CANOSA, EZRA JOY ANGAGAN 7:30-9:30 MONDAY SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

Case Title: MA. LOURDES BARRIENTOS ELEOSIDA, for and in Date: May 9, 2002
behalf of her minor child, CHARLES CHRISTIAN ELEOSIDA vs
Civil Registry of Q.C
Case No.: G.R. No. 130277       Ponente: PUNO, J.

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

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

The trial court in dismissing the petition posited that only clerical errors of a harmless and innocuous
nature may be the subject of a judicial order and not as may affect civil status, nationality or
citizenship of the persons involved. In this case, what is sought by the petitioner affects the status of
the child.

The Court required the respondents to comment on the petition. The Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) filed a Manifestation in Lieu of Comment. The OSG submitted that even substantial errors in
the civil registry may be corrected provided that the parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves
of the appropriate adversary proceeding. Thus it argued that even if the petition seeks the correction
and eventual change in the civil status of Charles Christian, the same can be ordered by the court as
long as all the parties who may be affected by the entries are notified and represented.

ISSUE: Whether corrections of entries in the certificate of live birth pursuant to Article 412 of the
Civil Code, in relation to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court may be allowed even if the errors to be
corrected are substantial and not merely clerical errors of a harmless and innocuous nature.

HELD: Yes. 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.  This is
our ruling in Republic vs. Valencia where we held that even substantial errors in a civil registry
may be corrected and the true facts established under Rule 108 provided the parties aggrieved by the
error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding. An appropriate 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. 

Thus, the persons who must be made parties to a proceeding concerning the cancellation or
correction of an entry in the civil register are—(1) the civil registrar, and (2) all persons who have or
claim any interest which would be affected thereby. Upon the filing of the petition, it becomes the
duty of the court to—(1) issue an order fixing the time and place for the hearing of the petition, and
(2) cause the order for hearing to be published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a
CANOSA, EZRA JOY ANGAGAN 7:30-9:30 MONDAY SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

newspaper of general circulation in the province. The following are likewise entitled to oppose the
petition:--(1) the civil registrar, and (2) any person having or claiming any interest under the entry
whose cancellation or correction is sought.

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

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 108 in accordance with our ruling in  Republic vs.
Valencia provided that the appropriate procedural requirements are complied with. The records
show that upon receipt of the petition, the trial court issued a notice of hearing setting the hearing on
June 26, 1997 at 8:30 in the morning at Room 118, Hall of Justice, Quezon City. The trial court
likewise ordered the publication of said notice once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a
newspaper of general circulation and its posting in selected places in Metro Manila.

The notice stated that the petitioner shall prove her petition during said hearing and all other persons
having or claiming any interest thereon shall also appear and show if there is any reason why the
petition should not be granted. Respondents Carlos Villena Borbon, the Local Civil Registrar of Quezon
City and the Solicitor General were all furnished with a copy of the notice of hearing together with a
copy of the petition. On June 26, 1997, the trial court issued a second order giving the petitioner an
opportunity to show compliance with the jurisdictional requirements and to present evidence during
the hearing set on July 23, 1997. The foregoing satisfy all the requirements of Rule 108 to make it an
adversary proceeding. It was therefore an error for the trial court to dismiss the petition motu
proprio 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.

Case Title: REPUBLIC OF THE Date: June 29, 2007

PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
vs.CARLITO I. KHO, MICHAEL KHO, MERCY NONA
KHO-FORTUN, HEDDY MOIRA KHO-SERRANO,
KEVIN DOGMOC KHO (Minor), and KELLY DOGMOC
KHO (Minor)
Case No.: G.R. No. 170340 Ponente: CARPIO MORALES, J

FACTS: On February 12, 2001, Carlito and his siblings Michael, Mercy Nona and Heddy Moira filed
before the RTC of Butuan City a verified petition for correction of entries in the civil registry of Butuan
City to effect changes in their respective birth certificates. Carlito also asked the court in behalf of his
minor children, Kevin and Kelly, to order the correction of some entries in their birth certificates.

In the case of Carlito, he requested the correction in his birth certificate of the citizenship of his
mother to "Filipino" instead of "Chinese," as well as the deletion of the word "married" opposite the
phrase "Date of marriage of parents" because his parents, Juan Kho and Epifania Inchoco (Epifania),
were allegedly not legally married. The same request to delete the "married" status of their parents
from their respective birth certificates was made by Carlito’s siblings Michael, Mercy Nona, and Heddy
Moira.

