JUDICIAL CHANGE OF NAME

(Reporter: Group 1- Coquilla, Sioson and Tan)

As to forms:
The color scheme used is visually relaxing to the eyes. However, some colors of the texts
in the presentation was not in contrast to the background making some of the slides difficult to
read. In discussing the codal provisions of the topic, the group was able to summarize the
provisions clearly by dissecting it through bullet forms. However, the group was not able to
observe proper spacing in presenting enumerations. The words are too compressed. On the last
part of the presentation, particularly in the discussion of the cases and the exercises they provide,
the presentation was too wordy and full of paragraphs and sentences. We recommend that in
stating the ruling and issue in the case, only the important key words are presented and not the
whole sentence or paragraph by bulleting such important matters in the case. They may expound
it by explaining it through their audio or voice over. The group must have refrain from using
sentences and paragraphs but rather they should have resort to bullet forms.
As to the written report, one thing that is not well-structured is the digest of the cases.
The group was not able to put the heading “Facts”, “Issue”, and “Ruling” in their presentation of
case digests. Also, the cases are very lengthy. They must have shortened it and point out only
those important facts and ruling of the Supreme Court related to the topic at hand.

As to contents:

The group mentioned the case of Cagandahan and Silverio wherein the Supreme Court
allowed the change of name in the former and denied the latter. However, the group was not able
to compare the two cases. In the case of Silverio, petitioner had a sex change or reassignment
operation in Bangkok, Thailand. On the other hand, In the Cagandahan, the petitioner has
Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) which is a condition where a person possesses both male
and female characteristics. As the Supreme Court stated:

Cagandahan simply let nature take its course and has not taken unnatural steps to arrest
or interfere with what he was born with. And accordingly, he has already ordered his life
to that of a male. Respondent could have undergone treatment and taken steps, like
taking lifelong medication, to force his body into the categorical mold of a female but he
did not. He chose not to do so. Nature has instead taken its due course in respondent's
development to reveal more fully his male characteristics.1
Silverio deliberately took the sex reassignment operations to change his body to that of a
woman. Cagandahan, on the other hand, from birth had a female body, male hormones, two sex
organs, and no monthly period.

1
G.R. No. 166676, September 12, 2008
 The group did a good job incorporating jurisprudential doctrines and rulings when
discussing the codal provision which made the report more understandable and comprehensive.
However, the group did not mention R.A. 9048 and Rule 108 and their distinctions in
relation to their topic which is Rule 103 on Judicial Change of Name. The following table are
some of their distinctions:

Rule 103 R.A. 9048 Rule 108

Change of first name Change of first name or Correction of or substantial

or surname nickname/ correction of errors of entries in the Civil
Scope clerical errors of entries in Registry/ cancellation of
the Civil Registry. entries.

Judicial; hearing is Administrative; hearing is Judicial; hearing is

necessary. not necessary. necessary
Nature Summary if it involves
clerical errors
Adversarial if it involves
substantial errors.
RTC of the province 1. Local Civil Registry RTC where the
Where to where the petitioner office where the record is corresponding civil registry
file resides at least 3 kept; is located.
months.
2. Consul general.
 ADMINISTRATIVE ADOPTION
(Group 17- Suarez, Manligoy and Peroy)
As to form:
The video presentation is visually good. The color scheme used is relaxing to the eyes.
They were able to simplify the provisions of the law by outlining and using bullet forms. The
presentation of the chart with regard to the procedure is very creative. It made the procedure
more understandable. One negative point in their video presentation is the audio. The audio of
the report is not clear and as a result, the audience will tend to resort to the visual presentation
rather than listening to the reporter. The group could have done better in giving quality to the
audio.
The written report is very well-structured. The group made use of tables, charts and
outlines in their written report which made it clearer and easier to read. The headings of every
chapter are formatted in a way that the separation of each topic is visible. They also used
footnotes in citing their references which only proves that the written report was made with
effort and diligence.

