In the case of Eleosida vs.

Local Civil Registrar, decided in the

year 2002, on the issue of whether or not corrections of entries in
the birth certificate may be allowed even if the errors to be corrected
are substantial and not merely clerical errors of a harmless and
innocuous nature, Supreme Court held in the affirmative because
under Republic vs. Valencia it was 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, where the
evidence has been thoroughly weighed and considered, and where
all the procedural requirements under Rule 108 has been complied
with, to wit: parties, notice and publication, opposition. Here, the
records show that upon receipt of the petition, the trial court issued
a notice of hearing, ordered the publication of said notice, and
posting in selected places in Metro Manila. The notice stated 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. Moreover, the trial court issued a second order
giving the petitioner an opportunity to show compliance with the
jurisdictional requirements and to present evidence. The foregoing
satisfies all the requirements of Rule 108 to make it an adversary
proceeding.
In the case of Republic vs. Kho, decided in the year 2007, on the
issue of whether or not the failure to implead Marivel and Carlito’s
parents, as indispensable party, did not comply the requirements of
adversary proceeding and rendered the trial court’s judgment void,
the Supreme Court held in the negative because under Barco v. CA,
it was ruled that the publication of the order of hearing under
Section 4 of Rule 108 cured the failure to implead an indispensable
party. The petition for correction is an action in rem and the
purpose of Section 4, Rule 108 is to bind the whole world to the
subsequent judgment on the petition. The decision would cover
even parties who should have been impleaded under Section 3, Rule
108, but were inadvertently left out. Here, the trial court directed
any person or entity having interest in the petition to oppose and it
was posted as well as published for the required period; that notices
of hearings were duly served on the Solicitor General, the city
prosecutor of Butuan and the local civil registrar; and that trial was
conducted during which the public prosecutor, acting in behalf of
the OSG, actively participated by cross-examining Carlito and
Epifania. Also, during the hearing, 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. It was also highly improbable that the mother 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 them.
On the issue on whether or not the jurisdictional requirements to
change Carlito’s name under Section 2 of Rule 103 of the Rules of
Court were not satisfied because the Amended Petition did not state
Carlito’s aliases and his true name as "Carlito John I. Kho, the
Supreme Court held that the same was properly granted under Rule
108 of the Rules of Court. The cancellation or correction of entries
involving changes of name falls under letter "o" of Section 2 of Rule
108 which provides the entries subject to cancellation or correction.
In this case, 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. Hence, while
the jurisdictional requirements of Rule 103 were not complied with,
observance of the provisions of Rule 108 suffices to effect the
correction sought for.
In the Petition for Change Of Name of Julian Lin Carulasan
Wang, decided in the year 2005, on the issue of whether or not
Julian Lin should be allowed to drop his middle name by reason of
convenience, the Supreme Court held in the negative because to
justify a request for change of name, petitioner must show not only
some proper or compelling reason but also that he will be
prejudiced by the use of his true and official name. Here, the only
reason advanced by petitioner for the dropping his middle name is
convenience. However, how such change of name would make his
integration into Singaporean society easier and convenient is not
clearly established. Thus, the petition lacks merit.
In the case of Braza vs. Civil Registrar, decided in the year 2009,
on the issue of whether or not the present court may pass upon the
validity of marriage and questions on legitimacy even in an action to
correct entries in the civil registrar, the Supreme Court held in the
negative because the proceeding contemplated in Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court vis a vis Article 412 of the Civil may generally be
used only to correct clerical, spelling, typographical and other
innocuous errors in the civil registry. 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. Here, the cause of action is actually to
seek the declaration of Pablo and Lucille’s marriage as void for
being bigamous and impugn Patrick’s legitimacy, which causes of
action are governed not by Rule 108 but by A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC,
and Art. 17118 of the Family Code. Hence, the petition should be
filed in a Family Court as expressly provided in said Code.
In the case of Republic vs. Silverio, decided in the year 2007, on
the issue of whether or not the person may change his name in the
civil registrar on the ground of sex reassignment surgery, the
Supreme Court held in the negative because under RA 9048 the
following are the grounds for change of first name or nickname: a.)
the petitioner finds the first name or nickname to be ridiculous,
tainted with dishonor or extremely difficult to write or pronounce;
b.) 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 c.) the
change will avoid confusion. Moreover, before a person can legally
change his given name, he must present proper or reasonable cause
or any compelling reason justifying such change. He must also
show that he will be prejudiced by using his true and official name.
Here, he failed to show, or even allege, any prejudice that he might
suffer as a result of using his true and official name.
On the issue of whether or not he may change his sex in the civil
registrar by the same reason, the Supreme Court held also in the
negative because the sex of a person is determined at birth, visually
done by the birth attendant (the physician or midwife) by examining
the genitals of the infant. Considering that there is no law legally
recognizing sex reassignment, the determination of a person’s sex
made at the time of his or her birth, if not attended by error, is
immutable. Here, petitioner may have succeeded in altering his
body and appearance through the intervention of modern surgery,
but no law authorizes the change of entry as to sex in the civil
registry for that reason. Thus, there is no legal basis for his petition
for the correction or change of the entries in his birth certificate.
In the case of Republic vs. Cagandahan, decided in the year 2008,
on the issue of whether or not Jennifer Cagandahan shall be
allowed to change her name and sex due to her medical condition
known as cognitive adrenal hyperplasia, the Supreme Court held in
the affirmative because when the person is biologically or naturally
intersex the determining factor in his gender classification would be
what the individual, having reached the age of majority, with good
reason thinks of his or her sex. Moreover, the change of name is not
a matter of right but of judicial discretion. Here, Cagandahan
thinks of himself as a male and considering that his body produces
high levels of male hormones, there is preponderant biological
support for considering him as being male. Considering the change
of the entry in his birth certificate from female to male, granting the
change of his name merely recognizes his preferred gender.
In the case of Republic vs. Uy, decided in the year 2013, on the
issue of whether or not the petition is dismissible for failure to
implead indispensable party, the Supreme Court held in the
negative because when a petition for cancellation or correction of an
entry in the civil register involves substantial and controversial
alterations, including those on citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or
filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, a strict compliance with the
requirements of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is mandated. If the
entries in the civil register could be corrected or changed through
mere summary proceedings and not through appropriate action
wherein all parties who may be affected by the entries are notified
or represented, the door to fraud or other mischief would be set
open. Here, it was only the Local Civil Registrar of Gingoog City who
was impleaded as respondent and petitioner 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.
In the case of Minoru Fujiki vs. Marinay , decided in the year
2013, on the issue of whether or not the Philippine court can
recognize the foreign judgment in a proceeding for cancellation or
correction of entries in the Civil Registry under Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court, the Supreme Court held in the affirmative because a
recognition of a foreign judgment where one of the parties is a
foreign citizen is not an action to nullify a marriage. It is an action
for Philippine courts to recognize the effectivity of a foreign
judgment, which presupposes a case which was already tried and
decided under foreign law. Here, Fijuki may file a petition under
special proceeding to cancel and change the status of Marinay from
being “married to Maekara” to being “married to Fijuki” because
they already obtained a judgment from the family court of Japan
declaring the marriage between Marinay and Maekara void for being
bigamous.
In the case of People vs. Merlinda Olaybar , decided in the year
2014, on the issue of whether or not the cancellation of entries in
the marriage contract which nullifies the marriage may be
undertaken in a Rule 108 proceeding, the Supreme Court held that
petition for correction or cancellation of an entry in the civil registry
cannot substitute for an action to invalidate a marriage. A direct
action is necessary to prevent circumvention of the substantive and
procedural safeguards of marriage under the Family Code, A.M. No.
02-11-10-SC and other related laws. However, a special proceeding
is not always summary. The procedure laid down in Rule 108 is not
a summary proceeding per se. It requires procedural requirements
which if followed, it is the appropriate adversary proceeding to effect
substantial corrections and changes in entries of the civil register.
Here, aside from the certificate of marriage, no such evidence was
presented to show the existence of marriage. Rather, respondent
showed by overwhelming evidence that no marriage was entered
into and that she was not even aware of such existence. It is clearly
established that the only "evidence" of marriage which is the
marriage certificate was a forgery. Respondent sought, not the
nullification of marriage as there was no marriage to speak of, but
the correction of the record of such marriage to reflect the truth as
set forth by the evidence.
In the case of Onde vs. CR of Las Pinas, decided in the year 2014,
on the issue of whether or not correction on the first name of
petitioner and his mother can be done by the city civil registrar
under R.A. No. 9048, the Supreme Court held in the affirmative
because under Section 15 of R.A. No. 9048, clerical or typographical
errors on entries in a civil register can be corrected and changes of
first name can be done by the concerned city civil registrar without
need of a judicial order. Here, the changes on the name of the
petitioner and his mother are merely clerical error which is subject
for administrative proceeding.
On the issue of whether or not correcting the entry on petitioner’s
birth certificate that his parents were married on December 23,
1983 in Bicol to "not married" is substantial in nature requiring
adversarial proceeding, the Supreme Court held in the affirmative
because In Republic v. Uy, it was held that corrections of entries in
the civil register including those on citizenship, legitimacy of
paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, involves substantial
alterations. Substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected
and the true facts established provided the parties aggrieved by the
error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary proceedings.
Here, the change will affect his legitimacy and convert him from a
legitimate child to an illegitimate one.