With respect to the birth certificates of Carlito’s children, he prayed that the date of his and his wife’s
marriage be corrected from April 27, 1989 to January 21, 2000, the date appearing in their marriage
certificate. The Local Civil Registrar of Butuan City was impleaded as respondent.
CANOSA, EZRA JOY ANGAGAN 7:30-9:30 MONDAY SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

On April 23, 2001, Carlito et al. filed an Amended Petition in which it was additionally prayed that
Carlito’s second name of "John" be deleted from his record of birth; and that the name and
citizenship of Carlito’s father in his (Carlito’s) marriage certificate be corrected from "John Kho" to
"Juan Kho" and "Filipino" to "Chinese," respectively. In a letter of June 18, 2001 addressed to the trial
court, the city civil registrar stated her observations and suggestions to the proposed corrections in
the birth records of Carlito and his siblings but interposed no objections to the other amendments.

The OSG entered its appearance with an authorization to the city prosecutor of Butuan City to appear
in the case and render assistance to it (the OSG).

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

The trial court decided and directed the local civil registrar of Butuan City to correct the entries in the
record of birth of Carlito, as follows: (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.

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

With respect to the marriage certificate of Carlito and Marivel, the corrections ordered pertained to
the alteration of the name of Carlito’s father from "John Kho" to "Juan Kho" and the latter’s
citizenship from "Filipino" to "Chinese."

Petitioner, Republic of the Philippines, appealed the RTC Decision to the CA, faulting the trial court in
granting the petition for correction of entries in the subject documents despite the failure of
respondents to implead the minors’ mother, Marivel, as an indispensable party and to offer sufficient
evidence to warrant the corrections with regard to the questioned "married" status of Carlito and his
siblings’ parents, and the latter’s citizenship. Petitioner also faulted the trial court for ordering the
change of the name "Carlito John Kho" to "Carlito Kho" for non-compliance with jurisdictional
requirements for a change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE: Whether the jurisdictional requirements are complied with.

HELD: Yes. The essential requisite for allowing substantial corrections of entries in the civil registry is
that the true facts be established in an appropriate adversarial proceeding. This is embodied in
Section 3, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, which states:

Section 3. Parties. – When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register is sought, the civil
registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby shall be
made parties to the proceeding.

Verily, a petition for correction is an action in rem, an action against a thing and not against a person.
The decision on the petition binds not only the parties thereto but the whole world. An in rem
proceeding is validated essentially through publication. Publication is notice to the whole world that
the proceeding has for its object to bar indefinitely all who might be minded to make an objection of
any sort against the right sought to be established. It is the publication of such notice that brings in
the whole world as a party in the case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it.
CANOSA, EZRA JOY ANGAGAN 7:30-9:30 MONDAY SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

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

Parenthetically, it seems highly improbable that Marivel was unaware of the proceedings to correct
the entries in her children’s birth certificates, especially since the notices, orders and decision of the
trial court were all sent to the residence she shared with Carlito and the children.

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

With respect to the date of marriage of Carlito and Marivel, their certificate of marriage  shows that
indeed they were married on January 21, 2000, not on April 27, 1989. Explaining the error, Carlito
declared that the date "April 27, 1989" was supplied by his helper, adding that he was not married to
Marivel at the time his sons were born because his previous marriage was annulled only in 1999.
Given the evidence presented by respondents, the CA observed that the minors were illegitimate at
birth, hence, the correction would bring about no change at all in the nature of their filiation.

With respect to Carlito’s mother, it bears noting that she declared at the witness stand that she was
not married to Juan Kho who died in 1959. Again, that testimony was not challenged by the city
prosecutor.

The documentary evidence supporting the deletion from Carlito’s and his siblings’ birth certificates of
the entry "Married" opposite the date of marriage of their parents, moreover, consisted of a
certification issued on November 24, 1973 by St. Joseph (Butuan City) Parish priest Eugene van
Vught stating that Juan Kho and Epifania had been living together as common law couple since 1935
but have never contracted marriage legally.

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

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

Section 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 separation; (e) judgments of annulment 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.

