There is a presumption that children conceived or born during marriage are legitimate

children of the spouses (Concepcion v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123450, 31 August
2005). Following this rule, the child that your wife has delivered could be presumed to
be your child because you are the legal husband according to your narration.

Nonetheless, the presumption is not conclusive, which means that you may dispute
your relationship or filiation to the child. Under Article 166 of the Family Code, a father
may impugn the legitimacy of a child if he can prove that copulation between the
husband and wife within the first 120 days of the 300 days immediately preceding the
birth of the child was physically impossible because of the father’s incapacity to have
sexual intercourse by reason of serious illness or otherwise, or the fact that he and his
wife were living separately in such a way that sexual intercourse was not possible like in
the case where the husband is living abroad when the child was conceived. The father
may also impugn his relation to the child by showing proof that, for biological or other
scientific reasons, the child could not have been his.

Bear in mind, however, that the right to impugn the legitimacy of a child, i.e. disown the
child, may only be filed within the prescriptive periods provided by law, particularly, one
(1) year from the knowledge of the birth or its recording in the civil register if the
husband resides in the same city where the child was born, two (2) years if the husband
resides in another city or municipality in the Philippines, or three (3) years if he resides
abroad (Art. 170, Id.) Failure to file the action within these prescriptive periods will bar
the right of the husband to dispute his filiation with the child.

Based on the foregoing, you have the right to impugn the legitimacy of the child that
your wife has just given birth. You may prove the same by showing impossibility of
sexual congress between you and your wife and/or by presenting biological or scientific
reasons that the child is not yours. As cautioned above, the action to impugn the
legitimacy of the child is only allowed to be filed within a specified period. Hence, we
highly advise you to file the necessary action in court without delay to avoid prescription
from setting in.

G.R. No. 198010 August 12, 2013

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER,

vs.
DR. NORMA S. LUGSANAY UY, RESPONDENT.

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are
the Court of Appeals (CA)1Decision2 dated February 18, 2011 and Resolution3 dated
July 27, 2011 in CA-G.R. CV No. 00238-MIN. The assailed decision dismissed the
appeal filed by petitioner Republic of the Philippines and, consequently, affirmed in toto
the June 28, 2004 Order4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 27, Gingoog City in
Special Proceedings No. 230-2004 granting the Petition for Correction of Entry of
Certificate of Live Birth filed by respondent Dr. Norma S. Lugsanay Uy; while the
assailed resolution denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

The facts of the case are as follows:

On March 8, 2004, respondent filed a Petition for Correction of Entry in her Certificate of
Live Birth.5 Impleaded as respondent is the Local Civil Registrar of Gingoog City. She
alleged that she was born on February 8, 1952 and is the illegitimate daughter of Sy
Ton and Sotera Lugsanay6 Her Certificate of Live Birth7 shows that her full name is
"Anita Sy" when in fact she is allegedly known to her family and friends as "Norma S.
Lugsanay." She further claimed that her school records, Professional Regulation
Commission (PRC) Board of Medicine Certificate,8 and passport9 bear the name
"Norma S. Lugsanay." She also alleged that she is an illegitimate child considering that
her parents were never married, so she had to follow the surname of her mother. 10 She
also contended that she is a Filipino citizen and not Chinese, and all her siblings bear
the surname Lugsanay and are all Filipinos.11

Respondent allegedly filed earlier a petition for correction of entries with the Office of
the Local Civil Registrar of Gingoog City to effect the corrections on her name and
citizenship which was supposedly granted.12 However, the National Statistics Office
(NSO) records did not bear such changes. Hence, the petition before the RTC.

On May 13, 2004, the RTC issued an Order13 finding the petition to be sufficient in form
and substance and setting the case for hearing, with the directive that the said Order be
published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Gingoog and the Province
of Misamis Oriental at least once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks at the expense
of respondent, and that the order and petition be furnished the Office of the Solicitor
General (OSG) and the City Prosecutor’s Office for their information and
guidance.14 Pursuant to the RTC Order, respondent complied with the publication
requirement.

On June 28, 2004, the RTC issued an Order in favor of respondent, the dispositive
portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. THE

CITY CIVIL REGISTRAR OF GINGOOG CITY, or any person acting in his behalf is
directed and ordered to effect the correction or change of the entries in the Certificate of
Live Birth of petitioner’s name and citizenship so that the entries would be:

a) As to petitioner’s name :
First Name : NORMA
Middle Name : SY
Last Name : LUGSANAY
b) As to petitioner’s nationality/citizenship :
: FILIPINO

SO ORDERED.15

The RTC concluded that respondent’s petition would neither prejudice the government
nor any third party. It also held that the names "Norma Sy Lugsanay" and "Anita Sy"
refer to one and the same person, especially since the Local Civil Registrar of Gingoog
City has effected the correction. Considering that respondent has continuously used
and has been known since childhood as "Norma Sy Lugsanay" and as a Filipino citizen,
the RTC granted the petition to avoid confusion.16

On February 18, 2011, the CA affirmed in toto the RTC Order. The CA held that
respondent’s failure to implead other indispensable parties was cured upon the
publication of the Order setting the case for hearing in a newspaper of general
circulation for three (3) consecutive weeks and by serving a copy of the notice to the
Local Civil Registrar, the OSG and the City Prosecutor’s Office.17 As to whether the
petition is a collateral attack on respondent’s filiation, the CA ruled in favor of
respondent, considering that her parents were not legally married and that her siblings’
birth certificates uniformly state that their surname is Lugsanay and their citizenship is
Filipino.18 Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution dated July
27, 2011.

Hence, the present petition on the sole ground that the petition is dismissible for failure
to implead indispensable parties.

Cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry is governed by Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court, to wit:

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.

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.

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.

SEC. 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.

SEC. 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 annotate
the same in his record.19

In this case, respondent sought the correction of entries in her birth certificate,
particularly those pertaining to her first name, surname and citizenship. She sought the
correction allegedly to reflect the name which she has been known for since childhood,
including her legal documents such as passport and school and professional records.
She likewise relied on the birth certificates of her full blood siblings who bear the
surname "Lugsanay" instead of "Sy" and citizenship of "Filipino" instead of "Chinese."
The changes, however, are obviously not mere clerical as they touch on respondent’s
filiation and citizenship. In changing her surname from "Sy" (which is the surname of her
father) to "Lugsanay" (which is the surname of her mother), she, in effect, changes her
status from legitimate to illegitimate; and in changing her citizenship from Chinese to
Filipino, the same affects her rights and obligations in this country. Clearly, the changes
are substantial.

It has been settled in a number of cases starting with Republic v. Valencia 20 that even
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 proceeding.21 The pronouncement of the Court in that case is illuminating:

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. This Court adheres to the principle that even 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 proceeding. x x x

What is meant by "appropriate adversary proceeding?" Black’s Law Dictionary defines

"adversary proceeding" as follows:

One having opposing parties; contested, as distinguished from an ex parte application,

one of which the party seeking relief has given legal warning to the other party, and
afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it. Excludes an adoption proceeding. 22

In sustaining the RTC decision, the CA relied on the Court’s conclusion in Republic v.
Kho,23 Alba v. Court of Appeals,24 and Barco v. Court of Appeals,25 that the failure to
implead indispensable parties was cured by the publication of the notice of hearing
pursuant to the provisions of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. In Republic v.
Kho,26 petitioner therein appealed the RTC decision granting the petition for correction
of entries despite respondents’ failure to implead the minor’s mother as an
indispensable party. The Court, however, did not strictly apply the provisions of Rule
108, because it opined that it was 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.27

In Alba v. Court of Appeals,28 the Court found nothing wrong with the trial court’s
decision granting the petition for correction of entries filed by respondent although the
proceedings was not actually known by petitioner. In that case, petitioner’s mother and
guardian was impleaded in the petition for correction of entries, and notices were sent to
her address appearing in the subject birth certificate. However, the notice was returned
unserved, because apparently she no longer lived there. Thus, when she allegedly
learned of the granting of the petition, she sought the annulment of judgment which the
Court denied. Considering that the petition for correction of entries is a proceeding in
rem, the Court held that acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner is,
therefore, not required and the absence of personal service was cured by the trial
court’s compliance with Rule 108 which requires notice by publication.29

In Barco v. Court of Appeals,30 the Court addressed the question of whether the court
acquired jurisdiction over petitioner and all other indispensable parties to the petition for
correction of entries despite the failure to implead them in said case. While recognizing
that petitioner was indeed an indispensable party, the failure to implead her was cured
by compliance with Section 4 of Rule 108 which requires notice by publication. In so
ruling, the Court pointed out that the petitioner in a petition for correction cannot be
presumed to be aware of all the parties whose interests may be affected by the granting
of a petition. It emphasized that the petitioner therein exerted earnest effort to comply
with the provisions of Rule 108. Thus, the publication of the notice of hearing was
considered to have cured the failure to implead indispensable parties.

In this case, it was only the Local Civil Registrar of Gingoog City who was impleaded as
respondent in the petition below. This, notwithstanding, the RTC granted her petition
and allowed the correction sought by respondent, which decision was affirmed in toto by
the CA.

We do not agree with the RTC and the CA.

This is not the first time that the Court is confronted with the issue involved in this case.
Aside from Kho, Alba and Barco, the Court has addressed the same in Republic v.
Coseteng-Magpayo,31 Ceruila v. Delantar,32 and Labayo-Rowe v. Republic.33

In Republic v. Coseteng-Magpayo,34 claiming that his parents were never legally

married, respondent therein filed a petition to change his name from "Julian Edward
Emerson Coseteng Magpayo," the name appearing in his birth certificate to "Julian
Edward Emerson Marquez Lim Coseteng." The notice setting the petition for hearing
was published and there being no opposition thereto, the trial court issued an order of
general default and eventually granted respondent’s petition deleting the entry on the
date and place of marriage of parties; correcting his surname from "Magpayo" to
"Coseteng"; deleting the entry "Coseteng" for middle name; and deleting the entry
"Fulvio Miranda Magpayo, Jr." in the space for his father. The Republic of the
Philippines, through the OSG, assailed the RTC decision on the grounds that the
corrections made on respondent’s birth certificate had the effect of changing the civil
status from legitimate to illegitimate and must only be effected through an appropriate
adversary proceeding. The Court nullified the RTC decision for respondent’s failure to
comply strictly with the procedure laid down in Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. Aside
from the wrong remedy availed of by respondent as he filed a petition for Change of
Name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, assuming that he filed a petition under
Rule 108 which is the appropriate remedy, the petition still failed because of improper
venue and failure to implead the Civil Registrar of Makati City and all affected parties as
respondents in the case.

In Ceruila v. Delantar,35 the Ceruilas filed a petition for the cancellation and annulment
of the birth certificate of respondent on the ground that the same was made as an
instrument of the crime of simulation of birth and, therefore, invalid and spurious, and it
falsified all material entries therein. The RTC issued an order setting the case for
hearing with a directive that the same be published and that any person who is
interested in the petition may interpose his comment or opposition on or before the
scheduled hearing. Summons was likewise sent to the Civil Register of Manila. After
which, the trial court granted the petition and nullified respondent’s birth certificate. Few
months after, respondent filed a petition for the annulment of judgment claiming that she
and her guardian were not notified of the petition and the trial court’s decision, hence,
the latter was issued without jurisdiction and in violation of her right to due process. The
Court annulled the trial court’s decision for failure to comply with the requirements of
Rule 108, especially the non-impleading of respondent herself whose birth certificate
was nullified.1âwphi1

In Labayo-Rowe v. Republic,36 petitioner filed a petition for the correction of entries in

the birth certificates of her children, specifically to change her name from Beatriz V.
Labayu/Beatriz Labayo to Emperatriz Labayo, her civil status from "married" to "single,"
and the date and place of marriage from "1953-Bulan" to "No marriage." The Court
modified the trial court’s decision by nullifying the portion thereof which directs the
change of petitioner’s civil status as well as the filiation of her child, because it was the
OSG only that was made respondent and the proceedings taken was summary in
nature which is short of what is required in cases where substantial alterations are
sought.

Respondent’s birth certificate shows that her full name is Anita Sy, that she is a Chinese
citizen and a legitimate child of Sy Ton and Sotera Lugsanay. In filing the petition,
however, she 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.

The fact that the notice of hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation
and notice thereof was served upon the State will not change the nature of the
proceedings taken.37 A reading of Sections 4 and 5, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court
shows that the Rules mandate two sets of notices to different potential oppositors: one
given to the persons named in the petition and another given to other persons who are
not named in the petition but nonetheless may be considered interested or affected
parties.38 Summons must, therefore, be served not for the purpose of vesting the courts
with jurisdiction but to comply with the requirements of fair play and due process to
afford the person concerned the opportunity to protect his interest if he so chooses. 39

While there may be cases where the Court held that the failure to implead and notify the
affected or interested parties may be cured by the publication of the notice of hearing,
earnest efforts were made by petitioners in bringing to court all possible interested
parties.40 Such failure was likewise excused where the interested parties themselves
initiated the corrections proceedings;41 when there is no actual or presumptive
awareness of the existence of the interested parties;42 or when a party is inadvertently
left out.43

It is clear from the foregoing discussion that 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 ofthe
Rules of Court is mandated.44 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, the consequence of which might be
detrimental and far reaching.45

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Court of

Appeals Decision dated February 18, 2011 and Resolution dated July 27, 20011 in CA-
G.R. CV No. 00238-MIN, are SET ASIDE. Consequently, the June 28, 2004 Order of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Gingoog City, in Spl. Proc. No. 230-2004 granting
the Petition for Correction of Entry of Certificate of Live Birth filed by respondent Dr.
Norma S. Lugsanay Uy, is NULLIFIED.

SO ORDERED.

A person can effect a change of name under Rule 103 (CHANGE OF NAME) using
valid and meritorious grounds including (a) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or
extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (b) when the change results as a legal
consequence such as 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 (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.[17] Respondent’s reason for changing his name cannot
be considered as one of, or analogous to, recognized grounds, however.
The present petition must be differentiated from Alfon v. Republic of the
Philippines.[18]In Alfon, the Court allowed the therein petitioner, Estrella Alfon, to use
the name that she had been known since childhood in order to avoid
confusion. Alfon did not deny her legitimacy, however. She merely sought to use the
surname of her mother which she had been using since childhood. Ruling in her favor,
the Court held that she was lawfully entitled to use her mother’s surname, adding that
the avoidance of confusion was justification enough to allow her to do so. In the present
case, however, respondent denies his legitimacy.
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.
Labayo-Rowe v. Republic[19] categorically holds that “changes which may affect the
civil status from legitimate to illegitimate . . . are substantial and controversial
alterationswhich can only be allowed after appropriate adversary proceedings . . .”
Since respondent’s desired change affects his civil status from legitimate to
illegitimate, Rule 108 applies. It reads:
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 [RTC] of the province where the corresponding civil registry is
located.
xxxx

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. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
Rule 108 clearly directs that a petition which concerns one’s civil status should be filed
in the civil registry in which the entry is sought to be cancelled or corrected – that
ofMakatiin the present case, and “all persons who have or claim any interest which
would be affected thereby” should be made parties to the proceeding.

As earlier stated, however, the petition of respondent was filed not inMakatiwhere his
birth certificate was registered but inQuezon City. And as the above-mentioned title of
the petition filed by respondent before the RTC shows, neither the civil registrar
ofMakatinor his father and mother were made parties thereto.

Respondent nevertheless cites Republic v. Capote[20] in support of his claim that his
change of name was effected through an appropriate adversary proceeding.
Republic v. Belmonte,[21] 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)
Even assuming arguendo that respondent had simultaneously availed of these two
statutory remedies, respondent cannot be said to have sufficiently complied with Rule
108. For, as reflected above, aside from improper venue, he failed to implead the
civil registrar of Makati and all affected parties as respondents in the case.
Republic v. Labrador[22] mandates that “a petition for a substantial correction or
change of entries in the civil registry should have as respondents the civil registrar, as
well as all other persons who have or claim to have any interest that would be affected
thereby.” It cannot be gainsaid that change of status of a child in relation to his
parents is a substantial correction or change of entry in the civil registry.
Labayo-Rowe[23] highlights the necessity of impleading indispensable parties in a
petition which involves substantial and controversial alterations. In that case, the
therein petitioner Emperatriz Labayo-Rowe (Emperatriz) filed a petition for the
correction of entries in the birth certificates of her children, Vicente Miclat, Jr. and
Victoria Miclat, in the Civil Registry of San Fernando, Pampanga. Emperatriz alleged
that her name appearing in the birth certificates is Beatriz, which is her nickname, but
her full name is Emperatriz; and her civil status appearing in the birth certificate of her
daughter Victoria as “married” on “1953 Bulan” are erroneous because she was not
married to Vicente Miclat who was the one who furnished the data in said birth
certificate.
The trial court found merit in Emperatriz’s petition and accordingly directed the local civil
registrar to change her name appearing in her children’s birth certificates from Beatriz to
Emperatriz; and to correct her civil status inVictoria’s birth certificate from “married” to
“single” and the date and place of marriage to “no marriage.”

On petition before this Court after the Court of Appeals found that the order of the trial
court involved a question of law, the Court nullified the trial court’s order directing the
change of Emperatriz’ civil status and the filiation of her child Victoria in light of the
following observations:

x x x x Aside from the Office of the Solicitor General, all other indispensable
partiesshould 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. The truth is best
ascertained under an adversary system of justice.
The right of the child Victoria to inherit from her parents would be substantially impaired
if her status would be changed from “legitimate” to “illegitimate.” Moreover, she would
be exposed to humiliation and embarrassment resulting from the stigma of an
illegitimate filiation that she will bear thereafter. The fact that the notice of hearing of the
petition was published in a newspaper of general circulation and notice thereof was
served upon the State will not change the nature of the proceedings taken. Rule 108,
like all the other provisions of the Rules of Court, was promulgated by the Supreme
Court pursuant to its rule-making authority under Section 13, Article VIII of the 1973
Constitution, which directs that such rules “shall not diminish, increase or modify
substantive rights.” If Rule 108 were to be extended beyond innocuous or harmless
changes or corrections of errors which are visible to the eye or obvious to the
understanding, so as to comprehend substantial and controversial alterations
concerning citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of
marriage, without observing the proper proceedings as earlier mentioned, said rule
would thereby become an unconstitutional exercise which would tend to increase or
modify substantive rights. This situation is not contemplated under Article 412 of the
Civil Code.[24] (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
As for the requirement of notice and publication, Rule 108 provides:

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. (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
A reading of these related provisions readily shows that Rule 108 clearly mandates two
sets of notices to different “potential oppositors.” The first notice is that given to the
“persons named in the petition” and the second (which is through publication) is that
given to other persons who are not named in the petition but nonetheless may be
considered interested or affected parties, such as creditors. That two sets of notices
are mandated under the above-quoted Section 4 is validated by the subsequent Section
5, also above-quoted, which provides for two periods (for the two types of “potential
oppositors”) within which to file an opposition (15 days from notice or from the last date
of publication).
This is the overriding principle laid down in Barco v. Court of Appeals.[25] In that case,
Nadina Maravilla (Nadina) filed a petition for correction of entries in the birth certificate
of her daughter June from June Salvacion Maravilla to June Salvacion “Gustilo,”
Armando Gustilo being, according to Nadina, her daughter’s real father. Gustilo in fact
filed before the trial court a “CONSTANCIA” wherein he acknowledged June as his
daughter. The trial court granted the petition.
After Gustilo died, his son Jose Vicente Gustilo filed with the Court of Appeals a petition
for annulment of the Order of the trial court granting the change of June’s family name
to Gustilo.

Milagros Barco (Barco), natural guardian of her minor daughter Mary Joy Ann Gustilo,
filed before the appellate court a motion for intervention, alleging that Mary Joy had a
legal interest in the annulment of the trial court’s Order as Mary Joy was, by Barco’s
claim, also fathered by Gustilo.

The appellate court dismissed the petition for annulment and complaint-in-intervention.

On appeal by Barco, this Court ruled that she should have been impleaded in Nadina’s
petition for correction of entries of the birth certificate of Mary Joy. But since a
petitioner, like Nadina, is not expected to exhaustively identify all the affected parties,
the subsequent publication of the notice cured the omission of Barco as a party to the
case. Thus the Court explained:

Undoubtedly, Barco is among the parties referred to in Section 3 of Rule 108. Her
interest was affected by the petition for correction, as any judicial determination that
June was the daughter of Armando would affect her ward’s share in the estate of her
father. It cannot be established whether Nadina knew of Mary Joy’s existence at the
time she filed the petition for correction. Indeed, doubt may always be cast as to
whether a petitioner under Rule 108 would know of all the parties whose interests
may be affected by the granting of a petition. For example, a petitioner cannot be
presumed to be aware of all the legitimate or illegitimate offsprings of his/her
spouse or paramour. x x x x.
xxxx

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. x x x x.[26] (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
 Meanwhile, in Republic v. Kho,[27] Carlito Kho (Carlito) and his siblings named
the civil registrar as the sole respondent in the petition they filed for the correction of
entries in their respective birth certificates in the civil registry ofButuanCity, and
correction of entries in the birth certificates of Carlito’s minor children. Carlito and his
siblings requested the correction in their birth certificates of the citizenship of their
mother Epifania to “Filipino,” instead of “Chinese,” and the deletion of the word “married”
opposite the phrase “Date of marriage of parents” because their parents ─ Juan and
Epifania ─ were not married. And Carlito requested the correction in the birth
certificates of their children of his and his wife’s date of marriage to reflect the actual
date of their marriage as appearing in their marriage certificate. In the course of the
hearing of the petition, Carlito also sought the correction of the name of his wife from
Maribel to “Marivel.”
The Khos’ mother Epifania took the witness stand where she declared that she was not
married to Juan who died before the filing of the Khos’ petition.

The trial court granted the petition.

On the issue of whether the failure to implead Marivel and the Khos’ parents rendered
the trial of the petition short of the required adversary proceedings and the trial court’s
judgment void, this Court held that when all the procedural requirements under Rule
108 are followed, the publication of the notice of hearing cures the failure to implead an
indispensable party. In so ruling, the Court noted that the affected parties were already
notified of the proceedings in the case since the petitioner-siblings Khos were the ones
who initiated the petition respecting their prayer for correction of their citizenship, and
Carlito respecting the actual date of his marriage to his wife; and, with respect to the
Khos’ petition for change of their civil status from legitimate to illegitimate, their mother
Epifania herself took the witness stand declaring that she was not married to their
father.

What is clear then in Barco and Kho is the mandatory directive under Section 3 of Rule
108 to implead the civil registrar and the parties who would naturally and legally be
affected by the grant of a petition for correction or cancellation of entries. Non-
impleading, however, as party-respondent of one who is inadvertently left out or is not
established to be known by the petitioner to be affected by the grant of the petition or
actually participates in the proceeding is notified through publication.
IN FINE, 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.