H Change of Name vs.

Correction/Cancellation of Entries, as amended

R.A. 9048 and 10172 (Rule 103 vs. Rule 108)

1. Venue vs. Jurisdiction

2. Contents of Petition/Grounds

3. Hearing

4. Judgment

5. R.A. 9048 and its Implementing Rules

Cases:

Read: Correction of Civil Entries, 715 SCRA 740 (2/11/14)

1. Eleosida vs Civil Registrar of Q.C. – May 9, 2002

2. Republic vs Kho – 526 SCRA

3. Petition for Change of Name of Julian Lim Carulusan Wang – 454 SCRA

4. Braza vs. Civil Registrar of Neg. Occ. – 607 SCRA (2009)

5. Republic vs. Silverio – 537 SCRA

6. Republic vs. Cagandahan – 565 SCRA

7. Republic vs. Uy 703 SCRA (August 12, 2013)

8. Minora Fujiki vs. Marinay, June 26, 2013

9. People vs. Merlinda Olaybar, February 10, 2014

10. Onde vs. CR of Las Piñas, 734 SCRA, Sept 2014

1. Eleosida vs Civil Registrar of Q.C. – May 9, 2002

Facts: 
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of the RTC of Quezon City dismissing
motu propio the petition for Ma. Lourdes Eleosida to correct some entries in the birth certificate
of her son, Charles Christian.

Petitioner seeks to correct in the birth cert. of her son the following:
1. The surname “Borbon” should be changed to Eleosida (since the parents were never
married; the child is illegitimate and, therefore, should follow the mother’s surname;
2. The date of the wedding should be blank;
3. Petitioner’s name should be Ma. Lourdes Eleosida (instead of Borbon).

No opposition was made to this petition.

RTC, however, dismissed it on the basis that only clerical errors (CLERICAL ERRORS) of a
harmless and innocuous nature like misspelled name, occupation of the parents, etc. may be
subject of judicial order authorizing changes or corrections and not as may affect the civil status,
nationality or citizenship of the person (substantial/material change/error) involved.
Hence this petition.

Issue: 
Whether changes or corrections which are substantial may be subject of a judicial proceeding.

Decision: 
Yes, Court find merit in the petition.
Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court provides the procedure for cancellation or correction of
entries in the civil registry. The proceedings under said rule may either be summary or adversary
in nature. If the correction sought to be made in the civil register is clerical, then 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.

If all the procedural requirements under Rule 108 (Notice and publication [especially]) (Note:
Adversarial) have been followed, it was therefore error for the trial court to dismiss the petition
motu propio without allowing the petitioner to present evidence to support her petition (and all
the other persons who have an interest over the matter to oppose the same).

2. Republic vs Kho – 526 SCRA

Facts:
Carlito Kho (Kho) and his family applied for the correction of various details in their
birth certificate. Kho petitioned for (1) change the citizenship of his mother from “Chinese” to
“Filipino”; (2) delete “John” from his name; and (3) delete the word “married” opposite the date
of marriage of his parents. The last correction was ordered to be effected likewise in the birth
certificates of respondents Michael, Mercy Nona, and Heddy Moira.

The petition from a non-adversarial nature of the change is premised on Republic Act No. 9048,
which allows first name and nickname in birth certificates without judicial order. The Municipal
officer approved of the change. The Solicitor General objected to the correction on the ground
that the correction not merely clerical but requires an adversarial proceeding. The Court of
Appeals found in favor of Kho.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Kho ‘s request for change in the details of their birth certificate requires an
adversarial proceeding

HELD:
It cannot be gainsaid that the petition, insofar as it sought to change the citizenship of Carlito‘s
mother as it appeared in his birth certificate and delete the “married” status of Carlito‘s parents
in his and his siblings‘ respective birth certificates, as well as change the date of marriage
of Carlito and Marivel involves the correction of not just clerical errors of a harmless and
innocuous nature. Rather, the changes entail substantial and controversial amendments.
For the change involving the nationality of Carlito ‘s 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.

Further, the deletion of the entry that Carlito ‘s and his siblings‘ parents were “married” alters
their filiation from “legitimate” to “illegitimate,” with significant implications on their
successional and other rights. Clearly, the changes sought can only be granted in
an adversary proceeding.

The enactment in March 2001 of Republic Act No. 9048, otherwise known as “An Act
Authorizing the City or Municipal Civil Registrar or the Consul General to Correct A Clerical or
Typographical Error In An Entry and/or Change of First Name or Nickname in the
Civil Register Without Need of Judicial Order,” has been considered to lend legislative
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.

When all the procedural requirements under Rule 108 are thus followed, the
appropriate adversary proceeding necessary to effect substantial corrections to the entries of the
civil register is satisfied.

3. Petition for Change of Name of Julian Lim Carulusan Wang – 454 SCRA

Facts: 
Julian was born to parents Anna Lisa Carulasan and Sing-Foe Wang who were then not yet
married to each other. When his parents subsequently got married, they executed a deed of
legitimation; hence, his name was changed to Julian Lin Carulasan Wang.

Since they planned to live in Singapore, Anna Lisa decided to file a petition in the RTC seeking to
drop Julian's middle name from Julian Lin Carulasan Wang to Julian Lin Wang. Anna alleged
that Julian may be discriminated against when he studies in Singapore because Singaporeans do
not carry middle names or the maiden surname of the mother. Julian and his sister might also be
asking whether they are brother and sister since they have different surnames. Also, Carulasan
sounds funny in Singapore Mandarin language since they do not have the letter R but if there
is,they pronounce itasL.

After trial, the RTC denied the petition because the reason given did not fall within the grounds
recognized by law. The RTC ruled that since the State has an interest in the name of a person it
cannot just be changed to suit the convenience of the bearer of the name. The RTC said that
legitimate children have the right to bear the surnames of the father and the mother, and there is
no reason why this right should be taken from Julian considering that he was still a minor. When
he reaches majority age he could then decide whether to change his name by dropping his
middle name, added the RTC. 

Issue: 
Was the RTC correct in denying the petition?

Held:
Yes. Middle names serve to identify the maternal lineage or filiation of a person as well as
further distinguish him from others who may have the same given name and surname as he
has. Our laws on the use of surnames state that legitimate and legitimated children shall
principally use the surname of the father. The Family Code gives legitimate children the right to
bear the surnames of the father and the mother, while illegitimate children shall use the surname
of their mother, unless their father recognizes their filiation, in which case they may bear the
fathers surname.

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

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

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

To justify a request for change of name, petitioner must show not only some proper or
compelling reason therefore but also that he will be prejudiced by the use of his true and official
name.  Among the grounds for change of name which have been held valid are: (a) when the
name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (b) when the
change results as a legal consequence, as in legitimation; (c) when the change will avoid
confusion; (d) when 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.

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

In addition, petitioner is only a minor. Considering the nebulous foundation on which

his petition for change of name is based, it is best that the matter of change of his name be left to
his judgment and discretion when he reaches the age of majority. As he is of tender age, he may
not yet understand and appreciate the value of the change of his name and granting of the same
at this point may just prejudice him in his rights under our laws. (In Re: Petition for Change of
Name and/or Correction of Entry in the Civil Registry of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang G.R.
159966, March 30 2005, 454 SCRA 2155)

4. Braza vs. Civil Registrar of Neg. Occ. – 607 SCRA (2009)

PRINCIPLE/S:
Special Proceedings
a) Rule 108 of the Rules of Court (vis a vis Art. 412 of the Civil Code)
 It charts the procedure by which an entry in the civil registry may be cancelled or
corrected. The proceeding contemplated therein may generally be used ONLY TO
CORRECT CLERICAL, SPELLING, TYPOGRAPHICAL AND OTHER INNOCUOUS
ERRORS IN THE CIVIL REGISTRY.

b) Clerical Error vs. Substantial Error

1. Clerical error
 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.
 Allowed under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court

2. Substantial or contentious alterations - may be allowed only in adversarial proceedings, in

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

c) Rule 108 does not cover action to nullify marriages and rule on legitimacy and filiations.

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

Persons and Family Relations

a) Validity of marriages can only be impugned in a direct action
Validity of marriages as well as legitimacy and filiation can be questioned only in a direct action
seasonably filed by the proper party, and not through collateral attack such as the petition filed
before the court a quo.

FACTS:
Petitioner Ma. Cristina Braza and Pablo Braza Jr. married in 1978. Pablo died. During the wake,
respondent Lucille and her son, Patrick showed up and introduced themselves as the wife and
son, respectively, of Pablo. Cristina made inquiries in the course of which she obtained Patrick’s
birth certificate from the Local Civil Registrar which stated that: (1) Patrick has been
acknowledged as the son of Pablo and, (2) Patrick was legitimated by virtue of the subsequent
marriage of his parents. As a consequence of his legitimation, his name was changed to Patrick
Alvin Titular Braza. Cristina likewise obtained a copy of a marriage contract showing that Pablo
and Lucille were married in 1998.
Cristina and her co-petitioners filed before the RTC a petition to correct the entries in the birth
certificate record of Patrick in the Local Civil Registry. They contended that Patrick could not
have been legitimated by the supposed subsequent marriage between Lucille and Pablo because
said marriage is bigamous on account of a valid and subsisting marriage between her (Cristina)
and Pablo. Petitioner prayed for: (1) correction of Patrick’s use of the surname “BRAZA”; (2) to
submit Patrick to DNA testing to determine his paternity and filiation; and (3) the declaration of
nullity of the legitimation of Patrick as stated in his birth certificate and, for this purpose, the
declaration of the marriage between Lucille and Pablo as bigamous.

RTC dismissed the petition holding that in a special proceeding for correction of entry, the court,
which is not acting as a family court under the Family Code, has no jurisdiction over an action to
annul the marriage of Lucille and Pablo, impugn the legitimacy of Patrick, and order Patrick to
be subjected to a DNA test, and that the controversy should be ventilated in an ordinary
adversarial action. Petitioners then filed this instant petition for review.

ISSUE:
WON a court pass upon the validity of marriage and questions on legitimacy in an action to
correct entries in the civil registrar under Rule 108?

HELD:
NO. In a special proceeding for correction of entry under Rule 108 (Cancellation or Correction of
Entries in the Original Registry), the trial court has no jurisdiction to nullify marriages and rule
on legitimacy and filiations.

In relation to the instant case, the petitioners’ cause of action is actually to seek the declaration
of Pablo and Lucille’s marriage as void for being bigamous and impugn Patrick’s legitimacy,
which causes of action are governed not by Rule 108 but by A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, and Art. 171 of
the Family Code, respectively. Hence, the petition should be filed in a Family Court as expressly
provided in said Code.

Furthermore, doctrinally, validity of marriages as well as legitimacy and filiation can be

questioned only in a direct action seasonably filed by the proper party, and not through collateral
attack such as the petition filed before the court a quo.

5. Silverio vs Republic G.R. No. 174689 ; October 22, 2007 ; S3 & 7, RA 9048

PRINCIPLE/S: Special Proceedings

a) Change of name is a privilege and not a right.
- Petitions for change of name are controlled by statutes.
Article 376 provides - No person can change his name or surname without judicial authority.

b) RA 9048 is the law that governs the change of first name

Section 1 of RA 9048. (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 registar or consul general in
accordance with the provisions of this Act and its implementing rules and regulations.

- RA 9048 (Clerical Error Law) vest the power and authority to entertain petitions for change of
first name to the city or municipal civil registrar or consul general concerned. Under the law,
therefore jurisdiction over applications for change of the first name is now primarily lodged with
the aforementioned administrative officers.
- In sum, the remedy and the proceedings regulating change of first name are primarily
administrative in nature, not judicial.

c) Grounds for Change of First Name or Nickname (Section 4, RA 9048 [Administrative

Remedy]):
1. The petitioner finds the first name or nickname to be ridiculous, tainted with dishonor
or extremely difficult to write or pronounce;
2. The new first name or nickname has been habitually and continuously used by the
petitioner and he has been publicly known by that first name or nickname in the
community; or
3.The change will avoid confusion.

d) Entries that are correctable under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court are 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.
e) Meaning of "clerical or typographical error"

Clerical or typographical error" refers to a mistake committed in the performance of clerical

work in writing, copying, transcribing or typing an entry in the civil register that is harmless and
innocuous, such as misspelled name or misspelled place of birth or the like, which is visible to
the eyes or obvious to the understanding, and can be corrected or changed only by reference to
other existing record or records: Provided, however, That no correction must involve the change
of nationality, age, status or sex of the petitioner.

f) Change of sex is a substantial change.

- Under RA 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.

g) "Correct" vs. "Change:

Correct - "to make or set aright; to remove the faults or error from"
Change - "to replace something with something else of the same kind or with something that
serves as a substitute."

h) No law allows the change of entry in the birth certificate as to sex on the ground of sex
reassignment
- Change of sex grounded upon sex reassignment surgery is considered a substantial change
which is not covered by Rule 108.
- No special law in the Philippines governing sex reassignment and its effects.
i) Sex of a person is determined at birth
Birth certificate is a historical record of the facts as they existed at the time of birth. Thus, the sex
of a person is determined at birth, visually done by the birth attendant (the physician or
midwife) by examining the genitals of the infant.

j) Determination of a person’s sex made at the time of his or her birth is immutable.
Considering that there is no law legally recognizing sex reassignment, the determination of a
person’s sex made at the time of his or her birth, if not attended by error, is immutable.

FACTS:
Petitioner Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio was born and registered as a male. He filed a petition
for the change of his first name and sex in his birth certificate in the RTC. He admitted that he is
a male transsexual who underwent sex reassignment surgery. From the time he underwent such
surgery, petitioner lived as a female and was in fact engaged to be married. He then sought to
have his name in his birth certificate changed from "Rommel Jacinto" to "Mely," and his sex
from "male" to "female."

RTC granted the petition. The Republic of the Philippines, thru the OSG, filed a petition for
certiorari in the CA alleging that there is no law allowing the change of entries in the birth
certificate by reason of sex alteration. CA ruled in favor of the OSG. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE/S:
1) WON petitioner is entitled to change his name in his birth certificate.
2) WON petitioner is entitled to change his sex in his birth certificate.

HELD:
1) NO since a person’s first name cannot be changed on the ground of sex reassignment. RA
9048 is the law that governs the change of first name. SECTION 4 of the said law provides the
Grounds for Change of First Name or Nickname. The grounds are as follows: (1) The petitioner
finds the first name or nickname to be ridiculous, tainted with dishonor or extremely difficult to
write or pronounce; (2) The new first name or nickname has been habitually and continuously
used by the petitioner and he has been publicly known by that first name or nickname in the
community; or (3) The change will avoid confusion. As such, RA 9048 does not sanction a
change of first name on the ground of sex reassignment.

Furthermore, before a person can legally change his given name, he must present proper or
reasonable cause or any compelling reason justifying such change. But the petitioner in the
present case failed to show, or even allege, any prejudice that he might suffer as a result of using
his true and official name.

2) NO since no law allows the change of entry in the birth certificate as to sex on the ground of
sex reassignment. The entries correctable under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court are those
provided in Article 408 of the Civil Code. These are entries in the civil register with regard to: (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. In relation to the present case, sex
reassignment is not among those acts or events mentioned in Article 408. Neither is it
recognized nor even mentioned by any law, expressly or impliedly. Hence it cannot be allowed
even under Rules 108.
Article 413 of the Civil Code provides that “All other matters pertaining to the registration of civil
status shall be governed by special laws”. But there is no such special law in the Philippines
governing sex reassignment and its effects. Hence the petitioner is not entitled to change his sex
in his birth certificate on the ground of sex reassignment surgery.

6. Republic of the Philippines v. Jennifer Cagandahan, Supreme Court of the

Philippines, Second Division (12 September 2008)

Procedural Posture
In conformity with law, the plaintiff published the petition for name and gender change in a
newspaper and had the petition posted. The solicitor general entered his appearance and
authorized a provincial prosecutor to appear on his behalf. At the hearing the plaintiff testified
and presented the expert witness testimony of Dr Michael Sionyon of the Department of
Psychiatry who maintained that the plaintiff’s gender choice was permanent, and that
recognition would be advantageous to the plaintiff. The trial court granted the petition, and the
solicitor general entered a petition to the Second Division court seeking a reversal.

Facts
The plaintiff was registered at birth as female, but developed secondary male characteristics over
time. He was diagnosed with congenital adrenal hyperplasia and displayed both male and female
characteristics. At age six the plaintiff was diagnosed with clitoral hypertrophy and small ovaries;
at age thirteen the ovaries had minimised, he had no breasts and no menstrual cycle. He stated
that in his mind, appearance, emotions and interests he was a male person, and therefore asked
that his birth certificate sex be changed to male, and that his name be changed from Jennifer to
Jeff. A medical expert testified that the plaintiff was genetically female but that, because the
plaintiff’s body secreted male hormones, his female organs had not developed normally. He
further testified that the plaintiff’s condition was permanent and recommended the change of
gender because the plaintiff had adjusted to his chosen role as male and the gender change
would be advantageous to him.

Issue
Whether the court should recognize a new name and gender identity to reflect the chosen gender
of an intersex person who was raised as the opposite gender.

Held:
Domestic Law
Rules of the Court, 103 (regulating name change) and 108 (regulating the cancellation or
correction of civil registry entries).
Comparative Law
MT v. JT, New Jersey Superior Court, United States, 1976 (“It has been suggested that there is
some middle ground between sexes, a ‘no-man’s land’ for those individuals who are neither truly
‘male’ nor truly ‘female’”).

Reasoning of the Court

The Court first discussed the Wikipedia definition of intersex and remarked on the diverse
treatment of intersex individuals internationally. In quoting the reference in MT v. JT’s to a
gender ‘no-mans land’, the Court noted that “[T]he current state of Philippine statutes
apparently compels that a person be classified as either a male or as a female, but this Court is
not controlled by mere appearances when nature itself fundamentally negates such rigid
classification”.

The Court stated that it was 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.” Because
Cagandahan thought of himself as a male and his body produced high levels of androgen, there
was “preponderant biological support for considering him as being male.” According to the
Court, for intersex persons gender classification at birth was inconclusive. “It is at maturity that
the gender of such persons . . . is fixed.”

In this case, the Court considered that the plaintiff had allowed “nature to take its course” and
had not interfered with what “he was born with”. By not forcing his body to become female, he
permitted the male characteristics of the body to develop. Thus, the Court rejected the objections
of the solicitor general and held that, where no law governed the matter, the Court should not
force the plaintiff to undergo treatment to reverse his male tendencies.

The Court held that where the individual was biologically or naturally intersex, it was reasonable
to allow that person to determine his or her own gender.

7. Republic vs. Uy 703 SCRA (August 12, 2013)

FACTS:
Respondent filed a Petition for Correction of Entry in her Certificate of Live Birth. Her petition
seeks to change her name from “Anita Sy” to “Norma S. Lugsanay” following her mother’s
surname as her parents where never married. She also contended that she is a Filipino citizen
and not Chinese, and all her siblings bear the surname Lugsanay and are all Filipinos. In this
case, it was only the Local Civil Registrar of Gingoog City who was impleaded as respondent in
the petition below. This, notwithstanding, the RTC granted her petition and allowed the
correction sought by respondent, which decision was affirmed in toto by the CA. The CA held
that respondent’s failure to implead other indispensable parties was cured upon the publication
of the Order setting the case for hearing

ISSUE:
Whether or not failure to implead indispensable parties aside from the local civil registrar in
petition for correction of entries in the birth certificate is cured by the publication of the order
setting the case for hearing.

HELD:
The answer is in the negative. While there may be cases where the Court held that the failure to
implead and notify the affected or interested parties may be cured by the publication of the
notice of hearing, earnest efforts were made by petitioners in bringing to court all possible
interested parties. Such failure was likewise excused where the interested parties themselves
initiated the corrections proceedings; when there is no actual or presumptive awareness of the
existence of the interested parties; or when a party is inadvertently left out. It is clear from the
foregoing discussion that 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. If the entries in the civil register
could be corrected or changed through mere summary proceedings and not through appropriate
action wherein all parties who may be affected by the entries are notified or represented, the
door to fraud or other mischief would be set open, the consequence of which might be
detrimental and far reaching.