Hence, while the jurisdictional requirements of Rule 103 (which governs petitions for change of
name) were not complied with, observance of the provisions of Rule 108 suffices to effect the
correction sought for. More importantly, Carlito’s official transcript of record from the Urious College
in Butuan City, certificate of eligibility from the Civil Service Commission, and voter registration record
satisfactorily show that he has been known by his first name only. No prejudice is thus likely to arise
from the dropping of the second name.

The correction of the mother’s citizenship from Chinese to Filipino as appearing in Carlito’s birth
record was also proper. Of note is the fact that during the cross examination by the city prosecutor of
CANOSA, EZRA JOY ANGAGAN 7:30-9:30 MONDAY SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

Epifania, he did not deem fit to question her citizenship. Such failure to oppose the correction prayed
for, which certainly was not respondents’ fault, does not in any way change the adversarial nature of
the proceedings.

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

Outside the ambit of substantial corrections, of course, is the correction of the name of Carlito’s wife
from "Maribel" to "Marivel." The mistake is clearly clerical or typographical, which is not only visible to
the eyes, but is also obvious to the understandingconsidering that the name reflected in the marriage
certificate of Carlito and his wife is "Marivel."

Case Title: IN RE: PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME AND/OR Date: March 30, 2005
CORRECTION/CANCELLATION OF ENTRY IN CIVIL REGISTRY OF
JULIAN LIN CARULASAN WANG also known as JULIAN LIN WANG, to
be amended/corrected as JULIAN LIN WANG, JULIAN LIN WANG, duly
represented by his mother ANNA LISA WANG, Petitioners, v. CEBU CITY
CIVIL REGISTRAR, duly represented by the Registrar OSCAR B.
MOLO, Respondents.

Case No.: G.R. No. 159966 Ponente: TINGA, J.

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

The parents of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang plan to stay in Singapore for a long time because they will
let him study there together with his sister named Wang Mei Jasmine who was born in Singapore'.
Since in Singapore middle names or the maiden surname of the mother are not carried in a person's
name, they anticipate that Julian Lin Carulasan Wang will be discriminated against because of his
current registered name which carries a middle name. Julian and his sister might also be asking
whether they are brother and sister since they have different surnames. Carulasan sounds funny in
Singapore's Mandarin language since they do not have the letter "R" but if there is, they pronounce it
as "L." It is for these reasons that the name of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang is requested to be changed
to Julian Lin Wang.1

On 30 April 2003, the RTC rendered a decision denying the petition. The trial court found that the
reason given for the change of name sought in the petition that is, that petitioner Julian may be
discriminated against when studies in Singapore because of his middle name did not fall within the
grounds recognized by law. The trial court ruled that the change sought is merely for the convenience
of the child. Since the State has an interest in the name of a person, names cannot be changed to
suit the convenience of the bearers. Under Article 174 of the Family Code, legitimate children have
the right to bear the surnames of the father and the mother, and there is no reason why this right
should now be taken from petitioner Julian, considering that he is still a minor. The trial court added
that when petitioner Julian reaches the age of majority, he could then decide whether he will change
his name by dropping his middle name.3

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision but this was denied in a resolution dated
20 May 2004. The trial court maintained that the Singaporean practice of not carrying a middle name
does not justify the dropping of the middle name of a legitimate Filipino child who intends to study
CANOSA, EZRA JOY ANGAGAN 7:30-9:30 MONDAY SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

there. The dropping of the middle name would be tantamount to giving due recognition to or
application of the laws of Singapore instead of Philippine law which is controlling. That the change of
name would not prejudice public interest or would not be for a fraudulent purpose would not suffice
to grant the petition if the reason for the change of name is itself not reasonable.

Petitioner contends that "With globalization and mixed marriages, there is a need for the Supreme
Court to rule on the matter of dropping of family name for a child to adjust to his new environment,
for consistency and harmony among siblings, taking into consideration the "best interest of the
child." It is argued that convenience of the child is a valid reason for changing the name as long as it
will not prejudice the State and others.

The OSG filed its Comment positing that the trial court correctly denied the petition for change of
name. The OSG argues that under Article 174 of the Family Code, legitimate children have the right
to bear the surnames of their father and mother, and such right cannot be denied by the mere
expedient of dropping the same. According to the OSG, there is also no showing that the dropping of
the middle name "Carulasan" is in the best interest of petitioner, since mere convenience is not
sufficient to support a petition for change of name and/or cancellation of entry.

ISSUE: Whether or not the ground given by petitioner is sufficient.

HELD: No. The Court has had occasion to express the view that the State has an interest in the
names borne by individuals and entities for purposes of identification, 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.

The touchstone for the grant of a change of name is that there be 'proper and reasonable cause' for
which the change is sought. 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 granting or denying petitions for change of name, the question of proper and reasonable cause is
left to the sound discretion of the court. 

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

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

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
CANOSA, EZRA JOY ANGAGAN 7:30-9:30 MONDAY SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

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 father's surname.

Applying these laws, an illegitimate child whose filiation is not recognized by the father bears only a
given name and his mother's 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 mother's 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.

Case Title: MA. CRISTINA TORRES BRAZA, PAOLO JOSEF T. Date: December 4,
BRAZA and JANELLE ANN T. BRAZA, Petitioners, 2009
vs. THE CITY CIVIL REGISTRAR OF HIMAMAYLAN CITY,
NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, minor PATRICK ALVIN TITULAR BRAZA,
represented by LEON TITULAR, CECILIA TITULAR and LUCILLE
C. TITULAR, Respondents.

Case No.: G.R. No. 181174 Ponente: CARPIO

MORALES, J.:

FACTS: Petitioner Ma. Cristina Torres (Ma. Cristina) and Pablo Sicad Braza, Jr. (Pablo), also known as
"Pablito Sicad Braza," were married on January 4, 1978. The union bore Ma. Cristina’s co-petitioners
Paolo Josef and Janelle Ann on May 8, 1978 and June 7, 1983, respectively, and Gian Carlo on June
4, 1980. Pablo died on April 15, 2002 in a vehicular accident in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia.

During the wake following the repatriation of his remains to the Philippines, respondent Lucille Titular
(Lucille) began introducing her co-respondent minor Patrick Alvin Titular Braza (Patrick) as her and
Pablo's son. Ma. Cristina thereupon made inquiries in the course of which she obtained Patrick's birth
certificate from the Local Civil Registrar of Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental. Ma. Cristina likewise
obtained a copy of a marriage contract showing that Pablo and Lucille were married on April 22,
1998, drawing her and her co-petitioners to file on December 23, 2005 before the Regional Trial
Court of Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental a petition to correct the entries in the birth record of
Patrick in the Local Civil Register.

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

The trial court dismissed the petition without prejudice it 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
CANOSA, EZRA JOY ANGAGAN 7:30-9:30 MONDAY SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

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, hence, the controversy should be ventilated
in an ordinary adversarial action.

Petitioners maintain that the court a quo  may pass upon the validity of marriage and questions on
legitimacy even in an action to correct entries in the civil registrar.

ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court has jurisdiction to rule on the validity of marriage and
questions on legitimacy even in an action to correct entries in the civil registrar.

HELD: No. Rule 108 of the Rules of Court vis a vis  Article 412 of the Civil Code 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. A clerical error is one which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the
understanding; an error made by a clerk or a transcriber; a mistake in copying or writing, or a
harmless change such as a correction of name that is clearly misspelled or of a misstatement of the
occupation of the parent. Substantial or contentious alterations may be allowed only in adversarial
proceedings, in which all interested parties are impleaded and due process is properly observed.

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

Petitioners insist, however, that the main cause of action is for the correction of Patrick’s birth
records and that the rest of the prayers are merely incidental thereto.

Petitioners’ position does not lie. Their 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 which took effect on March 15, 2003, and
Art. 171 of the Family Code, respectively, hence, the petition should be filed in a Family Court as
expressly provided in said Code.1avvphi1

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

Case Title: ROMMEL JACINTO DANTES SILVERIO, petitioner, Date: October

vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent 22, 2007
Case No.: G.R. No. 174689 Ponente:
CORONA, J.

FACTS: On November 26, 2002, petitioner Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio filed a petition for the
change of his first name and sex in his birth certificate in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 8.
The petition, docketed as SP Case No. 02-105207, impleaded the civil registrar of Manila as
respondent.

Petitioner alleged in his petition that he was born in the City of Manila to the spouses Melecio Petines
Silverio and Anita Aquino Dantes on April 4, 1962. His name was registered as "Rommel Jacinto
Dantes Silverio" in his certificate of live birth (birth certificate). His sex was registered as "male."

He further alleged that he is a male transsexual, that is, "anatomically male but feels, thinks and acts
as a female" and that he had always identified himself with girls since childhood. 1 Feeling trapped in a
man’s body, he consulted several doctors in the United States. He underwent psychological
CANOSA, EZRA JOY ANGAGAN 7:30-9:30 MONDAY SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

examination, hormone treatment and breast augmentation. His attempts to transform himself to a
"woman" culminated on January 27, 2001 when he underwent sex reassignment surgery in Bangkok,
Thailand. He was thereafter examined by Dr. Marcelino Reysio-Cruz, Jr., a plastic and reconstruction
surgeon in the Philippines, who issued a medical certificate attesting that he (petitioner) had in fact
undergone the procedure.

From then on, 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."

The trial court granted the petition by rationating that granting the petition would be more in
consonance with the principles of justice and equity. With his sexual [re-assignment], petitioner, who
has always felt, thought and acted like a woman, now possesses the physique of a female.
Petitioner’s misfortune to be trapped in a man’s body is not his own doing and should not be in any
way taken against him. Likewise, the court believes that no harm, injury [or] prejudice will be caused
to anybody or the community in granting the petition. On the contrary, granting the petition would
bring the much-awaited happiness on the part of the petitioner and her [fiancé] and the realization of
their dreams.

The Republic of the Philippines (Republic), thru the OSG, filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of
Appeals. It alleged that there is no law allowing the change of entries in the birth certificate by
reason of sex alteration. Petitioner essentially claims that the change of his name and sex in his birth
certificate is allowed under Articles 407 to 413 of the Civil Code, Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of
Court and RA 9048.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petition should be granted on the ground of sex alteration.

HELD: No. A Person’s First Name Cannot Be Changed On the Ground of Sex Reassignment. RA 9048
now governs the change of first name. It vests 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 first name is now primarily lodged with the
aforementioned administrative officers. The intent and effect of the 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. It likewise lays down the corresponding venue,
form and procedure. In sum, the remedy and the proceedings regulating change of first name are
primarily administrative in nature, not judicial.

RA 9048 likewise provides the grounds for which change of first name may be allowed:

SECTION 4. Grounds for Change of First Name or Nickname.  – The petition for change of first
name or nickname may be allowed in any of the following cases:

(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.

Petitioner’s basis in praying for the change of his first name was his sex reassignment. He intended to
make his first name compatible with the sex he thought he transformed himself into through surgery.
However, a change of name does not alter one’s legal capacity or civil status. RA 9048 does not
CANOSA, EZRA JOY ANGAGAN 7:30-9:30 MONDAY SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

sanction a change of first name on the ground of sex reassignment. Rather than avoiding confusion,
changing petitioner’s first name for his declared purpose may only create grave complications in the
civil registry and the public interest.

Together with Article 376 of the Civil Code, this provision was amended by RA 9048 in so far
as clerical or typographical  errors are involved. The correction or change of such matters can now be
made through administrative proceedings and without the need for a judicial order. In effect, RA
9048 removed from the ambit of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court the correction of such errors. Rule
108 now applies only to substantial changes and corrections in entries in the civil register. 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 for which the applicable procedure is Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court.

Case Title: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JENNIFER Date: September

CAGANDAHAN 12, 2008

Case No.: GR No. 166676 Ponente:

QUISUMBING, J

FACTS: Jennifer Cagandahan filed before the Regional Trial Court Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna
a Petition for Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate of her name from Jennifer B. Cagandahan to
Jeff Cagandahan and her gender from female to male. It appearing that Jennifer Cagandahan is
sufferingfrom Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia which is a rare medical condition where afflicted
persons possess both male and female characteristics. Jennifer Cagandahan grew up with secondary
male characteristics. To further her petition, Cagandahan presented in court the
medical certificate evidencing that she is suffering from Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia
which certificate is issued by Dr. Michael Sionzon of the Department of Psychiatry, University of the
Philippines-Philippine General Hospital, who, in addition, explained that “Cagandahan genetically is
female but because her body secretes male hormones, her female organs did not develop normally,
thus has organs of both male and female.” The lower court decided in her favor but the Office of the
Solicitor General appealed before the Supreme Court invoking that the same was a violation of Rules
103 and 108 of the Rules of Court because the said petition did not implead the local civil registrar.

