

 Rollo, pp. 33-34.

23

 G.R. No. 196049, June 26, 2013.

24

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation