Republic v Bolante ( G.R. No.

160597,  July 20, 2006)

FACTS:
• Respondent’s registered name is Roselie Eloisa Bringas Bolante but she
has been using Maria Eloisa Bringas Bolante in all her documents.
• Respondent prayed that her registered name be changed in order to avoid
confusion.
• She filed her “Offer of Evidence for Marking and Identification Purposes to
Prove Jurisdictional Facts

ISSUE:

WHETHER RESPONDENT SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WITH THE

JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS UNDER SEC. 3 R103 OF THE RULES OF
COURT.

HELD:
YES

Sections 2 and 3, Rule 103 of the Rules of Court prescribe the procedural and
jurisdictional requirements for a change of name; Noncompliance with these
requirements would be fatal to the jurisdiction of the lower court to hear and
determine a petition for change of name.
SEC. 2. Contents of petition.—A petition 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 been a bona fide resident of the province where the petition is filed
for at least three (3) years prior to the date of such filing;

(b)The cause for which the change of the petitioner’s name is sought;

(c)The name asked for.

SEC. 3. Order for 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 before the hearing at

least once a week for three (3) successive weeks in some newspaper of general circulation

published in the province, . . . . The date set for the hearing shall not be within thirty

(30) days prior to an election nor within four (4) months after the last publication

of the notice.
October 18, 2000 - basic petition for change of name was filed

February 20, 2001 - set for hearing

November 23 & 30, 2000 and December 7, 2000 issues of the

Norluzonian Courier - notice of hearing was published

From December 7, 2000 - Feb. 20, 2001 = within the 4 month

prohibited period (Sec. 3, R103)

Trial court rescheduled the initial hearing on September 25,2001

(beyond the four-month prohibited period)
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.

The in rem nature of a change of name proceeding necessitates strict

compliance with all jurisdictional requirements, particularly on publication, in
order to vest the court with jurisdiction thereover.

Requisites for a Valid Publication (Section 3, Rule 103)

 the petition and the copy of the order indicating the date and place for the
hearing must be published;
 the publication must be at least once a week for three successive weeks;
and,
 the publication must be in some newspaper of general circulation published
in the province, as the court shall deem best.

Another validating ingredient relates to the caveat against the petition being
heard within 30 days prior to an election or within four (4) months after the last
publication of the notice of the hearing.
Respondent’s submission for a change of name is with proper and
reasonable reason.

Grounds to warrant a change of name:

 when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or

pronounce;

 when the change will avoid confusion;

 when one has been continuously used and been known since childhood by
a Filipino name, and was unaware of alien parentage;

 when the surname causes embarrassment and there is no showing that

the desired change of name was for a fraudulent purpose or that the
change of name will prejudice public interest.
Republic v Mercadera ( G.R. No. 186027,  December 8, 2010)

FACTS:
Merlyn Mercadera sought the correction of her given name as it appeared in her Certificate

of Live Birth—from Marilyn L. Mercadera to Merlyn L. Mercadera pursuant to Republic Act

No. 9048
Under R.A. No. 9048, the city or municipal civil 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.

But the Local Civil Registrar refused to effect the correction because it is not yet equipped

with a permanent appointment before he can validly act on petitions for corrections filed

before their office as mandated by RA 9048.

Hence, Mercadera filed a Petition For Correction of Some Entries as Appearing in the

Certificate of Live Birth under Rule 108 before the RTC. The RTC granted Mercadera’s

petition
OSG argued that the petition should have been filed under Rule 103 and not Rule 108 of

the Rules of Court.

ISSUE:
WHETHER RULE 108 APPLIES TO THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE
RESPONDENT

HELD:
YES. The petition filed by Mercadera before the RTC correctly
falls under Rule 108 as it simply sought a correction of a
misspelled given name.

“To correct simply means "to make or set aright; to remove

the faults or error from."
To change means "to replace something with something else of
the same kind or with something that serves as a substitute.”
(Co v. Civil Register of Manila, G.R. No. 138496, February 23, 2004)
 RULE 103
Procedurally governs judicial
petitions for change of given
name or surname, or both,
pursuant to Article 376 of the
Civil Code
A change of one’s name under
Rule 103 can be granted, only on
grounds provided by law.
-there must be a proper and
compelling reason for the change
-there must be adversarial
proceedings
RULE 108
Implements judicial proceedings
for the correction or cancellation
of entries in the civil registry
pursuant to Article 412 of the
Civil Code
In petitions for correction, only
clerical, spelling, typographical
and other innocuous errors in the
civil registry may be raised.

*Art. 376 NCC - "No person can *Art. 412 NCC - "No entry in a
change his name or surname civil register shall be changed or
without judicial authority.” corrected, without a judicial
order."
What may constitute as a proper
ground for objection to change of
name?
Republic v Hernandez (G.R. No. 117209. February 9,1996)

FACTS:
 Respondent spouses, Van Munson and Regina Munson y Andrade, filed a
petition to adopt the minor Kevin Earl Bartolome Moran and prayed for
the change of the first name of said minor adoptee to Aaron Joseph the
same being the name with which he was baptized in keeping with religious
tradition.

 Petitioner Republic opposed to the joinder of the petition for adoption and
the petitions for change of name in a single proceeding, arguing that
these petition should be conducted and pursued as two separate special
proceedings.

 If what is sought is the change of the registered given or proper name,

and since this would involve a substantial change of one’s legal name, a
petition for change of name under Rule 103 should accordingly be
instituted, with the substantive and adjective requisites therefor being
conformably satisfied.
ISSUE:

WHETHER THERE WAS A LAWFUL GROUND FOR THE CHANGE OF NAME.

HELD:

NO.

Baptism is not a condition sine qua non to a change of name. Neither

does the fact that the petitioner has been using a different name and has
become known by it constitute proper and reasonable cause to legally
authorize a change of name.

A name given to a person in the church records or elsewhere or by which

he is known in the community—when at variance with that entered in
the civil register—is unofficial and cannot be recognized as his real name.

A change of name is a privilege, not a matter of right, addressed to the

sound discretion of the court.
GROUNDS FOR CHANGE OF NAME:

(a) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to

write or pronounce;

(b) when the change results as a legal consequence of legitimation or

adoption;

(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) when the change is based on sincere desire to adopt a Filipino

name to erase signs of former alienage, all in good faith and without
prejudice to anybody; and

(f) when the surname causes embarrassment and there is no showing

that the desired change of name was for a fraudulent purpose or that
the change of name would prejudice public interest.
Bartolome v Republic (G.R. No. 243288. August 28,2019)

FACTS:

Petitioner Dr. Ruben Bartolome filed a petition for change of

name under R103 of the ROC seeking to correct the name
“FELICIANO BARTHOLOME” as appearing in his birth
certificate to “RUBEN CRUZ BARTOLOME” .

The RTC denied the petition for failure to exhaust administrative

remedies, insufficiency of evidence and improper venue and
found that the evidence adduced was not sufficient to support
petitioner’s claim.

The CA held that petitioner should have filed a petition for the
correction of entries in his birth certificate under RA 9048
instead of R103 petition for change of name.
ISSUE:
WHETHER THE PETITION SHOULD BE FILED UNDER RA 9048,
R103 OR R108 OF THE ROC.

HELD:
The Court held that the administrative proceeding under RA
9048 applies to all corrections sought in the instant case.

Since petitioner seeks to change his first name from

FELICIANO to RUBEN, the change sought is covered by RA
9048 and should have been filed with the local civil registry of
the city or municipality where the record being sought to be
corrected or changed is kept.

While substantial corrections of entries in the civil register are

still covered by R108, typographical or clerical corrections must
now be filed under RA 9048 as amended.
RULES:
1. A person seeking (1) to change his or her first name, (2) to correct
clerical or typographical errors in the civil register, (3)to change/correct
the day and/or month of his or her date of birth, and/or to
change/correct his or her sex, where it is patently clear that there was
a clerical or typographical error or mistake, must first file 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, in
accordance with the administrative proceeding provided under RA 9048
in relation to RA 10172.

A person may only avail of the appropriate judicial remedies under

R103 or R108 in the aforementioned entries after the petition in the
administrative proceedings is filed and later denied.

2. A person seeking (1) to change his or her surname or (2) to change both
his or her first name and surname may file a petition for change of name
under R103, provided that the jurisprudential grounds are present.
3. A person seeking substantial cancellations
or corrections of entries in the civil registry
may file a petition for cancellation or
correction of entries under R108. As
discussed in Lee v CA and more recently in
Republic v Cagandahan, RA 9048 “removed
from the ambit of R108 of the ROC the
correction of such errors. R 108 now
applies only to substantial changes and
corrections in entries in the civil register.”
Grounds for change of first name or nickname
(Sec. 4, RA 9048)
 The petitioner finds the first name or nickname
to be ridiculous, tainted with dishonor or
extremely difficult to write or pronounce;

 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

 The change will avoid confusion.

IN RE: PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME AND/OR
CORRECTION/CANCELLATION OF ENTRY IN CIVIL REGISTRY
OF JULIAN LIN CARULASAN WANG (G.R. No. 159966. March
30, 2005)

FACTS:
 Julian Lin Carulasan Wang was born to parents Anna Lisa and
Sing-Foe Wang who were then not yet married to each other.
When his parents subsequently got married, they executed a deed
of legitimation of their son so that the child’s name will be
changed from Julian Lin Carulasan to Julian Lin Carulasan Wang.
 Julian stayed in Singapore to study and middle names or the
maiden surname of the mother are not carried in a person’s name.
 Afraid that Julian be discriminated because of his current
registered name , the parents sought to change Julian’s name
 The RTC denied their petition holding that it did not fall within the
grounds recognized by law and that the change sought is merely
for the convenience of the child.
ISSUE:

WHETHER IT IS PROPER TO DROP JULIAN LIN CARULASAN WANG’S

MIDDLE NAME

HELD:
NO
The Court held that before a person can be authorized to change the name
given him either in his certificate of birth or civil registry, he must show
proper or reasonable cause, or any compelling reason which may justify
such change. Otherwise, the request should be denied.
Middle names serve to identify the maternal lineage or filiation of a person
as well as further distinguish him from others who may have the same
given name and surname as he has.
In the case at bar, the only reason advanced by petitioner for the dropping
of 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. That the continued use of his middle name
would cause confusion and difficulty does not constitute proper and
reasonable cause to drop it from his registered complete name.
 Cancellation or Correction of Entries in
the Civil Registry (Rule 108)

Section 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.
Section 2. Entries subject to cancellation or correction.
— Upon good and valid grounds, the following entries
in the civil register may be cancelled or corrected:

 BMD – births; marriage; deaths;

 LAD - legal separations; judgments of annulments of
marriage; judgments declaring marriages void from
the beginning;
 LAN - legitimations; adoptions; acknowledgments of
natural children;
 NECC - naturalization; election, loss or recovery of
citizenship; civil interdiction;
 JVC - judicial determination of filiation; voluntary
emancipation of a minor; and changes of name.
How may correction of entries be
effected?

o Without judicial authority (RA 9048)

- procedure for the correction or
typographical errors (or change of first
name or nickname) or it affects the civil
status of a person
o Through a judicial proceeding (R108)
- clerical errors and substantial errors
(adversarial proceeding)
CORPUZ v STO. TOMAS (G.R. No. 186571.  August 11, 2010)

FACTS:
 Gerbert Corpuz, a former Filipino who acquired Canadian citizenship
through naturalization, married Daisylyn Sto. Tomas, a Filipina.
 He discovered that his wife was having an affair so he filed a petition
for divorce in Canada which was granted.
 Wanting to marry his new found love, Gerbert registered the Canadian
divorce decree with the Civil Registry Office but was later informed that
the marriage between him and Daisylyn still subsists under Philippine
Laws and that to be enforceable, the foreign divorce decree must first
be judicially recognized by a competent Philippine court.
 The RTC denied his petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce
and/or declaration of marriage as dissolved.

ISSUE:

WHETHER THE RECOGNITION OF THE DIVORCE DECREE WILL

AUTHORIZE THE CANCELLATION ENTRY.
HELD:

While the law requires the entry of the divorce decree in the civil
registry, the law and the submission of the decree by themselves
do not ipso facto authorize the decree’s registration, there must
first be a judicial recognition of the foreign judgment before it can
be given res judicata effect.

For being contrary to law, the registration of the foreign divorce

decree without the requisite judicial recognition is patently void
and cannot produce any legal effect.

A petition for recognition of a foreign judgment is not the proper

proceeding, contemplated under the Rules of Court, for the
cancellation of entries in the civil registry. The recognition of the
foreign divorce decree may be made in a Rule 108 proceeding
itself, as the object of special proceedings is precisely to establish
the status or right of a party or a particular fact.
 Substantial errors/
changes and corrections
within the scope of R108
Substantial change:
 Change of sex
 Correction on fact of parents’ marriage
 Corrections on citizenship, legitimacy of
paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of
marriage
Republic v Coseteng-Magpayo (G.R. No. 189476.  February 2, 2011.)

FACTS:

• Respondent Julian Edward Emerson Coseteng Magpayo ,

filed a petition to change his name to Julian Edward
Emerson Marquez Lim Coseteng.

• Respondent ran and was elected as Councilor of Quezon City’s

3rd District using the name “JULIAN M.L. COSETENG.

• OSG contended that that the deletion of the entry on the date
and place of marriage of respondent’s parents from his birth
certificate has the effect of changing his civil status from
legitimate to illegitimate, hence, any change in civil status of a
person must be effected through an appropriate adversary
proceeding
ISSUE:
WHETHER R108 IS THE APPLICABLE REMEDY INVOLVING
CIVIL STATUS

HELD:
YES

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. Rule 108 applies, thus
applies.

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.
Contents of petition:
1. A declaration that the petitioner has
been a bona fide resident of the province
where the petition is filed for at least
three (3) years prior to the date of such
filing;
2. The cause for which the change of the
petitioner’s name is sought;
3. The name asked for; and
4. All names by which petitioner is known
Section 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.
Section 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.

Section 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.
Section 6. Expediting proceedings. — The court in
which the proceeding is brought may make orders
expediting the proceedings, and may also grant
preliminary injunction for the preservation of the
rights of the parties pending such proceedings.

Section 7. Order. — After hearing, the court may

either dismiss the petition or issue an order granting
the cancellation or correction prayed for. In either
case, a certified copy of the judgment shall be
served upon the civil registrar concerned who shall
annotated the same in his record.
THANK YOU!!!