Page 1
Answer: No, Maria’s refusal to give her
CHANGE OF NAME (Rule 103)
Concept of Name
The Supreme Court, in Republic of the
Philippines vs. Michelle Soriano Gallo, G.R.
No. 207074, January 17, 2018, through
Justice Leonen, defines name as:
“Names are labels for one’s identity. They
facilitate social interaction, including the
allocation of rights and determination of
liabilities. It is for this reason that the State
has an interest in one’s name.
Characteristics of name
In Republic v. CA, G.R. No. 97906, May 21,
1992, 209 SCRA 189 the court held that 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 resorts,
for nobody can be without a name;
3. It is fixed, unchangeable, or
immutable, or at least at the start,
may be changed only for good cause
and by judicial proceedings;
4. It is outside the commerce of man,
and, therefore, inalienable and
instransmissible by act inter vivos or
mortis causa;
5. It is imprescriptible.
Situation: Maria, through in vitro
fertilization, gave birth to twins. Three (3)
months after giving birth, the twins still
don’t have their names. The Barangay
Health worker told Maria to give the twins
their respective names already but Maria
refused. She argued that she will let the
twins choose their respective names once
they will be able to do so. Is Maria’s refusal
to give her twins their names justified?
twins their names is not justified.
One of the characteristics of a name in our
jurisdiction is that it is obligatory in certain
resorts, for nobody can be without a name.
Having such an obligatory character, it is
incumbent upon the parents to provide
their children with names from the moment
they are born for purposes of registration
and proper identification.
In the given problem, it is incumbent upon
Maria to give her twins their names from
the moment they were born.
Having been unable to do so, Maria’s refusal
to give her twins their names is not
justified.
The relief under Rule 103, although a
proceeding in rem, is not adversarial in
nature; however, due notice and hearing is
required:
Note that a petition is considered
adversarial in nature where the change in
the entries before the civil registry is
substantial in nature. A change or
correction is substantial in nature if it
affects the incidents of right to succession
by a party or his/her filiation or citizenship,
including the date of his/her birth is
altered, All of these changes are substantial
in character, that is why, there is a need for
the said reliefs to be adversarial in nature -
that is - all the affected and interested
parties may be given their day in court to
oppose or establish their comment of such
changes being prayed by the petitioner.
This is not the case in Rule 103 since the
incidents of one’s hereditary rights to
succession or citizenship, or date of birth is
not affected. The change in the name does
not, in any way, affect the established rights
of the petitioner to his/her relatives.
 Page 2

However, there are instances where other Mary Grace opposed Jako’s petition alleging
affected parties may be particularly that it will result in the dissolution of her
interested with the outcome of the petition. existing family relations with her son. Is her
As aptly described by SC in the case of: contention correct?

Answer: No, the contention of Mary Grace

Republic v. Mercadera
that Jako's change of name will result in the
652 Phil. 195, 205 (2010)
dissolution of her existing family relations
with Jako is devoid of merit.
Held: Essentially, a change of name does
not define or effect a change of one’s
A change of name does not define or effect
existing family relations or in the rights
a change of one’s existing family relations or
and duties flowing therefrom. It does not
in the rights and duties flowing therefrom.
alter one’s legal capacity or civil status.
It does not alter one’s legal capacity or civil
However, "there could be instances where
status (Republic v. Mercadera).
the change applied for may be open to
objection by parties who already bear the
Thus, granting that Jako’s petition will be
surname desired by the applicant, not
allowed, his existing family relations with
because he would thereby acquire
Mary Grace would still be the same. Mary
certain family ties with them but
Grace will still be his mother and he will still
because the existence of such ties might
be the son of Mary Grace.
be erroneously impressed on the public
mind." Hence, in requests for a change of
Accordingly, the contention of Mary Grace
name, "what is involved is not a mere
is devoid of merit.
matter of allowance or disallowance of
the request, but a judicious evaluation of
Where to file; rule on venue and
the sufficiency and propriety of the
jurisdiction (Section 1, Rule 103)
justifications advanced x x x mindful of
the consequent results in the event of its
Sec. 1. Venue. - A person desiring to change
grant x x x.
his name shall present the petition to the
Court of First Instance of the province in
Situation: Jako Oten was born in Puerto which he resides, or, in the City of Manila,
Princesa, Palawan of a Filipino mother, Mary to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations
Grace and of an Indonesian father, Buka Court.
Gano.
Contents of petition; jurisdictional
When Jako Oten was four years old, their matters that must be mentioned in the
family moved to Jakarta Indonesia and lived petition (Section 2, Rule 103)
there for 14 years until his parents got
divorced. Sec. 2. Contents of petition. - A petition for
change of name shall be signed and verified
Jako and Mary Grace returned to the by the person desiring his name changed, or
Philippines where Jako continued his some other person on his behalf, and shall
studies in Davao City. Upon realizing how set forth:
ridiculous his name sounds, Jako filed an
administrative petition to change his name (a) That the petitioner has been a bona fide
from Jako Oten to Joshua before the Local resident of the province where the petition
Civil Registrar of Puerto Princesa, Palawan.
 Page 3

