Table

 of  Contents  
Rule  103  –  Change  of  Name  ....................................................................................................   2  
Rule  108  –  Cancellation  and  Correction  of  Entries  in  Civil  Registry  ..........................................   2  
R.A.  No.  10172  –  Authority  to  Correct  Certain  Clerical  or  Typographical  Errors  Appearing  in  the  Civil  
Register  Without  Need  of  a  Judicial  Order  ........................................................................................  2  
NSO  AO  01-­‐12  –  IRR  of  R.A.  No.  10172  ..............................................................................................  2  
R.A.  No.  9048  –  Clerical  Error  Law  .....................................................................................................  2  
OCRG  AO  01-­‐1  –  IRR  of  R.A.  No.  9048  ...............................................................................................  2  
R.A.  No.  6085  –  Anti-­‐Alias  Law  ..........................................................................................................  2  
C.A.  No.  142  –  Regulation  of  Use  of  Aliases  .......................................................................................  2  
Onde  vs.  Office  of  the  Local  Civil  Registrar  of  Las  Piñas  City  (2014)  ....................................................  2  
Republic  vs.  Olaybar  (2014)  .................................................................................................................  4  
Republic  vs.  Uy  (2013)  .........................................................................................................................  5  
Fujiki  vs.  Marinay  (2013)  ......................................................................................................................  6  
Republic  vs.  Coseteng-­‐Magpayo  (2011)  ..............................................................................................  8  
Republic  vs.  Mercadera  (2010)  ............................................................................................................  8  
Republic  vs.  Cagandahan  (2008)  ........................................................................................................  10  
Republic  vs.  Kho  (2007)  .....................................................................................................................  12  
Silverio  vs.  Republic  (2007)  ................................................................................................................  13  
Limson  vs.  Gonzalez  (2014)  ...............................................................................................................  15  
Ursua  vs.  Court  of  Appeals  (1996)  .....................................................................................................  16  
 
   

  1  
 Rule  103  –  Change  of  Name  
Rule  108  –  Cancellation  and  Correction  of  Entries  in  Civil  Registry  
 
R.A.   No.   10172   –   Authority   to   Correct   Certain   Clerical   or   Typographical   Errors  
Appearing  in  the  Civil  Register  Without  Need  of  a  Judicial  Order  
NSO  AO  01-­‐‑12  –  IRR  of  R.A.  No.  10172  
R.A.  No.  9048  –  Clerical  Error  Law  
OCRG  AO  01-­‐‑1  –  IRR  of  R.A.  No.  9048  
R.A.  No.  6085  –  Anti-­‐‑Alias  Law  
C.A.  No.  142  –  Regulation  of  Use  of  Aliases  
 
Onde  vs.  Office  of  the  Local  Civil  Registrar  of  Las  Piñas  City  (2014)  
 
Remedial   Law;   Special   Proceedings;   Correction   of   Entries   in   the   Civil   Register;   Clerical   or  
Typographical   Errors;   Changes   of   First   Name;   Under   Section   1   of   Republic   Act   (RA)   No.   9048,  
clerical  or  typographical  errors  on  entries  in  a  civil  register  can  be  corrected  and  changes  of  
first  name  can  be  done  by  the  concerned  city  civil  registrar  without  need  of  a  judicial  order.—
We   agree   with   the   RTC   that   the   first   name   of   petitioner   and   his   mother   as   appearing   in   his  
birth  certificate  can  be  corrected  by  the  city  civil  registrar  under  R.A.  No.  9048.  We  note  that  
petitioner  no  longer  contested  the  RTC’s  ruling  on  this  point.  Indeed,  under  Section  1  of  R.A.  
No.   9048,   clerical   or   typographical   errors   on   entries   in   a   civil   register   can   be   corrected   and  
changes   of   first   name   can   be   done   by   the   concerned   city   civil   registrar   without   need   of   a  
judicial  order.  Aforesaid  Section  1,  as  amended  by  R.A.  No.  10172,  now  reads:  SECTION  1.  
Authority   to   Correct   Clerical   or   Typographical   Error   and   Change   of   First   Name   or  
Nickname.—No   entry   in   a   civil   register   shall   be   changed   or   corrected   without   a   judicial  
order,  except  for  clerical  or  typographical  errors  and  change  of  first  name  or  nickname,  the  
day  and  month  in  the  date  of  birth  or  sex  of  a  person  where  it  is  patently  clear  that  there  was  
a  clerical  or  typographical  error  or  mistake  in  the  entry,  which  can  be  corrected  or  changed  
by  the  concerned  city  or  municipal  civil  registrar  or  consul  general  in  accordance  with  the  
provisions  of  this  Act  and  its  implementing  rules  and  regulations.  
 
Same;  Same;  Same;  Same;  Same;  The  remedy  and  the  proceedings  regulating  change  of  first  
name  are  primarily  administrative  in  nature,  not  judicial;  The  law  removed  from  the  ambit  of  
Rule  108  of  the  Rules  of  Court  the  correction  of  clerical  or  typographical  errors.—In  Silverio  v.  
Republic,   537   SCRA   373   (2007),   we   held   that   under   R.A.   No.   9048,   jurisdiction   over  
applications  for  change  of  first  name  is  now  primarily  lodged  with  administrative  officers.  
The  intent  and  effect  of  said  law  is  to  exclude  the  change  of  first  name  from  the  coverage  of  
Rules   103   (Change   of   Name)   and   108   (Cancellation   or   Correction   of   Entries   in   the   Civil  
Registry)  of  the  Rules  of  Court,  until  and  unless  an  administrative  petition  for  change  of  name  
is  first  filed  and  subsequently  denied.  The  remedy  and  the  proceedings  regulating  change  of  
first  name  are  primarily  administrative  in  nature,  not  judicial.  In  Republic  v.  Cagandahan,  
565   SCRA   72   (2008),   we   said   that   under   R.A.   No.   9048,   the   correction   of   clerical   or  
typographical  errors  can  now  be  made  through  administrative  proceedings  and  without  the  
need  for  a  judicial  order.  The  law  removed  from  the  ambit  of  Rule  108  of  the  Rules  of  Court  
the   correction   of   clerical   or   typographical   errors.   Thus,   petitioner   can   avail   of   this  
administrative  remedy  for  the  correction  of  his  and  his  mother’s  first  name.    

  2  
  
Same;  Same;  Same;  Correcting  the  entry  on  petitioner’s  birth  certificate  that  his  parents  were  
married  on  December  23,  1983  in  Bicol  to  “not  married”  is  a  substantial  correction  requiring  
adversarial  proceedings.—We  also  agree  with  the  RTC  in  ruling  that  correcting  the  entry  on  
petitioner’s  birth  certificate  that  his  parents  were  married  on  December  23,  1983  in  Bicol  to  
“not  married”  is  a  substantial  correction  requiring  adversarial  proceedings.  Said  correction  
is  substantial  as  it  will  affect  his  legitimacy  and  convert  him  from  a  legitimate  child  to  an  
illegitimate  one.  In  Republic  v.  Uy,  703  SCRA  425  (2013),  we  held  that  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.  
 
Same;  Same;  Same;  Even  substantial  errors  in  a  civil  registry  may  be  corrected  and  the  true  
facts   established   under   Rule   108   [of   the   Rules   of   Court]   provided   the   parties   aggrieved   by   the  
error   avail   themselves   of   the   appropriate   adversary   proceeding.—The   RTC’s   dismissal   is  
without   prejudice.   As   we   said,   petitioner   can   avail   of   the   administrative   remedy   for   the  
correction  of  his  and  his  mother’s  first  name.  He  can  also  file  a  new  petition  before  the  RTC  
to  correct  the  alleged  erroneous  entry  on  his  birth  certificate  that  his  parents  were  married  
on  December  23,  1983  in  Bicol.  This  substantial  correction  is  allowed  under  Rule  108  of  the  
Rules  of  Court.  As  we  reiterated  in  Eleosida  v.  Local  Civil  Registrar  of  Quezon  City,  382  SCRA  
22  (2002):  x  x  x  This  is  our  ruling  in  Republic  v.  Valencia,  where  we  held  that  even  substantial  
errors  in  a  civil  registry  may  be  corrected  and  the  true  facts  established  under  Rule  108  [of  
the   Rules   of   Court]   provided   the   parties   aggrieved   by   the   error   avail   themselves   of   the  
appropriate  adversary  proceeding.  x  x  x  x  x  x  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  petitioner  and  Carlos  Borbon,  
as  well  as  the  legitimacy  of  their  son,  Charles  Christian.  Changes  of  such  nature,  however,  are  
now  allowed  under  Rule  108  in  accordance  with  our  ruling  in  Republic  v.  Valencia  provided  
that  the  appropriate  procedural  requirements  are  complied  with.    
 
Same;  Same;  Same;  Parties;  A  petition  seeking  a  substantial  correction  of  an  entry  in  a  civil  
register   must   implead   as   parties   to   the   proceedings   not   only   the   local   civil   registrar,   as  
petitioner  did  in  the  dismissed  petition  for  correction  of  entries,  but  also  all  persons  who  have  
or   claim   any   interest   which   would   be   affected   by   the   correction.—A   petition   seeking   a  
substantial   correction   of   an   entry   in   a   civil   register   must   implead   as   parties   to   the  
proceedings   not   only   the   local   civil   registrar,   as   petitioner   did   in   the   dismissed   petition   for  
correction  of  entries,  but  also  all  persons  who  have  or  claim  any  interest  which  would  be  
affected  by  the  correction.  This  is  required  by  Section  3,  Rule  108  of  the  Rules  of  Court:  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.  
 
Same;  Same;  Same;  Same;  In  Republic  v.  Uy,  703  SCRA  425  (2013),  the  Supreme  Court  (SC)  has  
similarly  ruled  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  

  3  
paternity  or  filiation,  or  legitimacy  of  marriage,  a  strict  compliance  with  the  requirements  of  
the  Rules  of  Court  is  mandated.  Thus,  in  his  new  petition,  petitioner  should  at  least  implead  his  
father   and   mother   as   parties   since   the   substantial   correction   he   is   seeking   will   also   affect  
them.—In   Eleosida   v.   Local   Civil   Registrar   of   Quezon   City,   382   SCRA   22   (2002),   we   cited  
Section   3,   and   Sections   4   and   5   of   Rule   108   of   the   Rules   of   Court,   as   the   procedural  
requirements  laid  down  by  the  Court  to  make  the  proceedings  under  Rule  108  adversary.  In  
Republic   v.   Uy,   703   SCRA   425   (2013),   we   have   similarly   ruled   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  the  Rules  of  Court  is  
mandated.  Thus,  in  his  new  petition,  petitioner  should  at  least  implead  his  father  and  mother  
as  parties  since  the  substantial  correction  he  is  seeking  will  also  affect  them.  
 
Republic  vs.  Olaybar  (2014)  
 
Same;   Special   Proceedings;   Correction   of   Entries   in   the   Civil   Registry;   Since   the   promulgation  
of  Republic  v.  Valencia,  141  SCRA  462  in  1986,  the  Supreme  Court  has  repeatedly  ruled  that  
“even  substantial  errors  in  a  civil  registry  may  be  corrected  through  a  petition  filed  under  Rule  
108  of  the  Rules  of  Court,  with  the  true  facts  established  and  the  parties  aggrieved  by  the  error  
availing   themselves   of   the   appropriate   adversarial   proceeding.”—Rule   108   of   the   Rules   of  
Court  provides  the  procedure  for  cancellation  or  correction  of  entries  in  the  civil  registry.  
The  proceedings  may  either  be  summary  or  adversary.  If  the  correction  is  clerical,  then  the  
procedure  to  be  adopted  is  summary.  If  the  rectification  affects  the  civil  status,  citizenship  or  
nationality  of  a  party,  it  is  deemed  substantial,  and  the  procedure  to  be  adopted  is  adversary.  
Since   the   promulgation   of   Republic   v.   Valencia,   141   SCRA   462   in   1986,   the   Court   has  
repeatedly  ruled  that  “even  substantial  errors  in  a  civil  registry  may  be  corrected  through  a  
petition  filed  under  Rule  108,  with  the  true  facts  established  and  the  parties  aggrieved  by  the  
error   availing   themselves   of   the   appropriate   adversarial   proceeding.”   An   appropriate  
adversary  suit  or  proceeding  is  one  where  the  trial  court  has  conducted  proceedings  where  
all  relevant  facts  have  been  fully  and  properly  developed,  where  opposing  counsel  have  been  
given  opportunity  to  demolish  the  opposite  party’s  case,  and  where  the  evidence  has  been  
thoroughly  weighed  and  considered.  
 
Same;  Same;  Same;  As  long  as  the  procedural  requirements  in  Rule  108  of  the  Rules  of  Court  
are  followed,  it  is  the  appropriate  adversary  proceeding  to  effect  substantial  corrections  and  
changes  in  entries  of  the  civil  register.—It  is  true  that  in  special  proceedings,  formal  pleadings  
and  a  hearing  may  be  dispensed  with,  and  the  remedy  [is]  granted  upon  mere  application  or  
motion.  However,  a  special  proceeding  is  not  always  summary.  The  procedure  laid  down  in  
Rule   108   is   not   a   summary   proceeding   per   se.   It   requires   publication   of   the   petition;   it  
mandates   the   inclusion   as   parties   of   all   persons   who   may   claim   interest   which   would   be  
affected  by  the  cancellation  or  correction;  it  also  requires  the  civil  registrar  and  any  person  
in   interest   to   file   their   opposition,   if   any;   and   it   states   that   although   the   court   may   make  
orders   expediting   the   proceedings,   it   is   after   hearing   that   the   court   shall   either   dismiss   the  
petition   or   issue   an   order   granting   the   same.   Thus,   as   long   as   the   procedural   requirements  
in   Rule   108   are   followed,   it   is   the   appropriate   adversary   proceeding   to   effect   substantial  
corrections  and  changes  in  entries  of  the  civil  register.  

  4  
Same;  Same;  Same;  A  Filipino  citizen  cannot  dissolve  his  marriage  by  the  mere  expedient  of  
changing  his  entry  of  marriage  in  the  civil  registry.—Indeed  the  Court  made  a  pronouncement  
in  the  recent  case  of  Minoru  Fujiki  v.  Maria  Paz  Galela  Marinay,  Shinichi  Maekara,  Local  Civil  
Registrar  of  Quezon  City,  and  the  Administra  tor  and  Civil  Registrar  General  of  the  National  
Statistics   Office,   700   SCRA   69   (2013),   that:   To   be   sure,   a   petition   for   correction   or  
cancellation  of  an  entry  in  the  civil  registry  cannot  substitute  for  an  action  to  invalidate  a  
marriage.   A   direct   action   is   necessary   to   prevent   circumvention   of   the   substantive   and  
procedural   safeguards   of   marriage   under   the   Family   Code,   A.M.   No.   02-­‐‑11-­‐‑10-­‐‑SC   and   other  
related  laws.  Among  these  safeguards  are  the  requirement  of  proving  the  limited  grounds  
for   the   dissolution   of   marriage,   support   pendente   lite   of   the   spouses   and   children,   the  
liquidation,  partition  and  distribution  of  the  properties  of  the  spouses  and  the  investigation  
of   the   public   prosecutor   to   determine   collusion.   A   direct   action   for   declaration   of   nullity   or  
annulment  of  marriage  is  also  necessary  to  prevent  circumvention  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  
Family  Courts  under  the  Family  Courts  Act  of  1997  (Republic  Act  No.  8369),  as  a  petition  for  
cancellation  or  correction  of  entries  in  the  civil  registry  may  be  filed  in  the  Regional  Trial  
Court   where   the   corresponding   civil   registry   is   located.   In   other   words,   a   Filipino   citizen  
cannot  dissolve  his  marriage  by  the  mere  expedient  of  changing  his  entry  of  marriage  in  the  
civil  registry.  
 
Republic  vs.  Uy  (2013)  
 
Remedial   Law;   Special   Proceedings;   Correction   of   Entries   in   the   Civil   Registry;   Adversarial  
Proceedings;   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.―It   has   been   settled   in   a   number   of   cases   starting   with   Republic   v.  
Valencia,   141   SCRA   462   (1986),   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.   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.  
 
Same;  Civil  Procedure;  Notice  of  Hearing;  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.―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  

  5  
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.  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.  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.  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.  
Such   failure   was   likewise   excused   where   the   interested   parties   themselves   initiated   the  
corrections  proceedings;  when  there  is  no  actual  or  presumptive  awareness  of  the  existence  
of  the  interested  parties;  or  when  a  party  is  inadvertently  left  out.  
 
Same;   Special   Proceedings;   Correction   of   Entries   in   the   Civil   Registry;   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.―When  a  petition  for  cancellation  or  correction  of  an  entry  in  the  civil  register  
involves  substantial  and  controversial  alterations,  including  those  on  citizenship,  legitimacy  
of  paternity  or  filiation,  or  legitimacy  of  marriage,  a  strict  compliance  with  the  requirements  
of   Rule   108   of   the   Rules   of   Court   is   mandated.   If   the   entries   in   the   civil   register   could   be  
corrected   or   changed   through   mere   summary   proceedings   and   not   through   appropriate  
action  wherein  all  parties  who  may  be  affected  by  the  entries  are  notified  or  represented,  the  
door   to   fraud   or   other   mischief   would   be   set   open,   the   consequence   of   which   might   be  
detrimental  and  far  reaching.  
 
Fujiki  vs.  Marinay  (2013)  
 
Same;  Same;  Same;  Same;  Civil  Law;  Divorce;  While  the  Philippines  does  not  have  a  divorce  law,  
Philippine   courts   may,   however,   recognize   a   foreign   divorce   decree   under   the   second  
paragraph  of  Article  26  of  the  Family  Code,  to  capacitate  a  Filipino  citizen  to  remarry  when  his  
or  her  foreign  spouse  obtained  a  divorce  decree  abroad.—Since  1922  in  Adong  v.  Cheong  Seng  
Gee,  43  Phil.  43  (1922),  Philippine  courts  have  recognized  foreign  divorce  decrees  between  
a  Filipino  and  a  foreign  citizen  if  they  are  successfully  proven  under  the  rules  of  evidence.  
Divorce  involves  the  dissolution  of  a  marriage,  but  the  recognition  of  a  foreign  divorce  decree  
does  not  involve  the  extended  procedure  under  A.M.  No.  02-­‐‑11-­‐‑10-­‐‑SC  or  the  rules  of  ordinary  
trial.   While   the   Philippines   does   not   have   a   divorce   law,   Philippine   courts   may,   however,  
recognize  a  foreign  divorce  decree  under  the  second  paragraph  of  Article  26  of  the  Family  
Code,  to  capacitate  a  Filipino  citizen  to  remarry  when  his  or  her  foreign  spouse  obtained  a  
divorce  decree  abroad.  

  6  
Same;  Same;  Same;  Same;  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.”—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,  
which   the   State   has   an   interest   in   recording.   As   noted   by   the   Solicitor   General,   in   Corpuz   v.  
Sto.  Tomas,  628  SCRA  266  (2010),    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  particular  fact.”  
 
Civil   Law;   Marriages;   Parties;   When   Section   2(a)   states   that   “[a]   petition   for   declaration   of  
absolute  nullity  of  void  marriage  may  be  filed  solely  by  the  husband  or  the  wife”  —  it  refers  to  
the   husband   or   the   wife   of   the   subsisting   marriage;   The   husband   or   the   wife   of   the   prior  
subsisting   marriage   is   the   one   who   has   the   personality   to   file   a   petition   for   declaration   of  
absolute  nullity  of  void  marriage  under  Section  2(a)  of  A.M.  No.  02-­‐‑11-­‐‑10-­‐‑SC.—Section  2(a)  of  
A.M.  No.  02-­‐‑11-­‐‑10-­‐‑SC  does  not  preclude  a  spouse  of  a  subsisting  marriage  to  question  the  
validity  of  a  subsequent  marriage  on  the  ground  of  bigamy.  On  the  contrary,  when  Section  
2(a)  states  that  “[a]  petition  for  declaration  of  absolute  nullity  of  void  marriage  may  be  filed  
solely  by  the  husband  or  the  wife”  —  it  refers  to  the  husband  or  the  wife  of  the  subsisting  
marriage.   Under   Article   35(4)   of   the   Family   Code,   bigamous   marriages   are   void   from   the  
beginning.  Thus,  the  parties  in  a  bigamous  marriage  are  neither  the  husband  nor  the  wife  
under  the  law.  The  husband  or  the  wife  of  the  prior  subsisting  marriage  is  the  one  who  has  
the  personality  to  file  a  petition  for  declaration  of  absolute  nullity  of  void  marriage  under  
Section  2(a)  of  A.M.  No.  02-­‐‑11-­‐‑10-­‐‑SC.  
 
Remedial   Law;   Special   Proceedings;   Correction   of   Entries;   A   petition   for   correction   or  
cancellation   of   an   entry   in   the   civil   registry   cannot   substitute   for   an   action   to   invalidate   a  
marriage.   A   direct   action   is   necessary   to   prevent   circumvention   of   the   substantive   and  
procedural   safeguards   of   marriage   under   the   Family   Code,   A.M.   No.   02-­‐‑11-­‐‑10-­‐‑SC   and   other  
related   laws.—To   be   sure,   a   petition   for   correction   or   cancellation   of   an   entry   in   the   civil  
registry  cannot  substitute  for  an  action  to  invalidate  a  marriage.  A  direct  action  is  necessary  
to  prevent  circumvention  of  the  substantive  and  procedural  safeguards  of  marriage  under  
the  Family  Code,  A.M.  No.  02-­‐‑11-­‐‑10-­‐‑SC  and  other  related  laws.  Among  these  safeguards  are  
the   requirement   of   proving   the   limited   grounds   for   the   dissolution   of   marriage,   support  
pendente  lite  of  the  spouses  and  children,  the  liquidation,  partition  and  distribution  of  the  
properties   of   the   spouses,   and   the   investigation   of   the   public   prosecutor   to   determine  
collusion.  A  direct  action  for  declaration  of  nullity  or  annulment  of  marriage  is  also  necessary  
to  prevent  circumvention  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Family  Courts  under  the  Family  Courts  
Act  of  1997  (Republic  Act  No.  8369),  as  a  petition  for  cancellation  or  correction  of  entries  in  

  7  
the   civil   registry   may   be   filed   in   the   Regional   Trial   Court   “where   the   corresponding   civil  
registry   is   located.”   In   other   words,   a   Filipino   citizen   cannot   dissolve   his   marriage   by   the  
mere  expedient  of  changing  his  entry  of  marriage  in  the  civil  registry.  However,  this  does  not  
apply   in   a   petition   for   correction   or   cancellation   of   a   civil   registry   entry   based   on   the  
recognition  of  a  foreign  judgment  annulling  a  marriage  where  one  of  the  parties  is  a  citizen  
of   the   foreign   country.   There   is   neither   circumvention   of   the   substantive   and   procedural  
safeguards  of  marriage  under  Philippine  law,  nor  of  the  jurisdiction  of  Family  Courts  under  
R.A.  No.  8369.  A  recognition  of  a  foreign  judgment  is  not  an  action  to  nullify  a  marriage.  It  is  
an   action   for   Philippine   courts   to   recognize   the   effectivity   of   a   foreign   judgment,   which  
presupposes   a   case   which   was   already   tried   and   decided   under   foreign   law.   The   procedure  
in   A.M.   No.   02-­‐‑11-­‐‑10-­‐‑SC   does   not   apply   in   a   petition   to   recognize   a   foreign   judgment  
annulling  a  bigamous  marriage  where  one  of  the  parties  is  a  citizen  of  the  foreign  country.  
Neither  can  R.A.  No.  8369  define  the  jurisdiction  of  the  foreign  court.  
 
Republic  vs.  Coseteng-­‐‑Magpayo  (2011)  
 
Civil  Law;  Change  of  Name;  A  person  can  effect  a  change  of  name  under  Rule  103  using  valid  
and  meritorious  grounds.—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.    
Respondent’s  reason  for  changing  his  name  cannot  be  considered  as  one  of,  or  analogous  to,  
recognized  grounds,  however.  
 
Same;   Same;   Changes   which   may   affect   the   civil   status   from   legitimate   to   illegitimate   are  
substantial   and   controversial   alterations   which   can   only   be   allowed   after   appropriate  
adversary  proceedings.—Labayo-­‐‑Rowe  v.  Republic,  168  SCRA  294  [1988],  categorically  holds  
that   “changes   which   may   affect   the   civil   status   from   legitimate   to   illegitimate   .   .   .   are  
substantial   and   controversial   alterations   which   can   only   be   allowed   after   appropriate  
adversary  proceedings  .  .  .”  Since  respondent’s  desired  change  affects  his  civil  status  from  
legitimate  to  illegitimate,  Rule  108  applies.  
 
Republic  vs.  Mercadera  (2010)  
 
Civil  Law;  Correction  of  Entries;  Change  of  Name;  In  petitions  for  change  of  name,  a  person  
avails  of  a  remedy  to  alter  the  “designation  by  which  he  is  known  and  called  in  the  community  
in  which  he  lives  and  is  best  known”;  Judicial  permission  for  a  change  of  name  aims  to  prevent  

  8  
fraud  and  to  ensure  a  record  of  the  change  by  virtue  of  a  court  decree.—Rule  103  procedurally  
governs  judicial  petitions  for  change  of  given  name  or  surname,  or  both,  pursuant  to  Article  
376   of   the   Civil   Code.   This   rule   provides   the   procedure   for   an   independent   special  
proceeding  in  court  to  establish  the  status  of  a  person  involving  his  relations  with  others,  
that   is,   his   legal   position   in,   or   with   regard   to,   the   rest   of   the   community.   In   petitions   for  
change  of  name,  a  person  avails  of  a  remedy  to  alter  the  “designation  by  which  he  is  known  
and  called  in  the  community  in  which  he  lives  and  is  best  known.”  When  granted,  a  person’s  
identity   and   interactions   are   affected   as   he   bears   a   new   “label   or   appellation   for   the  
convenience  of  the  world  at  large  in  addressing  him,  or  in  speaking  of,  or  dealing  with  him.”  
Judicial  permission  for  a  change  of  name  aims  to  prevent  fraud  and  to  ensure  a  record  of  the  
change  by  virtue  of  a  court  decree.  
 
Same;   Same;   Same;   Proceeding   under   Rule   103   is   also   an   action   in   rem   which   requires  
publication  of  the  order  issued  by  the  court  to  afford  the  State  and  all  other  interested  parties  
to   oppose   the   petition;   “It   is   the   publication   of   such   notice   that   brings   in   the   whole   world   as   a  
party  in  the  case  and  vests  the  court  jurisdiction  to  hear  and  decide  it.”—The  proceeding  under  
Rule  103  is  also  an  action  in  rem  which  requires  publication  of  the  order  issued  by  the  court  
to  afford  the  State  and  all  other  interested  parties  to  oppose  the  petition.  When  complied  
with,  the  decision  binds  not  only  the  parties  impleaded  but  the  whole  world.  As  notice  to  all,  
publication  serves  to  indefinitely  bar  all  who  might  make  an  objection.  “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.”  
 
Same;  Same;  Same;  A  change  of  name  does  not  define  or  effect  a  change  of  one’s  existing  family  
relations  or  in  the  rights  and  duties  flowing  therefrom;  It  does  not  alter  one’s  legal  capacity  or  
civil  status.—A  change  of  name  does  not  define  or  effect  a  change  of  one’s  existing  family  
relations  or  in  the  rights  and  duties  flowing  therefrom.  It  does  not  alter  one’s  legal  capacity  
or  civil  status.  However,  “there  could  be  instances  where  the  change  applied  for  may  be  open  
to  objection  by  parties  who  already  bear  the  surname  desired  by  the  applicant,  not  because  
he  would  thereby  acquire  certain  family  ties  with  them  but  because  the  existence  of  such  ties  
might   be   erroneously   impressed   on   the   public   mind.”   Hence,   in   requests   for   a   change   of  
name,  “what  is  involved  is  not  a  mere  matter  of  allowance  or  disallowance  of  the  request,  but  
a  judicious  evaluation  of  the  sufficiency  and  propriety  of  the  justifications  advanced  x  x  x  
mindful  of  the  consequent  results  in  the  event  of  its  grant  x  x  x.”  
 
Same;   Same;   Same;   Rule   108,   on   the   other   hand,   implements   judicial   proceedings   for   the  
correction   or   cancellation   of   entries   in   the   civil   registry   pursuant   to   Article   412   of   the   Civil  
Code.—Rule  108,  on  the  other  hand,  implements  judicial  proceedings  for  the  correction  or  
cancellation   of   entries   in   the   civil   registry   pursuant   to   Article   412   of   the   Civil   Code.   Entries  
in  the  civil  register  refer  to  “acts,  events  and  judicial  decrees  concerning  the  civil  status  of  
persons,”  also  as  enumerated  in  Article  408  of  the  same  law.  Before,  only  mistakes  or  errors  
of  a  harmless  and  innocuous  nature  in  the  entries  in  the  civil  registry  may  be  corrected  under  
Rule  108  and  substantial  errors  affecting  the  civil  status,  citizenship  or  nationality  of  a  party  
are  beyond  the  ambit  of  the  rule.  
 

  9  
Same;  Same;  Same;  The  “change  of  name”  contemplated  under  Article  376  and  Rule  103  must  
not  be  confused  with  Article  412  and  Rule  108.—The  “change  of  name”  contemplated  under  
Article   376   and   Rule   103   must   not   be   confused   with   Article   412   and   Rule   108.   A   change   of  
one’s  name  under  Rule  103  can  be  granted,  only  on  grounds  provided  by  law.  In  order  to  
justify   a   request   for   change   of   name,   there   must   be   a   proper   and   compelling   reason   for   the  
change  and  proof  that  the  person  requesting  will  be  prejudiced  by  the  use  of  his  official  name.  
To   assess   the   sufficiency   of   the   grounds   invoked   therefor,   there   must   be   adversarial  
proceedings.  
 
Same;   Same;   Same;   Not   all   alterations   allowed   in   one’s   name   are   confined   under   Rule   103;  
Corrections  for  clerical  errors  may  be  set  right  under  Rule  108.—In  petitions  for  correction,  
only  clerical,  spelling,  typographical  and  other  innocuous  errors  in  the  civil  registry  may  be  
raised.  Considering  that  the  enumeration  in  Section  2,  Rule  108  also  includes  “changes  of  
name,”  the  correction  of  a  patently  misspelled  name  is  covered  by  Rule  108.  Suffice  it  to  say,  
not  all  alterations  allowed  in  one’s  name  are  confined  under  Rule  103.  Corrections  for  clerical  
errors  may  be  set  right  under  Rule  108.  
 
Same;  Same;  Same;  Republic  v.  Valencia,  141  SCRA  462  (1986),  is  the  authority  for  allowing  
substantial  errors  in  other  entries  like  citizenship,  civil  status,  and  paternity,  to  be  corrected  
using  Rule  108  provided  there  is  an  adversary  proceeding.—This  rule  in  “names,”  however,  
does  not  operate  to  entirely  limit  Rule  108  to  the  correction  of  clerical  errors  in  civil  registry  
entries  by  way  of  a  summary  proceeding.  As  explained  above,  Republic  v.  Valencia,  141  SCRA  
462  (1986),  is  the  authority  for  allowing  substantial  errors  in  other  entries  like  citizenship,  
civil   status,   and   paternity,   to   be   corrected   using   Rule   108   provided   there   is   an   adversary  
proceeding.  “After  all,  the  role  of  the  Court  under  Rule  108  is  to  ascertain  the  truths  about  
the  facts  recorded  therein.”  
 
Republic  vs.  Cagandahan  (2008)  
 
Civil  Registry;  Correction  of  Entries  in  Birth  Certificates;  Clerical  Error  Law  (R.A.  No.  9048);  R.A.  
No.   9048   removed   from   the   ambit   of   Rule   108   of   the   Rules   of   Court   the   correction   of   such  
errors—Rule  108  now  applies  only  to  substantial  changes  and  corrections  in  entries  in  the  civil  
register.—The   determination   of   a   person’s   sex   appearing   in   his   birth   certificate   is   a   legal  
issue  and  the  court  must  look  to  the  statutes.  In  this  connection,  Article  412  of  the  Civil  Code  
provides:   ART.   412.   No   entry   in   a   civil   register   shall   be   changed   or   corrected   without   a  
judicial  order.  Together  with  Article  376  of  the  Civil  Code,  this  provision  was  amended  by  
Republic   Act   No.   9048   in   so   far   as   clerical   or   typographical   errors   are   involved.   The  
correction  or  change  of  such  matters  can  now  be  made  through  administrative  proceedings  
and  without  the  need  for  a  judicial  order.  In  effect,  Rep.  Act  No.  9048  removed  from  the  ambit  
of  Rule  108  of  the  Rules  of  Court  the  correction  of  such  errors.  Rule  108  now  applies  only  to  
substantial  changes  and  corrections  in  entries  in  the  civil  register.  
 
Same;  Same;  The  entries  envisaged  in  Article  412  of  the  Civil  Code  and  correctable  under  Rule  
108  of  the  Rules  of  Court  are  those  provided  in  Articles  407  and  408  of  the  Civil  Code;  The  acts,  
events  or  factual  errors  contemplated  under  Article  407  of  the  Civil  Code  include  even  those  
that   occur   after   birth.—Under   Rep.   Act   No.   9048,   a   correction   in   the   civil   registry   involving  

  10  
the   change   of   sex   is   not   a   mere   clerical   or   typographical   error.   It   is   a   substantial   change   for  
which  the  applicable  procedure  is  Rule  108  of  the  Rules  of  Court.  The  entries  envisaged  in  
Article  412  of  the  Civil  Code  and  correctable  under  Rule  108  of  the  Rules  of  Court  are  those  
provided  in  Articles  407  and  408  of  the  Civil  Code:  ART.  407.  Acts,  events  and  judicial  decrees  
concerning  the  civil  status  of  persons  shall  be  recorded  in  the  civil  register.  ART.  408.  The  
following  shall  be  entered  in  the  civil  register:    
(1)  Births;    
(2)  marriages;    
(3)  deaths;    
(4)  legal  separations;    
(5)  annulments  of  marriage;    
(6)  judgments  declaring  marriages  void  from  the  beginning;    
(7)  legitimations;    
(8)  adoptions;    
(9)  acknowledgments  of  natural  children;    
(10)  naturalization;    
(11)  loss,  or    
(12)  recovery  of  citizenship;    
(13)  civil  interdiction;    
(14)  judicial  determination  of  filiation;    
(15)  voluntary  emancipation  of  a  minor;  and    
(16)  changes  of  name.    
The  acts,  events  or  factual  errors  contemplated  under  Article  407  of  the  Civil  Code  include  
even  those  that  occur  after  birth.  
 
Same;  Same;  Same;  Same;  The  current  state  of  Philippine  statutes  apparently  compels  that  a  
person  be  classified  either  as  a  male  or  as  a  female,  but  this  Court  is  not  controlled  by  mere  
appearances   when   nature   itself   fundamentally   negates   such   rigid   classification.—Intersex  
individuals   are   treated   in   different   ways   by   different   cultures.   In   most   societies,   intersex  
individuals  have  been  expected  to  conform  to  either  a  male  or  female  gender  role.  Since  the  
rise   of   modern   medical   science   in   Western   societies,   some   intersex   people   with   ambiguous  
external   genitalia   have   had   their   genitalia   surgically   modified   to   resemble   either   male   or  
female   genitals.   More   commonly,   an   intersex   individual   is   considered   as   suffering   from   a  
“disorder”   which   is   almost   always   recommended   to   be   treated,   whether   by   surgery   and/or  
by  taking  lifetime  medication  in  order  to  mold  the  individual  as  neatly  as  possible  into  the  
category  of  either  male  or  female.  In  deciding  this  case,  we  consider  the  compassionate  calls  
for   recognition   of   the   various   degrees   of   intersex   as   variations   which   should   not   be   subject  
to   outright   denial.   “It   has   been   suggested   that   there   is   some   middle   ground   between   the  
sexes,  a  ‘no-­‐‑man’s  land’  for  those  individuals  who  are  neither  truly  ‘male’  nor  truly  ‘female.’”  
The  current  state  of  Philippine  statutes  apparently  compels  that  a  person  be  classified  either  
as  a  male  or  as  a  female,  but  this  Court  is  not  controlled  by  mere  appearances  when  nature  
itself  fundamentally  negates  such  rigid  classification.  
 
Same;  Same;  Names;  There  is  merit  in  the  change  of  name  of  a  person  with  Congenital  Adrenal  
Hyperplasia   (CAH)   where   the   same   is   the   consequence   of   the   recognition   of   his   preferred  
gender.—As   for   respondent’s   change   of   name   under   Rule   103,   this   Court   has   held   that   a  

  11  
change  of  name  is  not  a  matter  of  right  but  of  judicial  discretion,  to  be  exercised  in  the  light  
of   the   reasons   adduced   and   the   consequences   that   will   follow.   The   trial   court’s   grant   of  
respondent’s   change   of   name   from   Jennifer   to   Jeff   implies   a   change   of   a   feminine   name   to   a  
masculine   name.   Considering   the   consequence   that   respondent’s   change   of   name   merely  
recognizes   his   preferred   gender,   we   find   merit   in   respondent’s   change   of   name.   Such   a  
change  will  conform  with  the  change  of  the  entry  in  his  birth  certificate  from  female  to  male.  
 
Republic  vs.  Kho  (2007)  
 
Civil   Registry;   Correction   of   Entries;   Names;   Citizenship;   Marital   Status;   Substantial   and  
controversial   amendments   in   entries   in   the   Civil   Registry   can   only   be   granted   in   an   adversary  
proceeding.—It   can   not   be   gainsaid   that   the   petition,   insofar   as   it   sought   to   change   the  
citizenship  of  Carlito’s  mother  as  it  appeared  in  his  birth  certificate  and  delete  the  “married”  
status   of   Carlito’s   parents   in   his   and   his   siblings’   respective   birth   certificates,   as   well   as  
change  the  date  of  marriage  of  Carlito  and  Marivel  involves  the  correction  of  not  just  clerical  
errors   of   a   harmless   and   innocuous   nature.   Rather,   the   changes   entail   substantial   and  
controversial  amendments.  For  the  change  involving  the  nationality  of  Carlito’s  mother  as  
reflected  in  his  birth  certificate  is  a  grave  and  important  matter  that  has  a  bear-­‐‑ing  and  effect  
on  the  citizenship  and  nationality  not  only  of  the  parents,  but  also  of  the  offspring.  Further,  
the  deletion  of  the  entry  that  Carlito’s  and  his  siblings’  parents  were  “married”  alters  their  
filiation  from  “legitimate”  to  “illegitimate,”  with  significant  implications  on  their  successional  
and  other  rights.  Clearly,  the  changes  sought  can  only  be  granted  in  an  adversary  proceeding.  
Labayo-­‐‑Rowe   v.   Republic,   168   SCRA   294   (1988),   explains   the   raison   d’être:   x   x   x.   The  
philosophy  behind  this  requirement  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  books  making  up  the  civil  register  
and   all   documents   relating   thereto   shall   be   prima   facie   evidence   of   the   facts   therein  
contained.   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.  
 
Same;  Same;  Same;  Same;  Same;  Words  and  Phrases;  Even  substantial  errors  in  a  civil  registry  
may   be   corrected   through   a   petition   filed   under   Rule   108   of   the   Rules   of   Court;   “Adversary  
proceeding”  has  been  defined  as  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.—In  Republic  v.  Valencia,  141  
SCRA   462   (1986),   however,   this   Court   ruled,   and   has   since   repeatedly   ruled,   that   even  
substantial  errors  in  a  civil  registry  may  be  corrected  through  a  petition  filed  under  Rule  108.  
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  x  What  is  meant  by  “appropriate  
adversary  proceeding?”  Black’s  Law  Dictionary  defines  “adversary  proceeding[”]  as  follows:  

  12  
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.  x  x  x    
 
Same;  Same;  Same;  Same;  Same;  Parties;  Publication  of  the  order  of  hearing  under  Section  4  of  
Rule  108  cures  the  failure  to  implead  an  indispensable  party.—What  surfaces  as  an  issue  is  
whether   the   failure   to   implead   Marivel   and   Carlito’s   parents   rendered   the   trial   short   of   the  
required   adversary   proceeding   and   the   trial   court’s   judgment   void.   A   similar   issue   was  
earlier  raised  in  Barco  v.  Court  of  Appeals,  420  SCRA  162  (2004).  That  case  stemmed  from  a  
petition  for  correction  of  entries  in  the  birth  certificate  of  a  minor,  June  Salvacion  Maravilla,  
to  reflect  the  name  of  her  real  father  (Armando  Gustilo)  and  to  correspondingly  change  her  
surname.   The   petition   was   granted   by   the   trial   court.   Barco,   whose   minor   daughter   was  
allegedly   fathered   also   by   Gustilo,   however,   sought   to   annul   the   trial   court’s   decision,  
claiming  that  she  should  have  been  made  a  party  to  the  petition  for  correction.  Failure  to  
implead  her  deprived  the  RTC  of  jurisdiction,  she  contended.  In  dismissing  Barco’s  petition,  
this  Court  held  that  the  publication  of  the  order  of  hearing  under  Section  4  of  Rule  108  cured  
the  failure  to  implead  an  indispensable  party.  
 
Same;   Same;   Same;   The   correction   of   the   name   of   the   wife   of   one   of   the   petitioners,   from  
“Maribel”   to   “Marivel,”   is   appropriate,   the   mistake   being   clearly   clerical   or   typographical,  
which   is   not   only   visible   to   the   eyes,   but   is   also   obvious   to   the   understanding   considering   that  
the  name  reflected  in  the  marriage  certificate  is  “Marivel.”—Outside  the  ambit  of  substantial  
corrections,   of   course,   is   the   correction   of   the   name   of   Carlito’s   wife   from   “Maribel”   to  
“Marivel.”  The  mistake  is  clearly  clerical  or  typographical,  which  is  not  only  visible  to  the  
eyes,   but   is   also   obvious   to   the   understanding   considering   that   the   name   reflected   in   the  
marriage   certificate   of   Carlito   and   his   wife   is   “Marivel.”   Apropos   is   Yu   v.   Republic,   21   SCRA  
1018  (1967),  which  held  that  changing  the  appellant’s  Christian  name  of  “Sincio”  to  “Sencio”  
amounts   merely   to   the   righting   of   a   clerical   error.   The   change   of   name   from   Beatriz  
Labayo/Beatriz   Labayu   to   Emperatriz   Labayo   was   also   held   to   be   a   mere   innocuous  
alteration,  which  can  be  granted  through  a  summary  proceeding.  The  same  ruling  holds  true  
with  respect  to  the  correction  in  Carlito’s  marriage  certificate  of  his  father’s  name  from  “John  
Kho”   to   “Juan   Kho.”   Except   in   said   marriage   certificate,   the   name   “Juan   Kho”   was   uniformly  
entered  in  the  birth  certificates  of  Carlito  and  of  his  siblings.  
 
Silverio  vs.  Republic  (2007)  
 
Change  of  Name;  The  State  has  an  interest  in  the  names  borne  by  individuals  and  entities  for  
purposes   of   identification;   A   change   of   name   is   a   privilege,   not   a   right.—The   State   has   an  
interest   in   the   names   borne   by   individuals   and   entities   for   purposes   of   identification.   A  
change   of   name   is   a   privilege,   not   a   right.   Petitions   for   change   of   name   are   controlled   by  
statutes.  In  this  connection,  Article  376  of  the  Civil  Code  provides:  ART.  376.  No  person  can  
change  his  name  or  surname  without  judicial  authority.  
 
Same;  Clerical  Error  Law  (RA  9048);  Administrative  Law;  Jurisdictions;  RA  9048  now  governs  
the  change  of  first  name,  and  vests  the  power  and  authority  to  entertain  petitions  for  change  of  
first   name   to   the   city   or   municipal   civil   registrar   or   consul   general   concerned;   The   intent   and  

  13  
effect  of  the  law  is  to  exclude  the  change  of  first  name  from  the  coverage  of  Rules  103  (Change  
of  Name)  and  108  (Cancellation  or  Correction  of  Entries  in  the  Civil  Registry)  of  the  Rules  of  
Court,   until   and   unless   an   administrative   petition   for   change   of   name   is   first   filed   and  
subsequently  denied—in  sum,  the  remedy  and  the  proceedings  regulating  change  of  first  name  
are  primarily  administrative  in  nature,  not  judicial.—RA  9048  now  governs  the  change  of  first  
name.  It  vests  the  power  and  authority  to  entertain  petitions  for  change  of  first  name  to  the  
city   or   municipal   civil   registrar   or   consul   general   concerned.   Under   the   law,   therefore,  
jurisdiction   over   applications   for   change   of   first   name   is   now   primarily   lodged   with   the  
aforementioned   administrative   officers.   The   intent   and   effect   of   the   law   is   to   exclude   the  
change  of  first  name  from  the  coverage  of  Rules  103  (Change  of  Name)  and  108  (Cancellation  
or   Correction   of   Entries   in   the   Civil   Registry)   of   the   Rules   of   Court,   until   and   unless   an  
administrative  petition  for  change  of  name  is  first  filed  and  subsequently  denied.  It  likewise  
lays   down   the   corresponding   venue,   form   and   procedure.   In   sum,   the   remedy   and   the  
proceedings   regulating   change   of   first   name   are   primarily   administrative   in   nature,   not  
judicial.  
 
Same;  Same;  Same;  Same;  Sex  Change;  A  change  of  name  does  not  alter  one’s  legal  capacity  or  
civil   status—RA   9048   does   not   sanction   a   change   of   first   name   on   the   ground   of   sex  
reassignment.—   Petitioner’s   basis   in   praying   for   the   change   of   his   first   name   was   his   sex  
reassignment.   He   intended   to   make   his   first   name   compatible   with   the   sex   he   thought   he  
transformed   himself   into   through   surgery.   However,   a   change   of   name   does   not   alter   one’s  
legal  capacity  or  civil  status.  RA  9048  does  not  sanction  a  change  of  first  name  on  the  ground  
of  sex  reassignment.  Rather  than  avoiding  confusion,  changing  petitioner’s  first  name  for  his  
declared  purpose  may  only  create  grave  complications  in  the  civil  registry  and  the  public  
interest.   Before   a   person   can   legally   change   his   given   name,   he   must   present   proper   or  
reasonable  cause  or  any  compelling  reason  justifying  such  change.  In  addition,  he  must  show  
that  he  will  be  prejudiced  by  the  use  of  his  true  and  official  name.  In  this  case,  he  failed  to  
show,   or   even   allege,   any   prejudice   that   he   might   suffer   as   a   result   of   using   his   true   and  
official  name.  
 
Same;  Same;  A  petition  in  the  trial  court  in  so  far  as  it  prays  for  change  of  first  name  is  not  
within   that   court’s   primary   jurisdiction   as   the   petition   should   be   filed   with   the   local   civil  
registrar  concerned,  namely,  where  the  birth  certificate  is  kept.—The  petition  in  the  trial  court  
in  so  far  as  it  prayed  for  the  change  of  petitioner’s  first  name  was  not  within  that  court’s  
primary   jurisdiction   as   the   petition   should   have   been   filed   with   the   local   civil   registrar  
concerned,  assuming  it  could  be  legally  done.  It  was  an  improper  remedy  because  the  proper  
remedy   was   administrative,   that   is,   that   provided   under   RA   9048.   It   was   also   filed   in   the  
wrong  venue  as  the  proper  venue  was  in  the  Office  of  the  Civil  Registrar  of  Manila  where  his  
birth  certificate  is  kept.  More  importantly,  it  had  no  merit  since  the  use  of  his  true  and  official  
name   does   not   prejudice   him   at   all.   For   all   these   reasons,   the   Court   of   Appeals   correctly  
dismissed  petitioner’s  petition  in  so  far  as  the  change  of  his  first  name  was  concerned.  
 
Same;  Same;  Sex  Change;  No  law  allows  the  change  of  entry  in  the  birth  certificate  as  to  sex  on  
the  ground  of  sex  reassignment;  Under  RA  9048,  a  correction  in  the  civil  registry  involving  the  
change  of  sex  is  not  a  mere  clerical  or  typographical  error—it  is  a  substantial  change  for  which  
the  applicable  procedure  is  Rule  108  of  the  Rules  of  Court.—Section  2(c)  of  RA  9048  defines  

  14  
what  a  “clerical  or  typographical  error”  is:  SECTION  2.  Definition  of  Terms.—As  used  in  this  
Act,  the  following  terms  shall  mean:  x  x  x            x  x  x            x  x  x  (3)  “Clerical  or  typographical  error”  
refers   to   a   mistake   committed   in   the   performance   of   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   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.   (emphasis   supplied)   Under   RA   9048,   a  
correction   in   the   civil   registry   involving   the   change   of   sex   is   not   a   mere   clerical   or  
typographical  error.  It  is  a  substantial  change  for  which  the  applicable  procedure  is  Rule  108  
of   the   Rules   of   Court.   The   entries   envisaged   in   Article   412   of   the   Civil   Code   and   correctable  
under  Rule  108  of  the  Rules  of  Court  are  those  provided  in  Articles  407  and  408  of  the  Civil  
Code.  
 
Same;  Same;  Same;  Words  and  Phrases;  Statutory  Construction;  No  reasonable  interpretation  
of  Art.  407  of  the  Civil  Code  can  justify  the  conclusion  that  it  covers  the  correction  on  the  ground  
of  sex  reassignment;  To  correct  simply  means  “to  make  or  set  aright;  to  remove  the  faults  or  
error  from”  while  to  change  means  “to  replace  something  with  something  else  of  the  same  kind  
or   with   something   that   serves   as   a   substitute.”—The   acts,   events   or   factual   errors  
contemplated  under  Article  407  of  the  Civil  Code  include  even  those  that  occur  after  birth.  
However,   no   reasonable   interpretation   of   the   provision   can   justify   the   conclusion   that   it  
covers  the  correction  on  the  ground  of  sex  reassignment.  To  correct  simply  means  “to  make  
or   set   aright;   to   remove   the   faults   or   error   from”   while   to   change   means   “to   replace  
something   with   something   else   of   the   same   kind   or   with   something   that   serves   as   a  
substitute.”   The   birth   certificate   of   petitioner   contained   no   error.   All   entries   therein,  
including  those  corresponding  to  his  first  name  and  sex,  were  all  correct.  No  correction  is  
necessary.  
 