8. MINORU FUJIKI vs. MARIA PAZ GALELA MARINAY, et al. G.R. No. 196049,
June 26, 2013

FACTS:
Marinay contracted two marriages, first with Petitioner Fujiki and second with Maekara. The
first marriage ended without being legally annulled due to Fujiki’s parents who does not favor
the marriage. The second marriage ended due to an alleged physical abuse committed by
Maekara against Marinay. Fujiki and Marinay met again in Japan and reestablished their
relationship. In 2010, Fujiki helped Marinay obtain a judgment from a family court in Japan
which declared the marriage between Marinay and Maekara void on the ground of bigamy. On 14
January 2011, Fujiki filed a petition in the RTC entitled: "Judicial Recognition of Foreign
Judgment (or Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage)." Fujiki prayed that (1) the Japanese
Family Court judgment be recognized; (2) that the bigamous marriage between Marinay and
Maekara be declared void ab initio under Articles 35(4) and 41 of the Family Code of the
Philippines; and (3) for the RTC to direct the Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City to annotate the
Japanese Family Court judgment on the Certificate of Marriage between Marinay and Maekara
and to endorse such annotation to the Office of the Administrator and Civil Registrar General in
the National Statistics Office (NSO). The RTC motu proprio dismissed of the petition on the
following grounds: (1) that a special proceeding for correction of entry under Rule 108
(Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Original Registry) may not be done to recognize a
foreign judgment which is effect collaterally attacks the validity of or to nullify marriages; and
(2) that under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void
marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife.

ISSUES:
(1) Whether the Regional Trial Court can recognize the foreign judgment in a proceeding for
cancellation or correction of entries in the Civil Registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
(2) Whether a husband or wife of a prior marriage can file a petition to recognize a foreign
judgment nullifying the subsequent marriage between his or her spouse and a foreign citizen on
the ground of bigamy.

HELD:
(1) The answer is in the affirmative. A recognition of a foreign judgment only requires proof of
fact of the judgment, it may be made in a special proceeding for cancellation or correction of
entries in the civil registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. Rule 1, Section 3 of the Rules of
Court provides that "a special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status,
a right, or a particular fact." Rule 108 creates a remedy to rectify facts of a person’s life which are
recorded by the State pursuant to the Civil Register Law or Act No. 3753. These are facts of
public consequence such as birth, death or marriage, which the State has an interest in
recording. In Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas this Court declared that "the recognition of the foreign
divorce decree may be made in a Rule 108 proceeding itself, as the object of special proceedings
(such as that in Rule 108 of the Rules of Court) is precisely to establish the status or right of a
party or a particular fact."
While it was repeatedly held that a petition for correction or cancellation of an entry in the civil
registry cannot substitute for a direct action to invalidate a marriage under the Family Code,
A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC and other related laws, this does not apply in a petition for correction or
cancellation of a civil registry entry based on the recognition of a foreign judgment annulling a
marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of the foreign country. There is neither
circumvention of the substantive and procedural safeguards of marriage under Philippine law,
nor of the jurisdiction of Family Courts under R.A. No. 8369. A recognition of a foreign
judgment is not an action to nullify a marriage. It is an action for Philippine courts to recognize
the effectivity of a foreign judgment, which presupposes a case which was already tried and
decided under foreign law.

The procedure in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not apply in a petition to recognize a foreign
judgment annulling a bigamous marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of the foreign
country. Neither can R.A. No. 8369 define the jurisdiction of the foreign court.

Article 26 of the Family Code confers jurisdiction on Philippine courts to extend the effect of a
foreign divorce decree to a Filipino spouse without undergoing trial to determine the validity of
the dissolution of the marriage. The second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code provides
that "where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a
divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to
remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law." The second
paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code only authorizes Philippine courts to adopt the effects
of a foreign divorce decree precisely because the Philippines does not allow divorce. Philippine
courts cannot try the case on the merits because it is tantamount to trying a case for divorce.

(2) The answer in the affirmative. Rule 108, Section 1 of the Rules of Court states: 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.

Fujiki has the personality to file a petition to recognize the Japanese Family Court judgment
nullifying the marriage between Marinay and Maekara on the ground of bigamy because the
judgment concerns his civil status as married to Marinay. For the same reason he has the
personality to file a petition under Rule 108 to cancel the entry of marriage between Marinay and
Maekara in the civil registry on the basis of the decree of the Japanese Family Court.
There is no doubt that the prior spouse has a personal and material interest in maintaining the
integrity of the marriage he contracted and the property relations arising from it. There is also no
doubt that he is interested in the cancellation of an entry of a bigamous marriage in the civil
registry, which compromises the public record of his marriage.

9. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MERLINDA L. OLAYBAR G.R. No. 189538,

February 10, 2014

FACTS:
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 Cancellation of
Entries in the Marriage Contract, especially the entries in the wife portion thereof.5 Respondent
impleaded the Local Civil Registrar of Cebu City, as well as her alleged 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. Respondent also presented as 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 the signature appearing in the marriage contract was forged.

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. Petitioner now comes before the
Court in this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a petition for correction of entry in the civil registrar may be availed of to correct
the marriage status of a person who claimed that she had never been married.

HELD:
The answer is in the affirmative. 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.

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 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

10. ONDE vs. OFFICE OF THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRATION OF LAS PIÑAS CITY
(G.R. No. 197174, September 10, 2014)

FACTS:
Petitioner filed a petition for correction of entries in his certificate of live birth before the RTC
and named respondent Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Las Pinas City as sole respondent.
Petitioner alleged that he is the illegitimate child of his parents, but his birth certificate stated
that his parents were married. The trial court dismissed the petition as it should have been an
adversarial proceeding. Correcting the entry on petitioner’s birth certificate that his parents were
“not married” is a substantial correction requiring adversarial proceedings.

ISSUE:
Is the trial court correct in dismissing the case?
HELD:
Yes, the trial court is correct in dismissing the case. 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 the Rules of Court is mandated. 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. Since
the petitioner did not implead his father and mother as parties because the substantial
correction, he is seeking will also affect them, there was no compliance with the strict
requirements of the Rules. Hence, the petition was correctly dismissed by the trial court.
DIFFERENCES UNDER RULE 103, R.A. NO. 9048 AND RULE 108X

SUMMARY OF DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN RULE 103, RULE 108 AND RA 9048

Rule 103

Rule 108

RA 9048
Name of Law

Change of Name

Cancellation or Correction of

Clerical Error Law

Entries in the Civil Registry

Change of full name (Substantial

Change or correction in the civil

Change of first name and nickname

Subject Matter

registry (Substantial

and civil entries (only typographical

corrections)

corrections)
or Clerical errors)
Any person interested in any act,

event, order or decree

Any person having direct and

Who may File

A person desiring to change his

concerning the civil status of

personal interest in the correction of

name (Section 1)

persons which has been

a clerical or typographical error in an

recorded in the civil register.

entry and/or change of first name or

(Section 1)

nickname. (Section 3)

1.)

Local civil registry office of

RTC of the province in which

the

city or municipality where the

record being sought to be corrected

petitioner resides for three years

RTC of City or province where

or changed is kept.

Venue

prior to filing, or, in the City of

the corresponding civil registry

2.)

Local civil registrar of the

Manila, to the Juvenile and

is located.

place where the interested party is

Domestic Relations Court.

presently residing or domiciled.
Philippine Consulates. (Section 3)

Contents of the

A petition for change of name

(a) That the petitioner has been

The petition shall be in the form

Petition
shall be signed and verified by the

a bona fide resident of the

of an affidavit, subscribed and sworn

Page 61 of 69

person

desiring

his

name

province where the petition is

to before any person authorized by

changed, or some other person on

filed for at least three (3) years

the law to administer oaths. The

his behalf, and shall set forth:

prior to the date of such filing;

affidavit shall set forth facts

(b) The cause for which the

necessary to establish the merits of

(a) That the petitioner has been a

change of the petitioner's name

the petition and shall show

bona fide resident of the province

is sought;

affirmatively that the petitioner is

where the petition is filed for at

(c) The name asked for. (Section

competent to testify to the matters

least three (3) years prior to the

2)

stated. The petitioner shall state the

date of such filing;

particular erroneous entry or entries,

(b) The cause for which the

which are sought to be corrected

change of the petitioner's name is

and/or the change sought to be

sought;

made.

(c) The name asked for. (Section

The petition shall be supported

2)

with the following documents:

1.

A certified

true

machine
copy of the certificate or of the page

of the registry book containing the

entry or entries sought to be

corrected or changed.
2.

At least two (2) public or

private

documents

showing

the
correct entry or entries upon which

the correction or change shall be

based; and
3.

Other documents which the

petitioner or the city or municipal

civil registrar or the consul general

may consider relevant and necessary

for the approval of the petition.

The petition and its supporting

papers shall be filed in three (3)

copies to be distributed as follows:

first copy to the concerned city or

municipal civil registrar, or the

consul general; second copy to the

Office of the Civil Registrar General;

and third copy to the petitioner.

(Section 5)
(a) when the name is ridiculous,

The petition for change of first name

or nickname may be allowed in any

dishonorable

or

extremely

of the following cases:

difficult to write or pronounce;

(b) when the change results as a

1.

The

petitioner

finds

the

first name

or nickname

to
be

legal

consequence

such

as

ridiculous, tainted with dishonor or

legitimation;
Upon good and valid grounds,

extremely difficult to write or

Grounds

(c) when the change will avoid

the entries in the civil register

pronounce.
confusion;

may be cancelled or corrected.

2.

The new first name or

(d) when

one

has

continuously

(Section 2)

nickname has been

habitually
and

continuously used by the petitioner

used

and

been

known since

and he has been publicly known by

childhood by a Filipino name, and

that by that first name or nickname

was unaware of alien parentage;

in the community: or
(e) a

sincere

desire

to

adopt

3.

The

change will

avoid

Filipino

name

to erase

signs

of
confusion.

former alienage, all in good faith

(Section 4)

and without prejudicing anybody;

Page 62 of 69

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.

(RP
vs.

Coseteng-

Magpayo,

G.R.

No.

189476,

February 2, 2011)
Summary in nature if the

correction is clerical or

What kind of

Judicial Proceeding. (Hearing is

typographical only. Can be

Administrative proceeding. (Only an

converted to an adversarial

Proceeding

necessary)

investigation may be conducted.)

proceeding if there are

substantial changes and effect to

the status of an individual.

(Hearing is necessary)

What to File

A signed and verified petition.

File a verified petition for the

File an affidavit.

cancellation or correction of any

entry.

Once a week for three

At least once a week for two

consecutive weeks in a newspaper of

consecutive weeks in a

Once a week for three

general circulation. Furthermore, the

newspaper of general circulation.

Notice and

consecutive weeks in a

petitioner shall submit a certification

(notice of hearing)

Publication

newspaper of general
from the appropriate law

** hearing shall not be conducted

circulation. (notice of hearing)

enforcement agencies that he has no

w/in 30 days prior to election nor

pending case or no criminal record

w/in 4 months after last

(publish the whole affidavit)

publication of notice**
Duty city or municipal civil registrar

or the consul general to whom the

petition is presented shall examine

Posting

No posting

No posting

the petition and its supporting

documents. He shall post the petition

in a conspicuous place provided for

that purpose for ten (10) consecutive

days after he finds the petition and

its supporting documents sufficient

in form and substance.

Participant from

The Civil Registrar concerned is

made a party to the proceedings

The Civil Registrar or the Consul.

the Government

The Solicitor General must be

as respondent.

notified by service of a copy of the

Page 63 of 69

petition.
Where to

Appeal the Decision to the Court

Appeal the Decision to the Court

Appeal decision to the To the Civil

of appeals, fifteen (15) days from

of appeals, fifteen (15) days

Appeal

Register General (Head of NCSO)

receipt of judgment.

from receipt of judgment.