is filed for at least three (3) years prior to

the date of such filing;
( f) when the surname causes
embarrassment and there is no showing
(b) The cause for which the change of the
that the desired change of name was for a
petitioner's name is sought;
fraudulent purpose or that the change of
name would prejudice public interest
(c) The name asked for.

Order of hearing; and hearing (Sections 3

Grounds for petition under Rule 103 of
and 4, Rule 103)
the Rules of Court
Sec. 3. Order for hearing. - If the petition
In re: Correction of Entries in the Civil
filed is sufficient in form and substance, the
Registry of Julian Lin Carusalan Wang v.
court, by an order reciting the purpose of
Cebu City Civil Registrar, G.R. No. 159966,
the petition, shall fix a date and place for
March 30, 2005
the hearing thereof, and shall direct that a
copy of the order be published before the
The touchstone for the grant of a change
hearing at least once a week for three (3)
of name is that there be ‘proper and
successive weeks in some newspaper of
reasonable cause’ for which the change is
general circulation published in the
sought.
province, as the court shall deem best. The
date set for the hearing shall not be within
To justify a request for change of name,
thirty (30) days prior to an election nor
petitioner must show not only some
within four (4) months after the last
proper or compelling reason therefore
publication of the notice.
but also that he will be prejudiced by the
use of his true and official name. Among
Sec. 4. Hearing. - Any interested person
the grounds for change of name which
may appear at the hearing and oppose the
have been held valid are:
petition. The Solicitor General or the
proper provincial or city fiscal shall appear
(a) when the name is ridiculous,
on behalf of the Government of the
dishonorable or extremely difficult to write
Republic.
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
Rule 103 is not proper where the
purpose of the petition is to establish
the status of the petitioner
Republic of the Philippines vs.
Coseteng-Magpayo, G.R. No. 189476,
February 2, 2011
Held: The change being sought in
respondent’s petition goes so far as to
affect his legal status in relation to his
parents. It seeks to change his legitimacy
to that of illegitimacy. Rule 103 then
would not suffice to grant respondent’s

supplication.
Republic v. Belmonte, illuminates,
however:
The procedure recited in Rule 103]
regarding change of name and in Rule 108
concerning the cancellation or correction
of entries in the civil registry are separate
and distinct. They may not be substituted
one for the other for the sole purpose of
expediency. To hold otherwise would
render nugatory the provisions of the
Rules of Court allowing the change of
one’s name or the correction of entries in
the civil registry only upon meritorious
grounds. . . . (emphasis, capitalization and
underscoring supplied)
Atty. Dalam Commentaries: Before
magdaan 108, daan muna RA 9048, that is
the General Rule.
XPN: If it involves substantial corrections,
no need na magdaan RA 9048, diretso na sa
Rule 108
Commentary: The highest tribunal is trying
to say the proper procedure in an instance
where desires to affect changes to his or
her status is to avail the remedy under Rule
108 of the ROC.
Now, assuming for the sake of argument
that you availed of Rule 103 instead of Rule
108, can you be allowed to transform
(convert) the proceeding into that of Rule
108?
This is clarified to us by SC in the case of:
Effect of RA 9048 to Rule 103
MILAGROS M. BARCO, as the Natural
Guardian and Guardian Ad Litem of
MARY JOY ANN GUSTILO, petitioner,
Page 4
vs. CA, G.R. No. 120587, January 20, 2004
Held: Under R.A. No. 9048, the city or
municipal registrar or consul general, as
the case may be, is now authorized to
effect the change of first name or nickname
and the correction of clerical or
typographical errors in civil registry
entries. “Under said law, jurisdiction over
applications for change of first name is
now primarily lodged with administrative
officers. The law now excludes the change
of first name from the coverage of Rules
103 until and unless an administrative
petition for change of name is first filed
and subsequently denied” and removes
“correction or changing of clerical errors
in entries of the civil register from the
ambit of Rule 108. “Hence, what is left for
the scope of operation of the rules are
substantial changes and corrections in
entries of the. (See also Rommel Jacinto
Dantes Silverio v. Republic, G.R. No.
174689, October 22, 2007, 536 SCRA 373,
385).
A party desiring to correct his name must
avail first R.A. 9048, as amended.
CASE: Republic v. Michelle Soriano Gallo,
G.R. No. 207074, January 17, 2018
Thus, a person may now change his or her
first name or correct clerical errors in his or
her name through administrative
proceedings. Rules 103 and 108 only apply
if the administrative petition has been
filed and later denied.
In 2012, Republic Act No. 9048 was
amended by Republic Act No. 10172.
In addition to the change of the first name,
the day and month of birth, and the sex of a
person may now be changed without
judicial proceedings. Republic Act No. 10172
clarifies that these changes may now be
 Page 5

administratively corrected where it is

mold the individual as neatly as possible
patently clear that there is a clerical or
into the category of either male or
typographical mistake in the entry. It may
female.
be changed by filing a subscribed and sworn
affidavit with the local civil registry office of
In deciding this case, we consider the
the city or municipality where the record
compassionate calls for recognition of the
being sought to be corrected or changed is
various degrees of intersex as variations
kept.
which should not be subject to outright
denial. "It has been suggested that there
Section 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or
is some middle ground between the
Typographical Error and Change of First
sexes, a `no-man's land' for those
Name or Nickname.- No entry in a civil
individuals who are neither truly `male'
register shall be changed or corrected
nor truly `female'" The current state of
without a judicial order, except for clerical
Philippine statutes apparently compels
or typographical errors and change of first
that a person be classified either as a
name or nickname, the day and month in
male or as a female, but this Court is not
the date of birth or sex of a person where it
controlled by mere appearances when
is patently clear that there was a clerical or
nature itself fundamentally negates such
typographical error or mistake in the entry,
rigid classification.
which can be corrected or changed by the
concerned city or municipal civil registrar
or consul general in accordance with the Application of RA No. 9048
provisions of this Act and its implementing
rules and regulations. Section 1 of RA No. 9048, as amended by RA
No. 10172 provides:
RA No. 10172 which amended RA No.
Section 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or
9048 took inspiration from the case of
Typographical Error and Change of First
Republic v. Cagandahan, G.R. No. 166676,
Name or Nickname.- No entry in a civil
September 12, 200
register shall be changed or corrected
without a judicial order, except for clerical
The Supreme Court mentioned, thus:
or typographical errors and change of first
name or nickname, the day and month in
“Intersex individuals are treated in
the date of birth or sex of a person where it
different ways by different cultures. In
is patently clear that there was a clerical or
most societies, intersex individuals have
typographical error or mistake in the entry,
been expected to conform to either a
which can be corrected or changed by the
male or female gender role. Since the rise
concerned city or municipal civil registrar
of modern medical science in Western
or consul general in accordance with the
societies, some intersex people with
provisions of this Act and its implementing
ambiguous external genitalia have had
rules and regulations.
their genitalia surgically modified to
resemble either male or female genitals.
Q. What is meant by clerical or
More commonly, an intersex individual is
typographical error?
considered as suffering from a "disorder"
which is almost always recommended to
"Clerical or typographical error" refers to a
be treated, whether by surgery and/or by
mistake committed in the performance of
taking lifetime medication in order to
clerical work in writing, copying,

transcribing or typing an entry in the civil
register that is harmless and innocuous,
such as misspelled name or misspelled
place of birth, mistake in the entry of day
and month in the date of birth or the sex
of the person or the like, which is visible to
the eyes or obvious to the understanding,
and can be corrected or changed only by
reference to other existing record or
records: Provided, however, That no
correction must involve the change of
nationality, age, status or sex of the
petitioner (Section 2 [3], RA No. 9048, as
amended by RA No. 10172).
Q. Who may file the petition under RA NO.
9048?
SECTION 3. Who May File the Petition and
Where. - Any person having direct and
personal interest in the correction of a
clerical or typographical error in an entry
and/or change of first name or nickname in
the civil register may file, in person, a
verified petition with the local civil registry
office of the city or municipality where the
record being sought to be corrected or
changed is kept.
Filing of petition in case of difficulty of
filing by reason of distance or
inconvenience/impracticality.
Second par. of Sec. 3 of RA No. 9048 provides:
In case the petitioner has already
migrated to another place in the country
and it would not be practical for such party,
in terms of transportation expenses, time
and effort to appear in person before the
local civil registrar keeping the documents
to be corrected or changed, the petition
may be filed, in person, with the local civil
registrar of the place where the interested
party is presently residing or domiciled. The
two (2) local civil registrars concerned will
then communicate to facilitate the
processing of the petition.
Page 6
Citizens of the Philippines who are
presently residing or domiciled in foreign
countries may file their petition, in person,
with the nearest Philippine Consulates.
The petitions filed with the city or
municipal civil registrar or the consul
general shall be processed in accordance with
this Act and its implementing rules and
regulations.
Commentary: Fair reading of the provisions
of Sec. 3 of RA No. 9048, as amended means
that where in exceptional circumstances,
the LCR where the petitioner is currently
residing must forward the application for
administrative correction under this Act to
the LCR where the entries are located.
In short, it would be the LCR where the
entries are kept, that would act on the
application, and after acting to the said
petition, forward its findings or evaluation
to the LCR where the petition was filed.
Petition under RA No. 9048 may be availed
only once.
Last par. of Sec. 3 of RA No. 9048 provides:
All petitions for the clerical or
typographical errors and/or change of first
names or nicknames may be availed of only
once.
Grounds for petition under RA No. 9048
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 by that
first name or nickname in the
community: or
3. The change will avoid confusion.
Commentary: It is noteworthy that while
the Congress amended the coverage of RA
No. 9048 by incorporating the
ratiocinations from the case of Republic v.
Cagandahan, G.R. No. 16676, Sep 12, 2008, it
never bothered to amend Section 4 of R.A.
No. 9048 as to grounds for availing of the
relief under RA No. 9048.
It is respectfully submitted that in order to
give meaning to the pronouncement of the
Supreme Court in the afore-mentioned
case, Sec. 4 of RA No. 9048 should read as
follows, thus:
RA No. 9048, as amended, is not proper
where substantial change is involved.
CASE: Kilosbayan Foundation v. Ermita, G.R.
No. 177721, July 3, 2007
Held: Republic Act No. 9048 provides in
Section 2 (3) that a summary administrative
proceeding to correct clerical or
typographical errors in a birth certificate
cannot apply to a change in nationality.
Substantial corrections to the nationality or
citizenship of persons recorded in the civil
registry should, therefore, be effected through
a petition filed in court under Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court.
The series of events and long string of
alleged changes in the nationalities of
respondent Ong’s ancestors, by various
births, marriages and deaths, all entail
factual assertions that need to be threshed
out in proper judicial proceedings so as to
Page 7
correct the existing records on his birth and
citizenship. The chain of evidence would
have to show that Dy Guiok Santos,
respondent Ong’s mother, was a Filipino
citizen, contrary to what still appears in the
records of this Court. Respondent Ong has
the burden of proving in court his alleged
ancestral tree as well as his citizenship
under the time-line of three Constitutions.
Until this is done, respondent Ong cannot
accept an appointment to this Court as that
would be a violation of the Constitution. For
this reason, he can be prevented by
injunction from doing so.
Cancellation or Correction of Entries in
the Civil Registry
Rule 108, Rules of Court
The proceeding under Rule 108, although
summary, is adversarial in nature.
Republic of the Philippines v. Tipay, G.R.
No. 209257, Feb. 14, 2018
Held: 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 appropriate adversarial
proceedings — effectively limiting the
application of the summary procedure to
the correction of clerical or innocuous
errors. The Court's ruling in Republic v.
Valencia, explained the adversarial
procedure to be followed in correcting
substantial errors in this wise:
It is undoubtedly true that if the subject
matter of a petition is not for the
correction of clerical errors of a harmless

and innocuous nature, but one involving
nationality or citizenship, which is
indisputably substantial as well as
controverted, affirmative relief cannot be
granted in a proceeding summary in
nature. However, it is also true that a
right in law may be enforced and a wrong
may be remedied as long as the
appropriate remedy is used.
Parties to the petition; Notice requirement
in Rule 108 proceedings.
Section 3 to 5 of Rule 108 provides:
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.
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 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.
Sec. 5. Opposition. - The civil registrar and
any person having or claiming any interest
under the entry whose cancellation or
correction is sought may, within fifteen (15)
days from notice of the petition, or from the
last date of publication of such notice, file
his opposition thereto.
Indispensable parties in Rule 108
proceedings.
Cerulia v. Delantar,
G.R. No. 140305, December 9, 2005
Page 8
Held: As we pronounced in Labayo-Rowe
vs. Republic where the mother sought
changes in the entries of her two
children’s 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.
Effects of RA No. 9048, as amended by RA
No. 10172
Case: Republic v. Benemerito, G.R. No.
146963, March 15, 2004
Held: Parenthetically, the recent enactment
of Republic Act 9048, otherwise also known
as "An Act Authorizing the City or Municipal
Civil Registrar or the Consul General to
Correct a Clerical or Typographical Error in
an Entry and/or Change of First Name or
Nickname in the Civil Register Without
Need of Judicial Order," only empowers the
City or Municipal Civil Registrar or the
Consul General to correct clerical or
typographical errors and to allow a change
in the first name or nickname in an entry in
the civil registry without further need of a
judicial order.
The obvious effect of Republic Act 9048 is
merely to make possible the

administrative correction of clerical or
typographical errors or change of first
name or nickname in entries in the civil
register, leaving to Rule 108 the correction
of substantial changes in the civil registry in
appropriate adversarial proceedings
HOWEVER, there is no intent on the part
of the lawmakers to deprive the courts to
exercise the reliefs under Rule 108 (and
Rule 103) of the Rules of Court
Re: Final Report on the Judicial Audit
Conducted at the RTC, Branch 67, Paniqui
Tarlac, A.M. No. 06-7-414-RTC, October 19,
2007
Held: At first glance, the seeming effect of
the amendment is to remove from the
ambit of Rule 108 the correction of clerical
or typographical errors or change of entries
in the civil register and to make Rule 108
apply only to substantial changes and
corrections to entries in the civil register.
Hence, we clarified in Republic v.
Benemerito that the obvious effect of R.A.
No. 9048 is merely to make possible the
administrative correction of clerical or
typographical errors in entries and the
administrative change of first name or
nickname in the civil register, leaving to
Rule 108 the correction of substantial
changes in the civil registry in appropriate
adversarial proceedings.
Hence, the question that now arises is
whether trial courts still have jurisdiction
over petitions for correction of clerical
errors and change of first name and
nickname in the civil registry. Assuming
that the trial courts retain such authority,
the corollary question is whether the
summary procedure prescribed in R.A. No.
9048 should be adopted in cases filed
before the courts, or should the adversarial
proceeding under Rule 108 be followed.
Page 9
Q. Who may file the petition for correction
of entries under Rule 108?
Sec. 1. Who may file petition. - Any person
interested in any act, event, order or decree
concerning the civil status of persons which
has been recorded in the civil register, may
file a verified petition for the cancellation or
correction of any entry relating thereto,
with the Court of First Instance of the
province where the corresponding civil
registry is located.
Matters covered by Rule 108
Sec. 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 separations;
(e) judgments of annulments 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.
Legal separations (item d), judgments of
annulments of marriage (item e);
judgments declaring marriages void
from the beginning (item f, Sec. 2, Rule
108) as subject matter of Rule 108
proceeding.
Fujiki v. Marinay
G.R. No. 196049, June 26, 2013

Marinay married Fujiki, their relationship
turned sour, thus, they were separated de
facto.
Later on, Marinay met and married
another japanese man (Maekara) who
turned out to be violent.
Marinay and Fujiki reconciled, the former
petitioned that the marriage between the
Maekara be declared void. The japanese
court granted Marinay’s petition and
declared the second marriage with
Maekara as void ab initio.
Fujiki wanted that said judgment be
recognized in the Philippines.
Issue: May Fujiki use sec. 2 of Rule 108 to
recognize such judgment?
Held: Yes.
Since the recognition of a foreign
judgment only requires proof of fact of
the judgment, it may be made in a special
proceeding for cancellation or correction
of entries in the civil registry under Rule
108 of the Rules of Court. Rule 1, Section 3
of the Rules of Court provides that "[a]
special proceeding is a remedy by which a
party seeks to establish a status, a right,
or a particular fact." Rule 108 creates a
remedy to rectify facts of a person’s life
which are recorded by the State pursuant
to the Civil Register Law or Act No. 3753.
These are facts of public consequence
such as birth, death or marriage,66 which
the State has an interest in recording. As
noted by the Solicitor General, in Corpuz
v. Sto. Tomas this Court declared that
"[t]he recognition of the foreign divorce
decree may be made in a Rule 108
proceeding itself, as the object of special
proceedings (such as that in Rule 108 of
the Rules of Court) is precisely to
establish the status or right of a party or a
Page 10
particular fact."
Rule 108, Section 1 of the Rules of Court
states:
Sec. 1. Who may file petition. — Any
person interested in any act, event, order
or decree concerning the civil status of
persons which has been recorded in the
civil register, may file a verified petition
for the cancellation or correction of any
entry relating thereto, with the Regional
Trial Court of the province where the
corresponding civil registry is located.
(Emphasis supplied).
PERSONALITY OF ALLEGED HUSBAND
TO AVAIL RULE 108 of the Rules of Court
Is Fujiki an interested Party?
Held: Yes.
Fujiki has the personality to file a petition
to recognize the Japanese Family Court
judgment nullifying the marriage between
Marinay and Maekara on the ground of
bigamy because the judgment concerns
his civil status as married to Marinay. For
the same reason he has the personality to
file a petition under Rule 108 to cancel
the entry of marriage between Marinay
and Maekara in the civil registry on the
basis of the decree of the Japanese Family
Court.
There is no doubt that the prior spouse
has a personal and material interest in
maintaining the integrity of the marriage
he contracted and the property relations
arising from it. There is also no doubt that
he is interested in the cancellation of an
entry of a bigamous marriage in the civil
registry, which compromises the public
record of his marriage. The interest
derives from the substantive right of the
spouse not only to preserve (or dissolve,
 Page 11

in limited instances) his most intimate

human relation, but also to protect his
property interests that arise by operation
of law the moment he contracts marriage.
These property interests in marriage
include the right to be supported "in
keeping with the financial capacity of the
family" and preserving the property
regime of the marriage.