Same;  Same;  Same;  Same;  “Status”  refers  to  the  circumstances  affecting  the  legal  situation  (that  
is,   the   sum   total   of   capacities   and   incapacities)   of   a   person   in   view   of   his   age,   nationality   and  
his   family   membership.—“Status”   refers   to   the   circumstances   affecting   the   legal   situation  
(that  is,  the  sum  total  of  capacities  and  incapacities)  of  a  person  in  view  of  his  age,  nationality  
and  his  family  membership.  The  status  of  a  person  in  law  includes  all  his  personal  qualities  
and  relations,  more  or  less  permanent  in  nature,  not  ordinarily  terminable  at  his  own  will,  
such  as  his  being  legitimate  or  illegitimate,  or  his  being  married  or  not.  The  comprehensive  
term  status…  include  such  matters  as  the  beginning  and  end  of  legal  personality,  capacity  to  
have  rights  in  general,  family  relations,  and  its  various  aspects,  such  as  birth,  legitimation,  
adoption,  emancipation,  marriage,  divorce,  and  sometimes  even  succession.  
 
Limson  vs.  Gonzalez  (2014)  
 
Criminal   Law;   Anti-­‐‑Alias   Law;   Considering   that   he   was   not   shown   to   have   used   the   names   for  
unscrupulous  purposes,  or  to  deceive  or  confuse  the  public,  the  dismissal  of  the  charge  against  
him  was  justified  in  fact  and  in  law.—On  the  issue  of  the  alleged  use  of  illegal  aliases,  the  Court  
observes   that   respondent’s   aliases   involved   the   names   “Eugenio   Gonzalez,”   “Eugenio  
Gonzales,”   “Eugenio   Juan   Gonzalez,”   “Eugenio   Juan   Gonzalez   y   Regalado,”   “Eugenio   C.R.  

  15  
Gonzalez,”  “Eugenio  J.  Gonzalez,”  and  —  per  Limson  —  “Eugenio  Juan  Robles  Gonzalez.”  But  
these  names  contained  his  true  names,  albeit  at  times  joined  with  an  erroneous  middle  or  
second   name,   or   a   misspelled   family   name   in   one   instance.   The   records   disclose   that   the  
erroneous  middle  or  second  names,  or  the  misspelling  of  the  family  name  resulted  from  error  
or  inadvertence  left  unchecked  and  unrectified  over  time.  What  is  significant,  however,  is  
that  such  names  were  not  fictitious  names  within  the  purview  of  the  Anti-­‐‑Alias  Law;  and  that  
such   names   were   not   different   from   each   other.   Considering   that   he   was   not   also   shown   to  
have   used   the   names   for   unscrupulous   purposes,   or   to   deceive   or   confuse   the   public,   the  
dismissal  of  the  charge  against  him  was  justified  in  fact  and  in  law.  
 
Civil  Law;  Alias;  Words  and  Phrases;  An  alias  is  a  name  or  names  used  by  a  person  or  intended  
to  be  used  by  him  publicly  and  habitually,  usually  in  business  transactions,  in  addition  to  the  
real  name  by  which  he  was  registered  at  birth  or  baptized  the  first  time,  or  to  the  substitute  
name   authorized   by   a   competent   authority;   a   man’s   name   is   simply   the   sound   or   sounds   by  
which   he   is   commonly   designated   by   his   fellows   and   by   which   they   distinguish   him,   but  
sometimes   a   man   is   known   by   several   different   names   and   these   are   known   as   aliases.—An  
alias   is   a   name   or   names   used   by   a   person   or   intended   to   be   used   by   him   publicly   and  
habitually,  usually  in  business  transactions,  in  addition  to  the  real  name  by  which  he  was  
registered   at   birth   or   baptized   the   first   time,   or   to   the   substitute   name   authorized   by   a  
competent  authority;  a  man’s  name  is  simply  the  sound  or  sounds  by  which  he  is  commonly  
designated  by  his  fellows  and  by  which  they  distinguish  him,  but  sometimes  a  man  is  known  
by  several  different  names  and  these  are  known  as  aliases.  An  alias  is  thus  a  name  that  is  
different   from   the   individual’s   true   name,   and   does   not   refer   to   a   name   that   is   not   different  
from  his  true  name.  
 
Ursua  vs.  Court  of  Appeals  (1996)  
 
Same;  Names;  Aliases;  Criminal  Law;  C.A.  No.  142;  The  objective  and  purpose  of  C.A.  No.  142  
have  their  origin  and  basis  in  Act  No.  3883.—The  objective  and  purpose  of  C.A.  No.  142  have  
their  origin  and  basis  in  Act  No.  3883,  An  Act  to  Regulate  the  Use  in  Business  Transactions  of  
Names   other   than   True   Names,   Prescribing   the   Duties   of   the   Director   of   the   Bureau   of  
Commerce  and  Industry  in  its  Enforcement,  Providing  Penalties  for  Violations  thereof,  and  
for   other   purposes,   which   was   approved   on   14   November   1931   and   amended   by   Act   No.  
4147,  approved  on  28  November  1934.  
 
Same;  Same;  Same;  Same;  Same;  The  enactment  of  C.A.  No.  142  as  amended  was  made  primarily  
to   curb   the   common   practice   among   the   Chinese   of   adopting   scores   of   different   names   and  
aliases   which   created   tremendous   confusion   in   the   field   of   trade.—For   a   bit   of   history,   the  
enactment   of   C.A.   No.   142   as   amended   was   made   primarily   to   curb   the   common   practice  
among   the   Chinese   of   adopting   scores   of   different   names   and   aliases   which   created  
tremendous  confusion  in  the  field  of  trade.  Such  a  practice  almost  bordered  on  the  crime  of  
using   fictitious   names   which   for   obvious   reasons   could   not   be   successfully   maintained  
against   the   Chinese   who,   rightly   or   wrongly,   claimed   they   possessed   a   thousand   and   one  
names.  C.A.  No.  142  thus  penalized  the  act  of  using  an  alias  name,  unless  such  alias  was  duly  
authorized  by  proper  judicial  proceedings  and  recorded  in  the  civil  register.  

  16  
Same;  Same;  Same;  Same;  Same;  Words  and  Phrases;  ”Alias”  and  ”Name,”  Defined.—Clearly  
therefore  an  alias  is  a  name  or  names  used  by  a  person  or  intended  to  be  used  by  him  publicly  
and  habitually  usually  in  business  transactions  in  addition  to  his  real  name  by  which  he  is  
registered   at   birth   or   baptized   the   first   time   or   substitute   name   authorized   by   a   competent  
authority.  A  man’s  name  is  simply  the  sound  or  sounds  by  which  he  is  commonly  designated  
by  his  fellows  and  by  which  they  distinguish  him  but  sometimes  a  man  is  known  by  several  
different  names  and  these  are  known  as  aliases.  
 
Same;  Same;  Same;  Same;  Same;  The  use  of  a  fictitious  name  or  a  different  name  belonging  to  
another  person  in  a  single  instance  without  any  sign  or  indication  that  the  user  intends  to  be  
known  by  this  name  in  addition  to  his  real  name  from  that  day  forth  does  not  fall  within  the  
prohibition  in  C.A.  No.  142.—Hence,  the  use  of  a  fictitious  name  or  a  different  name  belonging  
to  another  person  in  a  single  instance  without  any  sign  or  indication  that  the  user  intends  to  
be  known  by  this  name  in  addition  to  his  real  name  from  that  day  forth  does  not  fall  within  
the  prohibition  contained  in  C.A.  No.  142  as  amended.  This  is  so  in  the  case  at  bench.  
 

  17