CASE DIGEST

REPUBLIC v. TIPAY
Special Proceedings

Court Supreme Court (Second Division)

Citation G.R. No. 209527

Date February 14, 2018

Petitioner THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Respondent VIRGIE (VIRGEL) L. TIPAY

Ponente J. Reyes, Jr.

Relevant topic Change of Name; Correction of Entries in Civil Registry

Prepared by Clark S. Orjalo

CASE SUMMARY:
Virgel, through a petition for correction under Rule 108 before the RTC, sought the change of his name, sex, and date
of birth appearing in his birth certificate (from 'Virgie' to 'Virgel'; from "FEMALE" to "MALE"; from "May 12, 1976" to
"February 25, 1976". The RTC and the CA allowed all the changes. Unsatisfied with the ruling of the CA, the Republic
appealed to this Court insisting that the entries sought to be corrected are substantial changes outside the jurisdiction
of the trial court. The Republic also reiterated its earlier arguments, adding that the CA should not have equated the
procedural requirements under Rule 103 with that of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

Substantial or controversial alterations in the civil registry are allowable in an action filed under Rule 108 of the Rules
of Court, as long as the issues are properly threshed out in appropriate adversarial proceedings. 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.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. 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. 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 newspaper of general circulation in the
province. 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".

IN THIS CASE, Virgel complied with the procedural requirements under Rule 108. He impleaded the local civil
registrar of Governor Generoso, Davao Oriental, the OSG, and the Provincial Prosecutor of Davao Oriental as parties
to his petition The RTC also complied with the its duties on setting the hearing and publication of the order for hearing.
The local civil registrar and the OSG were notified of the petition through registered mail. The OSG entered its
appearance and deputized the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Mati, Davao City for purposes of the proceedings
before the RTC. Accordingly, the prosecutor assigned to the case was present during the hearing but opted not to
cross-examine Virgel or his mother after their respective testimonies. There was also no opposition filed against the
petition of Virgel before the RTC. From the foregoing, it is clear that the parties who have a claim or whose interests
may be affected were notified and granted an opportunity to oppose the petition. While none of the parties questioned
the veracity of Virgel's allegations, much less present any controverting evidence before the trial court, the RTC
proceedings were clearly adversarial in nature. It dutifully complied with the requirements of Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court.
The Court affirmed the allowance of the changes on Virgel's sex and name, but it disallowed the change in Virgel's
date of birth. Virgel's NSO birth certificate shows that he was born on May 12, 1976, and as a public document, the
NSO birth certificate enjoys presumption of validity. Virgel failed to overcome the burden to prove that the date
thereon was false.

FACTS:

● Virgel sought the correction of several entries in his birth certificate:

o His birth certificate reflects his gender as "FEMALE" (which he wants to be changed to "MALE")
o His first name in his birth certificate is "Virgie" (which he wants to be changed to "Virgel")
1
CASE DIGEST
REPUBLIC v. TIPAY
Special Proceedings

o The month and day of his birth in the local civil registrar's copy of his birth certificate was blank, while
his NSO-issued birth cert indicates that he was born on "May 12, 1976" (Virgel insists that his month
and date of birth is "February 25, 1976")
● Aside from his own personal testimony, Virgel's mother, Susan L. Tipay, testified that she gave birth to a son
on February 25, 1976, who was baptized as "Virgel." The Certificate of Baptism, including other documentary
evidence such as a medical certificate stating that Virgel is phenotypically male, were also presented to the
trial court.
● There was no opposition to the petition.
● The RTC allowed all the changes sought by Virgel.
● The Republic, through the OSG, appealed the decision of the RTC. The OSG argued that the change of name
of Virgel from Virgie should have been made through a proceeding under Rule 103, and not Rule 108 of the
RoC.
o The summary procedure under Rule 108 is confined to the correction of clerical or innocuous errors,
which excludes one's name or date of birth. Since the petition lodged with the RTC was not filed
pursuant to Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, the Republic asserted that the trial court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the case.
● The CA however ruled in favor of Virgel and upheld the RTC decision.
o While the correction of the entry on his gender is considered a substantial change, it is nonetheless
within the jurisdiction of the trial court under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. Virgel's claim that he is
made was established and remained undisputed.
o As to the change of Virgel's name from "Virgie" to "Virgel," the CA did not find any reason to depart
from the decision of the RTC because it was more expeditious to change the entry in the same
proceeding. Even if the petition with the RTC was considered a Rule 103 proceeding, the
requirements under Rule 108 are substantially the same as that under Rule 103.
● Unsatisfied with the ruling of the CA, the Republic appealed to this Court insisting that the entries sought to be
corrected are substantial changes outside the jurisdiction of the trial court. The Republic also reiterated its
earlier arguments, adding that the CA should not have equated the procedural requirements under Rule 103
with that of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE – HELD – RATIO:

ISSUE #1 HELD

W/N correction of substantial changes may be covered by Rule 108 YES

RATIO:

 It is true that initially, the changes that may be corrected under the summary procedure of Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court are clerical or harmless errors.
 Jurisprudence on this matter later developed, giving room for the correction of substantial errors. The Court
ultimately recognized that substantial or controversial alterations in the civil registry are allowable in an action
filed under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, as long as the issues are properly threshed out in a ppropriate
adversarial proceedings.
 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.
o 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. 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.
o 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 newspaper of general circulation in the province.
o 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".
 To correct the erroneous gender and date of birth in Virgel's birth certificate, the proper remedy was
to commence the appropriate adversarial proceedings with the RTC, pursuant to Rule 108 of the Rules
2
CASE DIGEST
REPUBLIC v. TIPAY
Special Proceedings

of Court. The changes in the entries pertaining to the gender and date of birth are indisputably substantial
corrections, outside the contemplation of a clerical or typographical error that may be corrected
administratively.

IN THIS CASE,

 Virgel complied with the procedural requirements under Rule 108.

o He impleaded the local civil registrar of Governor Generoso, Davao Oriental, the OSG, and the
Provincial Prosecutor of Davao Oriental as parties to his petition
o The RTC also complied with the its duties on setting the hearing and publication of the order for
hearing.
o The local civil registrar and the OSG were notified of the petition through registered mail.
 The OSG entered its appearance and deputized the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Mati, Davao City for
purposes of the proceedings before the RTC. Accordingly, the prosecutor assigned to the case was present
during the hearing but opted not to cross-examine Virgel or his mother after their respective testimonies.
There was also no opposition filed against the petition of Virgel before the RTC.
 From the foregoing, it is clear that the parties who have a claim or whose interests may be affected were
notified and granted an opportunity to oppose the petition. While none of the parties questioned the veracity of
Virgel's allegations, much less present any controverting evidence before the trial court, the RTC
proceedings were clearly adversarial in nature. It dutifully complied with the requirements of Rule 108
of the Rules of Court.
 The Court has long settled in Republic v. Olaybar that as long as the procedural requirements in Rule 108
were observed, substantial corrections and changes in the civil registry.
 Since the Republic was unable to substantiate its arguments, or even cite a specific rule of procedure that
Virgel failed to follow, the Court has no reason to depart from the factual findings of the RTC, as affirmed by
the CA. Furthermore, in the absence of evidence refuting Virgel's assertion that he is indeed phenotypically
male, the correction of the entry on Virgel's sex in his birth certificate, from "FEMALE" to "MALE," was
correctly granted.
 HOWEVER, the Court disallowed the change on Virgel's date of birth.
o The NSO copy of Virgel's birth cert indicates that he was born on May 12, 1976. As a public
document, the date of birth appearing in the NSO copy is presumed valid and prima facie evidence of
the facts stated therein. Virgel bore the burden of proving its supposed falsity, but he failed to
discharge this burden.
 The police clearance presented to the trial court corroborates the entry in the NSO copy,
indicating Virgel's date of birth as May 12, 1976.
 The Court is also unconvinced by the other documentary evidence supposedly showing that
Virgel was born on February 25, 1976 because the information indicated in the identification
card from the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Member Data Record from the Philippine
Health Insurance Corporation, were all supplied by Virgel. These are self-serving information,
which do not suffice to overcome the presumption of validity accorded to the date of birth
reflected in the NSO copy of Virgel's birth certificate.

RULING:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED. The Decision dated October 9,
2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 02286 is AFFIRMED, only insofar as the corrections of the following
entries in the birth certificate are concerned: (a) first name, from "Virgie" to "Virgel;" and (b) gender, from "FEMALE" to
"MALE."

SO ORDERED.

NOTES (May be relevant also):

With the enactment of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9048 in 2001, the local civil registrars, or the Consul General as the
case may be, are now authorized to correct clerical or typographical errors in the civil registry, or make changes in the
first name or nickname, without need of a judicial order. 27 This law provided an administrative recourse for the
correction of clerical or typographical errors, essentially leaving the substantial corrections in the civil registry to Rule
108 of the Rules of Court.

3
CASE DIGEST
REPUBLIC v. TIPAY
Special Proceedings

 R.A. No. 9048 defined a clerical or typographical error as a mistake committed in. the performance of clerical
work, which is harmless and immediately obvious to the understanding. It was further amended in 2011, when
R.A. No. 10172 was passed to expand the authority of local civil registrars and the Consul General to make
changes in the day and month in the date of birth, as well as in the recorded sex of a person when it is
patently clear that there was a typographical error or mistake in the entry.
o However, in this case, RA 10172 may not be applied because it was not yet in effect when Virgel filed
his petition for correction in 2009.