1
PURPOSE: governs judicial petitions for change of given name or
surname, or both, pursuant to Article 376 of the Civil Code.
OBJECTIVE: To prevent fraud, since the rule involves substantial
changes in a person's name.
You sent
Nature of the proceedings: In Rem
Official Name: The only name that may be changed is the true or
official name recorded in the civil register.
Section 1 - Venue:
Who may file: "PERSON" refers to all natural persons and not just
Filipino citizens.
Where to file: Regional Trial Court of the place where the petitioner
resides.
You sent
Section 2- Contents of the Petion. A petion for change of name shall
be signed and verified by the person desiring his name changed, or
some other person on his behalf and shall set forth:
a. That the petitioner has bona fide resident of the province where the
petition is filed for at least three (3) years prior to the date of such
filling;
b. The cause for which the change of the petitioner's name is sought;
c. The name asked for.
Jurisprudence provides for additional contents: 1. the applicant's real
name, 2. his aliases or other or other names, if any, and 3. the name
sought to be adopted even if these data are found in the body of the
petition.
Question: Whether failure to include the true name of the party
whose name is sought to be changed in the title of the petition and of
the notice published in connection therewith, precludes the court
from obtaining jurisdiction to entertain the same?
Question: Whether failure to include the same sought to be adopted
in the title of the petition and consequently in the notices published in
the newspaper is substantial jurisdictional infirmity?
Section 3. Order of hearing- if the petition filed is sufficient in form
and substance, the court, by an order reciting the purpose of the
petition, shall fix a date and place for the hearing thereof, and shall
direct that a copy of the order be published 3 successive weeks in
some newspaper of general circulation published in the province, as
the court shall deem best. The date set for the hearing shall not be
within 30 days prior to an election nor within four 4 months after the
last publication.
GROUNDS for change of name:
1. Name is ridiculous, dishonorable, or extremely difficult to write or
pronounce;
2. Change results as a legal consequences, as in legitimation;
3. Change will avoid confusion;
4. When one has continuously used and been known since childhood
by a Filipino name, and was unaware of alien parentage;
5. Sincere desire to adopt Filipino name to erase signs of former
alienage, all in good faith and without prejudicing anybody;
6. Surname cause embarrassment and there is no showing that the
desired change of name was for fraudulent purposes or that the
change of name prejudice public interest.
Illegitimate child may now use father's surname (R.A No. 9255
Whether there's a need for change of name by married woman?
Article 370 of the Civil Code, a married woman may use:
1. Her maiden first name and surname and add her husband's
surname.
2. Her maiden first name and her husband's surname, or
3. Her husband's full name, but prefixing a word indicating that she is
wife, such as "Mrs."
 2
Whether a person's first name can be changed on the ground of sex
reassignment?
(Silverio v. Republic)
Where change of name allowed arising from change of gender:
(Republic v. Cagandahan)
Section 4- Hearing - Any interested person may appear at the hearing
and oppose the petition. The Solicitor General or the proper
provincial or city fiscal shall appear on behalf of the Government of
the Republic.
Section 5. Judgement - Upon satisfactory proof in open court on the
date fixed in accordance with the prayer of the petition.
Section 6. Service of Judgment - Judgments or orders rendered in
connection with this rule shall be furnished the civil register.
*********************
• Alba v. CA, GR 164041, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 495
Facts: On 21 October 1996, respondent filed a petition in RTC
Manila for cancellation of entries in the birth certificate of petitioner
minor, to wit: (1) minor’s surname ‘Herrera’; (2) his filiation as
father; and (3) marriage to minor’s mother, Armi, alleging they are
false and that he married only once with Ezperanza Santos. On 13
January 1997, the RTC issued an Amended Order re -scheduling the
hearing of petition to 26 February 1997. Copy of which was
published in ‘Today’ in its Jan 20, 27, and Feb 3,1997 issues, and
were also sent to Armi at No. 418 Arquiza St.,Ermita, Manila
(address per minor’s birth certificate), Local Civil Registrar and
Solicitor General. During the hearing, only OSG appeared but filed
no opposition, while Armi was not present for she did not receive the
Order, the address provided being wrong. On 1 April 1997, the RTC
granted the petition which became final on 2 June 1997. On
24November 2000, petitioners filed a petition for annulment of
judgment with CA on the grounds of extrinsic fraud and lack of
jurisdiction over their person. Armi averred that: (1) respondent knew
all along of her true address where they cohabited as husband of wife,
result of which is the minor; and (2) she knew of the decision only
on26 February 1998; hence due process was denied. On 27
February 2004, CA dismissed the petition. Motion for reconsideration
was denied hence, the instant petition forcertiorari.
Issues: 1. Whether or not jurisdiction over Armi’s person was NOT
acquired;
Ruling: THE JURSIDICTION OVER ARMI’S PERSON WAS
ACQUIRED. Under Section 2, Rule 47 of the 1997 Revised Rules of
CivilProcedure, judgments may be annulled on the grounds of lack of
jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud. Whether or not the trial court
acquired jurisdiction over the person of petitioner and her minor child
depends on the nature of private respondents action, that is, in
personam, in rem or quasi in rem. An action in personam is lodged
against a person based on personal liability; an action in rem is
directed against the thing itself instead of the person; while an action
quasi in rem names a person as defendant, but its object is to subject
that persons interest in a property to a corresponding lien or
obligation. Hence, petitions directed against the thing itself or the res,
which concerns the status of a person,[22] like a petition for
adoption,[23]annulment of marriage,[24] or correction of entries in
the birth certificate,[25] as in the instant case, are actions in rem. In
an action in personam, jurisdiction over the person of the defendant is
necessary for the court to validly try and decide the case. In a
proceeding in rem or quasi in rem, jurisdiction over the person of the
defendant is not a prerequisite to confer jurisdiction on the court,
provided that the latter has jurisdiction over the res. Jurisdiction over
the res is acquired either (a) by the seizure of the property under legal
process, whereby it is brought into actual custody of the law; or (b) as
a result of the institution of legal proceedings, in which the power of
the court is recognized and made effective.[26]The service of
summons or notice to the defendant is not for the purpose of vesting
the court with jurisdiction but merely for satisfying the due process
requirements.[27] In the case at bar, the filing with the trial court of