ISSUE: Whether or not Cagandahan’s sex as appearing in her birth certificate be changed.

HELD: The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. It held that, in deciding the
case, the Supreme Court considered “the compassionate calls for recognition of the various degrees
of intersex as variations which should not be subject to outright denial.” The Supreme  Court made
use of the availale evidence presented in court including the fact that private respondent thinks of
himself as a male and as to the statement made by the doctor that Cagandahan’s body produces high
levels of male hormones (androgen), which is preponderant biological support for considering him as
being male.”

The Supreme Court further held that they give respect to (1) the diversity of nature; and (2) how an
individual deals with what nature has handed out. That is, the Supreme Court respects the
respondent’s congenital condition and his mature decision to be a male. Life is already difficult for the
ordinary person. The Court added that a change of name is not a matter of right but of judicial
discretion, to be exercised in the light of the reasons and the consequences that will follow.

Case Title: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. DR. NORMA S. Date:

LUGSANAY UY, Respondent. August 12,
2013
CANOSA, EZRA JOY ANGAGAN 7:30-9:30 MONDAY SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

Case No.: G.R. No. 198010 Ponente:

Peralta, J.

FACTS: On March 8, 2004, respondent filed a Petition for Correction of Entry in her Certificate of Live
Birth. Impleaded as respondent is the Local Civil Registrar of Gingoog City. She alleged that she was
born on February 8, 1952 and is the illegitimate daughter of Sy Ton and Sotera Lugsanay. Her
Certificate of Live Birth shows that her full name is “Anita Sy” when in fact she is allegedly known to
her family and friends as “Norma S. Lugsanay.” She further claimed that her school records,
Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) Board of Medicine Certificate, and passport 9 bear the name
“Norma S. Lugsanay.” She also alleged that she is an illegitimate child considering that her parents
were never married, so she had to follow the surname of her mother. She also contended that she is
a Filipino citizen and not Chinese, and all her siblings bear the surname Lugsanay and are all Filipinos.

Respondent allegedly filed earlier a petition for correction of entries with the Office of the Local Civil
Registrar of Gingoog City to effect the corrections on her name and citizenship which was supposedly
granted. However, the National Statistics Office (NSO) records did not bear such changes. Hence, the
petition before the RTC.

The RTC granted the petition and the CA affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court. The OSG, on
behalf of the Republic, contends that the petition must fail since it did not notify the parents and
siblings of the petitioner who are indispensable parties to this case.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petition is dismissible for failure to implead indispensable parties.

HELD: Yes. Cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry is governed by Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court. In this case, respondent sought the correction of entries in her birth certificate,
particularly those pertaining to her first name, surname and citizenship. She sought the correction
allegedly to reflect the name which she has been known for since childhood, including her legal
documents such as passport and school and professional records. She likewise relied on the birth
certificates of her full blood siblings who bear the surname “Lugsanay” instead of “Sy” and citizenship
of “Filipino” instead of “Chinese.” The changes, however, are obviously not mere clerical as they
touch on respondent’s filiation and citizenship. In changing her surname from “Sy” (which is the
surname of her father) to “Lugsanay” (which is the surname of her mother), she, in effect, changes
her status from legitimate to illegitimate; and in changing her citizenship from Chinese to Filipino, the
same affects her rights and obligations in this country. Clearly, the changes are substantial.

Respondent’s birth certificate shows that her full name is Anita Sy, that she is a Chinese citizen and a
legitimate child of Sy Ton and Sotera Lugsanay. In filing the petition, however, she seeks the
correction of her first name and surname, her status from “legitimate” to “illegitimate” and her
citizenship from “Chinese” to “Filipino.” Thus, respondent should have impleaded and notified not only
the Local Civil Registrar but also her parents and siblings as the persons who have interest and are
affected by the changes or corrections respondent wanted to make.

The fact that the notice of hearing 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. A reading of
Sections 4 and 5, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court shows that the Rules mandate two sets of notices to
different potential oppositors: one given to the persons named in the petition and another given to
other persons who are not named in the petition but nonetheless may be considered interested or
affected parties. Summons must, therefore, be served not for the purpose of vesting the courts with
jurisdiction but to comply with the requirements of fair play and due process to afford the person
concerned the opportunity to protect his interest if he so chooseS.
CANOSA, EZRA JOY ANGAGAN 7:30-9:30 MONDAY SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS

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.