As to contents:
The report is very comprehensive. They were able to discuss the origin of the law, the
objectives, its effects up to the last topic which is criminal acts punishable under R.A. 11222.
The procedure under the said law was presented in a very detailed way.
However, the group failed to mention other adoption laws existing before the
promulgation of R.A. 11222. Some of which are R.A. 8552 or the Domestic Adoption Act and
R.A. 9523 (An Act Requiring Certification of the DSWD to Declare A Child Legally Available
for Adoption as Prerequisite for Adoption Proceedings). The group must have discussed the
distinction between R.A. 11222 and the above-mentioned laws.
The differences between the existing adoption laws and RA 11222 or the Simulated Birth
Rectification Act were clarified by DSWD in a recent consultation dialogue.2
Existing adoption laws under the R.A. 8552 and R.A. 9523 involve a socio-legal process
and the finalization of the adoption is in court.  R.A. 11222 on the other hand is purely
administrative in nature.
Under RA 8552 and RA 9523, the DSWD only cover abandoned, neglected, surrendered
children through the issuance of a Certification Declaring a Child Legally Available for
Adoption (CDCLAA).  In RA  11222, the DSWD also caters to adult adoptees and relatives
within the 4th degree of consanguinity or affinity provided that the birth certificate of the
adoptee is simulated.

2
The difference between existing adoption laws and RA 11222 - The Simulated Birth Rectification Act. (2019, November 3). Retrieved from
https://thephilippineforum.com/the-difference-between-existing-adoption-laws-and-ra-11222/
 Moreover, if the birth certificate is simulated under R.A. 8552 and R.A. 11222, it is
required that the said birth certificate should be cancelled first before the CDCLAA is issued
then proceed to Adoption.  In R.A. 11222, the cancellation of the simulated birth certificate will
happen after the issuance of the Order of Adoption by the Secretary of DSWD.
In existing adoption laws, there is a matching process between the child and prospective
adoptive parents while in RA 11222, there is no matching process involved because the child has
been living with the prospective adoptive parents for at least three years.
 GUARDIANSHIP OF MINORS
(Group 11- Estremos, Maligad, Viola)
As to form:
The video presentation was creatively done but it is not effective. The purpose of the
video is to discuss the topic assigned in a detailed and informative manner. The goal is to
discuss to the viewers the procedure of their assigned topic. However, the group was not able to
serve such purpose. The report lacks presentation of words. It can be seen in the video
presentation that words just appear which is relatively small and can hardly be read. Most of the
time, it is the reporters that talk and the video presentation was more focused on them rather than
the contents of the report. At the very least, the group should have provided for slides in order to
structure and organize their report.
The written report is very detailed and well-structured. The group was able to outline and
simplify the provisions of the law clearly. They were able to emphasize important matters. The
use of charts in summarizing the procedure is very effective in discussing the procedure. Overall,
the written report is good.
As to contents:
The report was very comprehensive. Every provision is discussed thoroughly and clearly.
However, they failed to mention certain distinctions between Rule 92-97 and A.M. No. 03-05-03
SC.
Rule 92-97 A.M. No. 03-05-03 SC
Where to file the petition In case of guardianship over Family Court of the province
the: of the city where the minor
resides.
person and property: RTC
If he resides in a foreign
property only: RTC or MTC country, the petition shall be
depending on the value of the filed with the Family Court of
property the province or city where his
property or any thereof is
situated.
Grounds to file the petition Where the minor or 1. Death, continued absence,
incompetent: or incapacity of his parents;

1. Has no parent; or 2. Suspension, deprivation, or

2. Has no lawful termination of parental
guardian. (ROC, Rule authority;
93, Sec. 1)
3. Remarriage of his
surviving parent, if the latter
is found unsuitable to
exercise parental authority; or
 4. When the best interest of
the minor so requires.

In addition, Rules 92- 97 do not contain any provisions on the qualifications of the
guardian. On the other hand, A.M. No. 03-05-03 SC provides for such qualifications as provided
in Section 5 of such administrative matter
It is important to relate and distinguish Rules 92-97 and A.M. No. 03-05-03 SC because
each rule has different implications.
 WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
(Group 8- Palma Gil, Delos Santos and Piodos)
As to form:
The video presentation is excellent. It was creatively done. The use of animations and a
bit of story makes the presentation more interesting. The audio is very clear. The color scheme
used is relaxing to the eyes. Incorporating a background music prevented the presentation to be
dull. The group was able to outline and emphasize important points in every provision of the law
by using bullets. Overall, the video presentation is excellent.
The written report is well-organized and formatted in a manner that is easy to read. The
group was able to put their references in the paper which prove that it the written report was done
with effort and diligence. One negative thing is that the case digests provided was too lengthy.
The group could have shortened it by putting only ultimate facts that is related to the topic. The
ruling stated must be direct to the point. The group could have shortened it by removing
unnecessary details in the case and emphasize the important ones. We also notice one case digest
in which the title is too long. The group could have shortened it so that it will not consume much
space in the paper. Aside from the case digests, the written report was outstanding.
As to contents:
The discussion on the assigned topic is very comprehensive and detailed. Every provision
of the law was explained well and it was summarized in an understandable manner. The
procedure on filing a writ of habeas data was well explained. However, the group failed to
summarize the procedure. The group must have used a chart, like the other groups, in
summarizing the procedure in their assigned topic.
The group included in their report the difference between writ of habeas data and writ of
amparo. However, we think that the group must have included writ of habeas corpus in the
distinction because of some implications. The following are some of the distinctions of writ of
habeas data and writ of habeas corpus:

Writ of Habeas Data Writ of Habeas Corpus

Coverage Involves the right to privacy Involves the right to liberty of
in life, liberty, and security of and rightful custody by the
the aggrieved party and aggrieved party.
covers extralegal killings and
enforced disappearances.

Rights violated There is an actual or There is an actual violation

threatened violation of the of the aggrieved party’s right.
aggrieved party’s right.
Where to file RTC where the petitioner or RTC or any judge thereof,
respondent resides, or that CA or any member thereof in
which has jurisdiction over instances authorized by law;
the place where the data or or SC or any member thereof.
information is gathered,
collected or stored, at the
option of the petitioner; or
with SC, CA or SB when the
action concerns public data
files or government offices.

Respondent Public official or employee or May or may not be an officer.

a private individual or entity
engaged in the gathering,
collecting or storing of data
or information regarding the
person, family, home and
correspondence of the
aggrieved party.

Enforceability of the Writ Enforceable anywhere in the If granted by SC or CA:

Philippines regardless of who enforceable anywhere In the
issued the same Philippines;

If granted by RTC:
enforceable only within the
judicial district
 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
(Group 5- Cagas, Calio, Latorza)
As to form:
The video presentation was done without effort and creativity. The texts they
incorporated to the video is not clear. Their choice of color schemes as well as font style (default
calibri body) is so irritating to look at. This shows the group’s inattention to the details of their
work. The presentation lacks originality. All they put in their video was take a ready-made clip
from the internet and then add text from the law without any evaluation. They were not able to
put credits in such video. The video is blurred because of the mere downloading of such ready-
made video. it goes to show that their group did not put effort in creating their output. On the
positive side, the audio quality and the music choice are good. The reader’s voice and delivery
are clear as well. Overall, the video composition is fairly readable.
The written report was done decently. They were able to observe proper spacing which
make each topic visible and easy to read. The use of footnotes is also worth mentioning. It
clearly shows that the group is very responsible in researching about the topic assigned to them.
However, they were not able to outline most of the provision instead they frequently used
paragraphs. The group must have simplified the provision so that it will be understandable and
easy to read.
As to contents:
By basing their overall output on Marcos era, they unfairly conclude that Marcos actually
made violations of human rights without even supporting their conclusions with any supreme
court decisions. This is a blatant violation of our rules in law school that all conclusions must be
supported with legal bases. They have not fully explained how the commission of freedom and
human rights vis-à-vis writ of habeas corpus are being made. All they did was read the
provisions of the law regarding such writ. No examples given. Explanations should have been
the key factor so the viewers will understand the provisions of the rules under this writ.
On the positive side, what makes the video interesting is the idea of linking the discussion
to a politically-related (martial law) issue. This idea is good because it enables the viewers to
anticipate the purpose and reason of the writ. The group was able to present recent cases relating
to their topic assigned. However, the facts and issue were not included. A full digest of the case
is important so that, at the very least, the viewer may understand the topic through situational
cases. Overall, the explanation of the subject matter is fairly comprehensible.
The group failed to discuss A.M. No. 03-04-04 SC or Rule on Custody of Minors and
Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of Minors . The following are some distinction of
the Rule 102 and A.M. No. 03-04-04 SC.
 Rule 102 A.M. No. 03-04-04 SC

Jurisdiction SC, CA, RTC, MTC in the Family Court, CA, SC

province or city in case there
is no RTC judge; SB only in
aid of its appellate
jurisdiction.

Venue Where the aggrieved party is Where the petitioner resides

detained (RTC) or where the minor may be
found

The following are some salient provision, discussion and jurisprudence under A.M. No.
03-04-04 SC or Rule on Custody of Minors and Writ of Habeas Corpus in Relation to Custody of
Minors:

Who may file a petition for custody of minor?

Any person may file a verified petition for the rightful custody of a minor. The party
against whom it may be filed shall be designated as the respondent. (Sec. 2)
Where should a petition for custody of minor be filed?

Family courts in the province or city where the petitioner resides or where the minor may
be found. (Sec. 3)
Whether Family Courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court and the
Court of Appeals in petitions where the custody of minors is at issue?

Yes. The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court have concurrent jurisdiction with family
courts in habeas corpus cases where the custody of minors is involved. The provisions of RA
8369 must be read in harmony with RA 7029 and BP 129 ― that family courts have concurrent
jurisdiction with the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court in petitions for habeas corpus
where the custody of minors is at issue. (Thornton v. Thornton, G.R. No. 154598, Aug. 16,
2004).

What is the Best Interest Standard?

 It refers to the totality of the circumstances and conditions as are most congenial to the
survival, protection, and feelings of security of the minor and most encouraging to his physical,
psychological and emotional development. It also means the least detrimental available
alternative for safeguarding the growth and development of the minor. (Sec. 14)

Would a decision rendering judgment on the issue of custody of a child in a nullity of

marriage case constitute as res judicata on a pending habeas corpus case on the same
matter?
Yes. By filing the case for declaration of nullity of marriage petitioner automatically
submitted the issue of the custody of the child as an incident thereof. Section 21 of the "Rule on
Declaration Of Absolute Nullity Of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages"
directs the court taking jurisdiction over a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage to
resolve the custody of common children, by mere motion of either party, it could only mean that
the filing of a new action is not necessary for the court to consider the issue of custody of a
minor. (Yu v. Yu, G.R. No. 164915, March 10, 2006).

What are the stages in the pre-trial?

1. First stage – the parties may agree on the custody of the minor.
2. Second stage – the trial court will direct the parties to secure the services of a mediator if
the parties do not agree on the custody of the minor. (Sec. 12)

Note: If the second stage does not produce an amicable settlement, the court will proceed with
the pre-trial conference. Pre-trial is mandatory.

Can the minor child be brought out of the country without leave from court while the
petition is pending?

The minor child subject of the petition shall not be brought out of the country without
prior order from the court while the petition is pending. The court, motu proprio or upon
application under oath, may issue ex parte a hold departure order, addressed to the Bureau of
Immigration and Deportation, directing it not to allow the departure of the minor from the
Philippines without the permission of the court. (Sec. 16)