CLERICAL ERRORS b. Actually, petitioner no longer contested the RTC's ruling on this point.
G.R. 197174 – ONDE v. OFFICE OF THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF LAS PIÑAS
VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Petitioner Onde filed a petition for correction of entries in his certificate of live birth before
the RTC and named respondent Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Las Piñas City sole
respondent. Onde prayed that the following be corrected: (1) entry pertaining to the date and
place of parents' marriage (to "Not Married"), (2) First Name of Mother ("Tely" to "Matilde"),
and (3) First Name ("Franc Ler" to "Francler"). The RTC dismissed his petition holding that
while # (1) was a substantial correction, #s (2) and (3) were correctible by the City Civil
Registry under RA 9048. The SC agreed with the RTC, but clarified that such dismissal by
the RTC was not with prejudice and Onde may file a new trial to address # (1).
DOCTRINE
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.
(Emphasis supplied.)
FACTS
1. Petitioner Onde filed a petition for correction of entries in his certificate of live birth
before the RTC and named the Local Civil Registrar of Las Piñas City as sole
respondent.
2. Petitioner sought to correct the following:
a. Date and place of marriage of parents (from "December 23, 1983-Bicol" to
"Not Married")
b. First name of mother (from "Tely" to "Matilde")
c. His first name (from "Franc Ler" to "Francler")
3. Petitioner alleged that he is the illegitimate child of his parents, but his birth certificate
stated that his parents were married.
4. The RTC dismissed his petition for correction holding that:
a. It is insufficient in form and substance.
b. Proceedings must be adversarial since the first correction [Fact 2(a)] was
substantial in nature and would affect petitioner's status as a legitimate child.
c. The correction in the first name of petitioner and his mother can be done by
the city civil registrar per RA 9048.1
5. The RTC also denied Onde's Motion for Reconsideration, finding no proof that
petitioner's parents were not married.
6. Hence, Onde filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, raising four
issues (see ISSUE with HOLDING).
ISSUE with HOLDING
1. WON the RTC erred in ruling that the correction in the first names of petitioner and his
mother can be done by the city civil registrar. – NO.
a. Per RA 9048 as amended by RA 10172, the city civil registrar can correct the
first name of petitioner and his mother. (see Doctrine)
1
An Act Authorizing the City or Municipal Civil Registrar or the Consul General to Correct a Clerical or
Typographical Error in an Entry and/or Change of First Name or Nickname in the Civil Registrar Without
c. Silverio v. Republic
i. SC held that under RA No. 9048, jurisdiction over applications of
change of first name is now primarily lodged with administrative
officers
ii. Intent of the said law is to exclude the change of first name from the
coverage of Rule 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court until and
unless an administrative petition for such has been filed and
subsequently denied.
d. Republic v. Cagandahan
i. Remedies for change of name are primarily administrative in nature,
not judicial.
ii. Correction of clerical or typographical errors can now be made
through administrative proceedings without need of judicial order.
2. WON the RTC erred in ruling that changing the date of marriage of petitioner's parents
to "not married" was substantial in nature requiring adversarial proceedings. – NO.
a. Said correction is substantial as it affects his legitimacy and will convert him
from legitimate to illegitimate.
b. Republic v. Uy
i. SC 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.
ii. Substantial errors in the registry may be corrected and the true facts
established provided the parties avail themselves of the proper
adversary proceedings.
3. WON the RTC erred in dismissing the petition for correction of entries. – NO, but such
is not prejudicial.
a. Though such petition contained his prayer for a substantial change, the Court
is constrained to deny such petition since the same petition includes
corrections he sought on his and his mother's first name which are correctible
by administrative proceedings.
b. The RTC dismissal is without prejudice. Hence Onde can file a new petition
with the RTC to correct the erroneous entry on his birth certificate that his
parents were married.
c. Republic v. Valencia
i. 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
ii. Petition seeking a substantial correction must implead as parties
to the proceedings not only the local civil registrar but also all
persons who have or claim any interest which would be
affected by the correction.
iii. 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
Need of a Judicial Order, Amending for this Purpose Articles 376 and 412 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines.
1
 have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby
shall be made parties to the proceeding. (Emphasis supplied.)
d. Republic v. Uy
i. Substantial corrections require a strict compliance with the
requirements of the ROC.
e. Thus, in his new petition, Onde should at least implead his father and mother
as parties since the substantial correction will also affect them.

4. WON the RTC erred in ruling that there is no proof that petitioner's parents were not
married. – NO NEED TO ADDRESS THIS.
a. Onde will have his opportunity to prove his claim that parents weren't married
when he files a new petition for such purpose.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition and AFFIRM the Orders dated October 7, 2010 and
March 1, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 201, Las Piñas City, in Special
Proceedings Case No. 10-0043. The dismissal ordered by the Regional Trial Court is,
however, declared to be without prejudice.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

DIGESTER: