28.

In Re: Petition for Change of Name and/or Correction of Entry in the Civil Registry of Julian
Lin Carulasan Wang

FACTS:
Julian Lin Carulasan Wang, a minor, represented by his mother Anna Lisa
Wang, filed a petition for change of name and/or correction/cancellation of entry in the Civil
Registry of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang. Petitioner sought to drop his middle name and have his
registered name changed from Julian Lin Carulasan Wang to Julian Lin Wang.

The parents of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang plan to stay in Singapore for a long time because
they will let him study there together with his sister named Wang Mei Jasmine who was born in
Singapore…. Since in Singapore middle names or the maiden surname of the mother are not
carried in a person’s name, they anticipate that Julian Lin Carulasan Wang will be discriminated
against because of his current registered name which carries a
middle name. Julian and his sister might also be asking whether they are brother and sister
since they have different surnames. Carulasan sounds funny in Singapore’s Mandarin language
since they do not have the letter “R” but if there is, they pronounce it as
“L.” It is for these reasons that the name of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang is requested to be
changed to Julian Lin Wang.

ISSUE:
Whether or not it is proper to drop the child’
HELD:
The Court has had occasion to express the view that the State has an interest in the names
borne by individuals and entities for purposes of identification, and that a change of name is a
privilege and not a right, so that before a person can be authorized to change his 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.

The only reason advanced by the petitioner in dropping the middle name is convenience. How
such change of name would make his integration in the Singaporean society easier and
convenient is not clearly established. That continued use of his middle name would be a cause
to confusion and difficulty does not constitute proper and reasonable cause to drop it from his
registered complete name.

30.
REPUBLIC VS. BOLANTE
G.R. NO. 160597. JULY 20, 2006
GARCIA, J.:

Facts:
Roselie Eloisa Bringas Bolante also known as Maria Eloisa Bringas was born to Spouses Floriano
B. Bolante and Paula B. Bringas and a resident since birth of Bangued, Abra; That per records in
the Office of the Municipal Civil Registrar, Bangued, Abra, her registered name is Roselie Eloisa
Bringas Bolante which name, as far as she can remember, she did not use but instead the name
Maria Eloisa Bringas Bolante.
That the name Maria Eloisa appears in all her school as well as in her other public and private
records and That her married name is Maria Eloisa B. Bolante-Marbella. Thus, to prevent
confusion, Ms. Bolante prayed that her registered name be changed to conform to the name
she has always carried and used.

In time, the Republic, through the OSG, went to the CA whereat its appellate recourse was
docketed. the Republic’s present petition on the following issue.

ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT’S BARE TESTIMONY, UNSUPPORTED BY ANY OTHER
EVIDENCE, IS SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT THE CHANGE OF HER NAME IS NOT RESORTED
FOR ILLEGAL PURPOSES.

HELD:
IT IS imperatives of avoiding confusion dictate that the instant petition is granted. But beyond
practicalities, simple justice dictates that every person shall be allowed to avail himself of any
opportunity to improve his social standing, provided he does so without causing prejudice or
injury to the interests of the State or of other people.

The OSG’s argument that respondent’s bare testimony is insufficient to show that the requested
name is not sought for any illegal purpose and/or in avoidance of any
entanglement with the law deserves scant consideration. Surely, the issuance of a police and
NBI clearance or like certification, while perhaps apropos, cannot, as the OSG suggests, be a
convincing norm of one’s good moral character or compelling evidence to prove that the change
of name is not sought for any evil motive or
fraudulent intent. Respondent’s open court testimony, given under pain of perjury and for which
she was cross-examined, that she had not been accused of any crime
under her registered name or under her present name (name that she is using) had convinced
the trial court of the bona fides of her request for change of name.

31.
REPUBLIC vs. DR. NORMA S. LUGSANAY UY
G.R. No. 198010. August 12, 2013.

PERALTA, J.:
FACTS:
DR. NORMA S. LUGSANAY UY alleged that she is the illegitimate daughter of Sy Ton and Sotera
Lugsanay. Her Certificate of Live Birth 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, and
passport 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 AND THAat she is a Filipino citizen and not Chinese.

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.However, the National Statistics Office (NSO) records did not bear such
changes.

Hence, the petition before the RTC. RTC issued an Order with the directive that the said Order
be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City 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. Pursuant to the RTC Order, respondent complied with the publication
requirement.

Issue:
Whether or not 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.

Held:

Yes. 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.

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.

32.
Onde vs. Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Las Piñas City
G.R. No. 197174. September 10, 2014.
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

FACTS:
Petitioner alleged that he is the illegitimate child of his parents Guillermo A. Onde and
Matilde D.C. Pakingan, but his birth certificate stated that his parents were married. His birth
certificate also stated that his mother’s first name is Tely and that his first name is Franc Ler.
He prayed that the following entries on his birth certificate be corrected as follows:
RTC dismissed the petition for correction of entries on the ground that it is insufficient in form
and substance. It ruled that the proceedings must be adversarial since the first correction is
substantial in nature and would affect petitioner’s status as a legitimate child.

ISSUE:
whether the RTC erred in ruling that correcting the entry on petitioner’s birth certificate that his
parents were married on to “not married” is substantial in nature requiring adversarial
proceedings.

HELD:
YES. Said correction is substantial as it will affect his legitimacy and convert him from a
legitimate child to an illegitimate one. It is true in the case at bar that the changes sought to be
made by petitioner are not merely clerical or harmless errors but substantial ones as they would
affect the status of the marriage between his parents, as well as the legitimacy of his status,
Changes of such nature,however, are now allowed under Rule 108. Corrections of entries in the
civil register including those on citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of
marriage, involve 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 under Rule 108.

33.
Republic vs. Coseteng-Magpayo
G.R. No. 189476. February 2, 2011
CARPIO-MORALES, J.:

Facts:
Claiming, however, that his parents were never legally married, respondent filed at the RTC of
Quezon City a Petition to change his name OF JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON COSETENG
MAGPAYO TO JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON MARQUEZ-LIM COSETENG through Rule 103.

The trial court granted respondent’s petition and directed the Civil Registrar Delete the entry
“Fulvio Miranda Magpayo, Jr.” in the space for FATHER.

ISSUE:
WHETHER OR NOT THE PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME INVOLVES THE CHANGE OF CIVIL
STATUS FROM LEGITIMATE TO ILLEGITIMATE SHOULD BE MADE THROUGH APPROPRIATE
ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS NOT UNDER RULE 103
HELD:
YES. A person can effect a change of name under Rule 103 (CHANGE OF NAME) using valid and
meritorious grounds include:(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.

Respondent’s reason for changing his name cannot be considered as one of or analogous to,
recognized grounds, 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.

34.
Labayo-Rowe vs. Republic
No. L-53417. December 8, 1988
GANCAYCO, J.:

Facts:
Emperatriz Labayo-Rowe filed a petition for the correction of entries in the civil registry with the
then Court of First Instance of Pampanga. She asked the court to order the Local Civil Registrar
to correct the entries in the birth certificates of her children Vicente L. Miclat, Jr. and Victoria
Miclat especially with regard to petitioner’s name which appears in both certificates as “Beatriz
Labayo/Labayu” and as regards her civil status and date of marriage which appears in the birth
certificate of Victoria Miclat as “married” with the year appearing “1953 Bulan”. This was
eventually granted by the court.

The Republic questions the lower court’s order to correct the civil status and the date and place
of marriage of the petitioner below as appearing in the birth certificate of Victoria Miclat.
Anchoring its argument that The petition also seeks the change of her status from “married” to
“not married” at the time of her daughter’s birth, thereby changing the status of her child
Victoria Miclat from “legitimate” to “illegitimate.”

Issue:
Whether or not the case should be adversarial in nature.

Held:
Yes. Adversary proceeding, proper in the case at bar, wherein all the indispensable parties
should be made parties to the case. where the petition for correction of entries in the civil
registry, if granted, will have the effect of changing not only the civil status of the petitioner but
as well as her child’s filiation from “legitimate” to “illegitimate,” the same cannot be granted
except in an adversary proceeding. The matter should be threshed out in an appropriate action
as the corrections involve substantial alterations, and not mere clerical errors. An appropriate
proceeding is required wherein all the indispensable parties should be made parties to the case
as required under Section 3, Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court.

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. The truth is best ascertained under an adversary system of justice.