the petition for cancellation vested the latter jurisdiction over the res.
Substantial corrections or cancellations of entries in civil registry
records affecting the status or legitimacy of a person may be effected
through the institution of a petition under Rule 108 of the Revised
Rules of Court, with the proper Regional Trial Court.[28] Being a
proceeding in rem, acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of
petitioner is therefore not required in the present case. It is enough
that the trial court is vested with jurisdiction over the subject matter.
The service of the order at No. 418 Arquiza St., Ermita, Manila and
the publication thereof in a newspaper of general circulation in
Manila, sufficiently complied with the requirement of due process,
the essence of which is an opportunity to be heard. Said address
appeared in the birth certificate of petitioner minor as the residence of
Armi. Considering that the Certificate of Birth bears her signature,
the entries appearing therein are presumed to have been entered with
her approval. Moreover, the publication of the order is a notice to all
indispensable parties, including Armi and petitioner minor, which
binds the whole world to the judgment that may be rendered in the
petition. An in rem proceeding is validated essentially through
publication.[29] The absence of personal service of the order to Armi
was therefore cured by the trial courts compliance with Section 4,
Rule 108, which requires notice by publication, thus: SEC. 4. Notice
and publication. Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall, by an
order, fix the time and place for the hearing of the same, and cause
 3
reasonable notice thereof to be given to the persons named in the
petition. The court shall also cause the order to be published once a
week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
circulation in the province.
The purpose precisely of Section 4, Rule 108 is to bind the whole
world to the subsequent judgment on the petition. The sweep of the
decision would cover even parties who should have been impleaded
under Section 3, Rule 108, but were inadvertently left out. The Court
of Appeals correctly noted: The publication being ordered was in
compliance with, and borne out by the Order of January 7, 1985. The
actual publication of the September 22, 1983 Order, conferred
jurisdiction upon the respondent court to try and decide the case.
While nobody appeared to oppose the instant petition during the
December 6, 1984 hearing, that did not divest the court from its
jurisdiction over the case and of its authority to continue trying the
case. For, the rule is well-settled, that jurisdiction, once acquired
continues until termination of the case. 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.[30] Furthermore, extrinsic fraud, which was private
respondents alleged concealment of Armis present address, was not
proven. Extrinsic fraud exists when there is a fraudulent act
committed by the prevailing party outside of the trial of the case,
whereby the defeated party was prevented from presenting fully his
side of the case by fraud or deception practiced on him by the
prevailing party. Here, Armi contended that private respondent is
aware of her present address because they lived together as husband
and wife in the condominium unit from 1982 to 1988 and because
private respondent continued to give support to their son until 1998.
To prove her claim, she presented (1) private respondents title over
the condominium unit; (2) receipts allegedly issued to private
respondent for payment of homeowners or association dues; (2) a
photocopy of a January 14, 1991 deed of sale of the subject unit in
favor of Armi; and (3) the subsequent title issued to the latter.
However, these documents only tend to prove private respondents
previous ownership of the unit and the subsequent transfer thereof to
Armi, but not the claimed live-in relationship of the parties. Neither
does the sale prove that the conveyance of the unit was part of private
respondents support to petitioner minor. Indeed, intimate
relationships and family relations cannot be inferred from what
appears to be an ordinary business transaction. The proper remedy of
a party aggrieved by a decision of the Court of Appeals in an action
to annul a judgment of a Regional Trial Court is a petition for review
on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure,
where only questions of law may be raised. The resort of petitioner to
the instant civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is therefore
erroneous. The special civil action of certiorari will not be allowed as
a substitute for failure to timely file a petition for review under Rule
45, which should be instituted within 15 days from receipt of the
assailed decision or resolution. The wrong choice of remedy thus
provides another reason to dismiss this petition. Finally, petitioner
failed to establish the merits of her petition to annul the trial courts
decision. In an action for annulment of judgment, the petitioner must
convince the court that something may indeed be achieved should the
assailed decision be annulled. Under Article 176[40] of the Family
Code as amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 9255, which took effect
on March 19, 2004, illegitimate children shall use the surname of
their mother, unless their father recognizes their filiation, in which
case they may bear the fathers surname. In Wang v. Cebu Civil
Registrar, it was held that an illegitimate child whose filiation is not
recognized by the father, bears only a given name and his mothers
surname. The name of the unrecognized illegitimate child identifies
him as such. It is only when said child is recognized that he may use
his fathers surname, reflecting his status as an acknowledged
illegitimate child. In the present case, it is clear from the allegations
of Armi that petitioner minor is an illegitimate child because she was
never married to private respondent. Considering that the latter
strongly asserts that he is not the father of petitioner minor, the latter
is therefore an unrecognized illegitimate child. As such, he must bear
the surname of his mother.
• Ceruila v. Delantar, GR 140305, Dec. 9, 2005, 477 SCRA
134
Petitioners-spouses Platon Ceruila and Librada D. Ceruila (Ceruilas)
filed an action with the RTC for the annulment and cancellation of
the birth certificate of Maria Rosilyn Telin Delantar, the child-victim
in the rape case involving Romeo Jaloslos. Sometime in 1996,
Rosilyn complained against her father, Simplicio Delantar
(Simplicio) for child abuse, particularly prostitution. Simplicio was
incarcerated at the Pasay City Jail which prompted the filing of a
petition for involuntary commitment of Rosilyn in favor of DSWD as
the whereabouts of the mother, Librada Ceruila, was unknown. The
Ceruilas filed a petition before the RTC of Manila, entitled IN THE
MATTER OF CANCELLATION AND ANNULMENT OF THE
BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF MARIA ROSILYN TELIN
DELANTAR, praying that the birth certificate of Rosilyn be canceled
and declared null and void for the reasons that said birth certificate
was made an INSTRUMENT OF THE CRIME OF SIMULATION
of birth and therefore invalid and spurious:

cancellation of entry of her birth certificate.[13] She claimed that she
and her guardian were not notified of the petition and the subsequent
judgment and learned about the same only from the news. CA
reversed RTC. It ruled that since Rosilyn, an indispensable party, was
not served with summons, there was a violation of her right to due
process. Hence, RTC’s decision is flawed.
 4
Issues w/ Ruling: 1. Is the petition for annulment and cancellation of
the birth certificate of Rosilyn an ordinary civil action or a special
proceeding? Considering that the petition, based on its allegations,
does not question the fact of birth of Rosilyn, all matters assailing the
truthfulness of any entry in the birth certificate properly, including
the date of birth, fall under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court which
governs cancellation or correction of entries in the Civil Registry.
Thus, the petition filed by the Ceruilas, alleging material entries in
the certificate as having been falsified, is properly considered as a
special proceeding pursuant to Section 3(c), Rule 1 and Rule 108 of
the Rules of Court.
xxx c. The name of Simplicio Delantar as the biological father,
considering that, as already mentioned, he is merely the foster father
and co-guardian in fact of Maria Rosilyn and the name of the natural
father in (sic) unknown;
2. Did the Ceruilas comply with the requirements of Rule 108? No.
d. The date of marriage of the supposed parents, since the parents
reflected in said certificate were (sic) actually full blood brother and
sister and therefore marriage between the two is virtually impossible;
SEC. 3. Parties. --- When cancellation or correction of an entry in the
civil register is sought, the civil registrar and all persons who have or
claim any interest which would be affected thereby shall be made
parties to the proceeding.
e. The status of Maria Rosilyn as a legitimate child as the same (sic)
is actually not legitimate;
Indeed, not only the civil registrar BUT ALSO ALL PERSONS
WHO HAVE OR CLAIM ANY INTEREST which would be
affected by a proceeding concerning the cancellation or correction of
an entry in the civil register must be made parties thereto.[35] As
enunciated in Republic vs. Benemerito,[36]unless all possible
indispensable parties were duly notified of the proceedings, the same
shall be considered as falling much too short of the requirements of
the rules.[37]

 summons, who, however, did not participate in the proceedings. This

Summons was sent to the Civil Register of Manila.[8] However, no
representative appeared during the scheduled hearing.[9] The RTC
rendered its decision granting the petition of the Ceruilas. Meaning,
the Birth Certificate of Rosilyn was cancelled. Rosilyn, represented
by her legal guardian, the DSWD, filed, with the CA, a petition for
the annulment of judgment in the petition for
Sec. 3, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, expressly states that:
Here, it is clear that no party could be more interested in the
cancellation of Rosilyns birth certificate than Rosilyn herself. Her
filiation, legitimacy, and date of birth are at stake.
with jurisdiction, but to comply with the requirements of fair play and
due process. This is but proper, to afford the person concerned the
opportunity to protect her interest if she so chooses.
Petitioners claim that even though Rosilyn was never made a party to
the proceeding, it is enough that her name was included in the caption
of the petition. Such reasoning is without merit.
Indeed, there were instances when we ruled that even though an
interested party was not impleaded in the petition, such defect was
cured by compliance with Sec. 4, Rule 108 on publication. In said
cases, however, earnest efforts were made by the petitioners in
bringing to court all possible interested parties.[41]
As we pronounced in Labayo-Rowe vs. Republic[38] where the
mother sought changes in the entries of her two childrens birth
certificates: since only the Office of the Solicitor General was
notified through the Office of the Provincial Fiscal, representing the
Republic of the Philippines as the only respondent, the proceedings
taken, which is summary in nature, is short of what is required in
cases where substantial alterations are sought. Aside from the Office
of the Solicitor General, all other indispensable parties should have
been made respondents. They include not only the declared father of
the child but the child as well, together with the paternal
grandparents, if any, as their hereditary rights would be adversely
affected thereby. All other persons who may be affected by the
change should be notified or represented
In the present case, only the Civil Registrar of Manila was served
alone is clearly not sufficient to comply with the requirements laid
down by the rules. Petitioners further claim that the lack of summons
on Rosilyn was cured by the publication of the order of the trial court
setting the case for hearing for three consecutive weeks in a
 5

newspaper of general circulation. WRONG! Summons must still be become a male person. Thus, she prayed that her birth certificate be
served, not for the purpose of vesting the courts corrected such that her gender be changed from female to male and
her first name be changed from Jennifer to Jeff.

Such is not the case at bar. Rosilyn was never made a party at all to
the proceedings seeking the cancellation of her birth certificate.
Neither did petitioners make any effort to summon the Solicitor
General.
To prove her claim, respondent presented Dr. Michael Sionzon of the
Department of Psychiatry, UP-PGH, who issued a medical certificate
stating that respondent is genetically female but her body secretes
male hormones, has two organs of which the female part is
undeveloped and that she has no monthly period.

Scaaary ayu ni nga part: It does not take much to deduce the real
motive of petitioners in seeking the cancellation of Rosilyns birth
certificate and in not making her, her guardian, the DSWD, and the The RTC granted her petition. However, the Office of the Solicitor
Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, parties to General appealed to the SC arguing that the petition is fatally
the petition. Rosilyn was involved in the rape case against Romeo defective because it did not implead the local civil registrar, an
Jalosjos, where her father, as appearing in the birth certificate, was indispensable party under Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court.
said to have pimped her into prostitution. In the criminal case, the
defense contended that the birth certificate of Rosilyn should not
have been considered by the trial court to prove Rosilyns age and
thus find basis for statutory rape, as said birth certificate has been Issues:
cancelled by the RTC of Manila, Branch 38, in the special proceeding
antecedent to this petition. Their efforts in this regard, however, were
thwarted when the CA overturned Branch 38s decision, and the 1. Was the petition fatally defective for failure to implead the civil
Court, in G.R. Nos. 132875-76[42] considered other evidence as registrar?
proof of Rosilyns age at the time of the commission of the crime.

2. Should the court allow the change of name and gender?

2. Differences under Rule 103, RA 9048 and Rule 108 and
Republic Act 9048

Held:

• Republic vs Charlie Mintas – Felix, Gr No. 203371, June
30, 2020
• Republic vs Cagandahan, Gr No. 166676, Sept 12, 2008
1. No. There is substantial compliance with Rule 108 when
respondent furnished a copy of the petition to the local civil registrar.
Rule 1 of the Rules of Court states that courts shall construe the
Rules liberally to promote their objectives of securing to the parties a
just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of the matters brought before
it.

Facts:
2. Yes. The Court ruled 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.
In 2003, respondent Jennifer Cagandahan filed a Petition for
Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate before RTC Siniloan,
alleging that she was born on January 13, 1981, registered as a
In the instant case, if we determine respondent to be a female, then
female, but while growing up, she developed secondary male
there is no basis for a change in the birth certificate entry for gender.
characteristics and was diagnosed to have Congenital Adrenal
But if we determine, based on medical testimony and scientific
Hyperplasia (CAH) which is a condition where persons thus afflicted
development showing the respondent to be other than female, then a
possess both male and female characteristics. She further alleged that
change in the subjects birth certificate entry is in order.
she was diagnosed to have clitoral hyperthropy in her early years and
at age six, underwent an ultrasound where it was discovered that she
has small ovaries. At age thirteen, tests revealed that her ovarian
structures had minimized, she has stopped growing and she has no Biologically, nature endowed respondent with a mixed (neither
breast or menstrual development. She then alleged that for all consistently and categorically female nor consistently and
interests and appearances as well as in mind and emotion, she has
 6

categorically male) composition. Respondent has female (XX) Whether or not a person may successfully petition for a change of
chromosomes. However, respondents body system naturally produces name and sex appearing in the live birth certificate to reflect the
high levels of male hormones (androgen). As a result, respondent has result of a sex reassignment surgery.
ambiguous genitalia and the phenotypic features of a male.

RULING:
Ultimately, we are 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. No. It is the statutes that defines who may file petitions for change of
first name and for correction or change of entries in the civil registry,
where they may be filed, what grounds may be invoked, what proof
must be presented and what procedures shall be observed. Presently,
Respondent here has simply let nature take its course and has not there is no law allowing the change of entries in the birth certificate
taken unnatural steps to arrest or interfere with what he was born by reason of sex alteration.
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 The birth certificate of petitioner contained no error. All entries,
instead taken its due course in respondents development to reveal including those corresponding to his first name and sex, were all
more fully his male characteristics. correct. No correction is necessary. A law has to be enacted by the
legislative body laying down the guidelines governing the change of
entries in birth certificate due to sex reassignment in order to enter
the same in civil registry.
In the absence of a law on the matter, the Court will not dictate on
respondent concerning a matter so innately private as ones sexuality
and lifestyle preferences. Respondent is the one who has to live with
his intersex anatomy. To him belongs the human right to the pursuit • Republic vs Gallo, Gr No. 207074, Jan 17, 2018
of happiness and of health. Thus, to him should belong the primordial
• Re: Final Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted at the
choice of what courses of action to take along the path of his sexual
RTC Branch 67, Paniqui, Tarlac, AM 06-07-414-RTC, Oct. 19, 2007
development and maturation. (Republic v. Cagandahan, GR No.
166676, September 12, 2008)

• Republic vs Silverio, Gr. No. 174689, Oct 22, 2007

CASE DIGEST: ROMMEL JACINTO DANTES SILVERIO vs.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 174689, October 22,
2007

FACTS:

Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio filed a petition for the change of his
first name to “Mely” and sex (gender) in his birth certificate be
changed to female since he underwent sex reassignment surgery. The
OSG alleges that there is no law allowing the change of entries in the
live birth certificate by reason of sex reassignment surgery.

ISSUE: