Change of Name

Held:
Yes.
1.
MA. LOURDES BARRIENTOS ELEOSIDA, for
and in behalf of her minor child, CHARLES
CHRISTIAN ELEOSIDA, petitioner, vs. LOCAL CIVIL
REGISTRAR OF QUEZON CITY, and CARLOS
VILLENA BORBON
G.R. No. 130277.
May 9, 2002
Puno, J
Nature:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the
Order[1] of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,
Branch 89, which dismissed motu proprio the petition of
Ma. Lourdes Eleosida to correct some entries in the birth
certificate of her son, Charles Christian. The birth
certificate shows, among others, that the child's full
name is Charles Christian Eleosida Borbon. He was born
on May 24, 1992 to Ma. Lourdes Barrientos Eleosida and
Carlos Villena Borbon. The birth certificate also
indicates that the child's parents were married on
January 10, 1985 in Batangas City .
Facts:
On January 30, 1997, petitioner Ma. Lourdes Eleosida
filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City seeking to correct the following entries in the birth
certificate of her son, Charles Christian: first, the
surname "Borbon" should be changed to "Eleosida;"
second, the date of the parents' wedding should be left
blank; and third, the informant's name should be "Ma.
Lourdes B. Eleosida," instead of "Ma. Lourdes E.
Borbon." In support of her petition, petitioner alleged
that she gave birth to her son out of wedlock on May 24,
1992; that she and the boy's father, Carlos Borbon,
were never married; and that the child is therefore
illegitimate and should follow the mother's surname.
The petition impleaded the Local Registrar of Quezon
City and Carlos Villena Borbon as respondents.
On April 23, 1997, the trial court issued a notice of
hearing. On June 26, 1997, the trial court issued another
order setting the date for the presentation of evidence
on July 23, 1997.
RTC Ruling:
On
August
25,
1997,
the
trial
court motu
proprio dismissed the petition for lack of merit. It ruled:
It is an established jurisprudence that, only CLERICAL
ERRORS OF A HARMLESS AND INNOCUOUS NATURE
like: misspelled name, occupation of the parents, etc.,
may be the subject of a judicial order (contemplated
under Article 412 of the New Civil Code), authorizing
changes or corrections and: NOT as may affect the
CIVIL STATUS, NATIONALITY OR CITIZENSHIP OF THE
PERSONS INVOLVED.
Issue:
Whether corrections of entries in the certificate of live
birth pursuant to Article 412 of the Civil Code, in relation
to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court may be allowed even if
the errors to be corrected are substantial and not
merely clerical errors of a harmless and innocuous
nature.

Ratio:
Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court provides the
procedure for cancellation or correction of entries in the
civil registry. The proceedings under said rule may
either be summary or adversary in nature. If the
correction sought to be made in the civil register 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.[10] This is our ruling in Republic vs.
Valencia[11] where we held that even substantial errors
in a civil registry may be corrected and the true facts
established under Rule 108 provided the parties
aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the
appropriate adversary 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. The Court further laid down the procedural
requirements to make the proceedings under Rule 108
adversary, thus:
The pertinent sections of Rule 108 provide:
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 in 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, file his opposition thereto.
Thus, the persons who must be made parties to a
proceeding concerning the cancellation or correction of
an entry in the civil register are--(1) the civil registrar,
and (2) all persons who have or claim any interest which
would be affected thereby. Upon the filing of the
petition, it becomes the duty of the court to--(1) issue
an order fixing the time and place for the hearing of the
petition, and (2) cause the order for hearing to be
published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks
in a newspaper of general circulation in the
province. The following are likewise entitled to oppose
the petition:--(1) the civil registrar, and (2) any person
having or claiming any interest under the entry whose
cancellation or correction is sought.

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 vs. Valencia provided that the
appropriate procedural requirements are complied with.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is GRANTED and the
Order dated August 25, 1997 of the RTC of Quezon City,
Branch 89, subject of the petition at bar is set
aside. The case is REMANDED to the court a quo for
further proceedings.
2.
Republic vs. Kho
G.R. No. 170340
June 29, 2007
Carpio Morales, J:
Nature:
Challenged via petition for review on certiorari is the
October 27, 2005 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA)
in CA-G.R. CV No. 78124 which affirmed the September
4, 2002 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Butuan City, Branch 5 granting the prayer of
respondents Carlito I. Kho (Carlito), Michael Kho, Mercy
Nona Kho-Fortun, and Heddy Moira Kho-Serrano for the
correction of entries in their birth certificates as well as
those of Carlitos minor children Kevin and Kelly Dogmoc
Kho.
Facts:
On February 12, 2001, Carlito and his siblings Michael,
Mercy Nona and Heddy Moira filed before the RTC of
Butuan City a verified petition for correction of entries in
the civil registry of Butuan City to effect changes in their
respective birth certificates. Carlito also asked the court
in behalf of his minor children, Kevin and Kelly, to order
the correction of some entries in their birth certificates.
In the case of Carlito, he requested the correction in his
birth certificate of the citizenship of his mother to
"Filipino" instead of "Chinese," as well as the deletion of
the word "married" opposite the phrase "Date of
marriage of parents" because his parents, Juan Kho and
Epifania Inchoco (Epifania), were allegedly not legally
married. The same request to delete the "married"
status of their parents from their respective birth
certificates was made by Carlitos siblings Michael,
Mercy Nona, and Heddy Moira. With respect to the birth
certificates of Carlitos children, he prayed that the date
of his and his wifes marriage be corrected from April
27, 1989 to January 21, 2000, the date appearing in
their marriage certificate.
On April 23, 2001, Carlito et al. filed an Amended
Petition3 in which it was additionally prayed that
Carlitos second name of "John" be deleted from his
record of birth; and that the name and citizenship of
Carlitos father in his (Carlitos) marriage certificate be
corrected from "John Kho" to "Juan Kho" and "Filipino" to
"Chinese," respectively.

On September 14, 2001,7 the OSG entered its

appearance with an authorization to the city prosecutor
of Butuan City to appear in the case and render
assistance to it (the OSG).
On
January
31,
2002,
respondents
presented
documentary evidence showing compliance with the
jurisdictional requirements of the petition and
testimonial evidence consisting of the testimonies of
Carlito and his mother, Epifania. During the same
hearing, an additional correction in the birth certificates
of Carlitos children was requested to the effect that the
first name of their mother be rectified from "Maribel" to
"Marivel."
RTC Ruling:
The trial court directed the local civil registrar of Butuan
City to correct the entries in the record of birth of
Carlito, as follows: (1) change the citizenship of his
mother from "Chinese" to "Filipino"; (2) delete "John"
from his name; and (3) delete the word "married"
opposite the date of marriage of his parents. The last
correction was ordered to be effected likewise in the
birth certificates of respondents Michael, Mercy Nona,
and Heddy Moira. As well as the prayer for the
correction in the birth certificates of Carlitos minor
children are granted. Further, the trial court granted the
correction prayed for in Carlitos marriage certificate.
Petitioner, Republic of the Philippines, appealed the RTC
Decision to the CA, faulting the trial court in granting
the petition for correction of entries in the subject
documents despite the failure of respondents to implead
the minors mother, Marivel, as an indispensable party
and to offer sufficient evidence to warrant the
corrections with regard to the questioned "married"
status of Carlito and his siblings parents, and the
latters citizenship.
CA Ruling;
By the assailed Decision of October 27, 2005, the CA
denied petitioners appeal and affirmed the decision of
the trial court.
Issue:
Whether the failure to implead Marivel and Carlitos
parents rendered the trial short of the required
adversary proceeding and the trial courts judgment
void.
Held:
No.
Ratio:
A similar issue was earlier raised in Barco v. Court of
Appeals.21 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
courts 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 Barcos 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.
The essential requisite for allowing substantial
corrections of entries in the civil registry is that the true
facts be established in an appropriate adversarial
proceeding. This is embodied in Section 3, Rule 108 of
the Rules of Court, which states:
Section 3. Parties. When cancellation or correction of
an entry in the civil register is sought, the civil registrar
and all persons who have or claim any interest which
would be affected thereby shall be made parties to the
proceeding.
xxxx
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
wards share in the estate of her father. x x x.
Yet, even though Barco was not impleaded in the
petition, the Court of Appeals correctly pointed out that
the defect was cured by compliance with Section 4, Rule
108, which requires notice by publication 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
xxxx
Verily, a petition for correction is an action in rem, an
action against a thing and not against a person. The
decision on the petition binds not only the parties
thereto but the whole world. An in rem proceeding is
validated essentially through publication. Publication is
notice to the whole world that the proceeding has for its
object to bar indefinitely all who might be minded to
make an objection of any sort against the right sought
to be established. 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. 22
Given the above ruling, it becomes unnecessary to rule
on whether Marivel or respondents parents should have
been impleaded as parties to the proceeding. It may not
be amiss to mention, however, that during the hearing
on January 31, 2002, the city prosecutor who was acting
as representative of the OSG did not raise any objection
to the non-inclusion of Marivel and Carlitos parents as
parties to the proceeding.
Parenthetically, it seems highly improbable that Marivel
was unaware of the proceedings to correct the entries in
her childrens birth certificates, especially since the
notices, orders and decision of the trial court were all
sent to the residence 23 she shared with Carlito and the
children.
It is also well to remember that the role of the court in
hearing a petition to correct certain entries in the civil
registry is to ascertain the truth about the facts
recorded therein.24
With respect to the date of marriage of Carlito and
Marivel, their certificate of marriage 25 shows that indeed
they were married on January 21, 2000, not on April 27,
1989. Explaining the error, Carlito declared that the

date "April 27, 1989" was supplied by his helper, adding

that he was not married to Marivel at the time his sons
were born because his previous marriage was annulled
only in 1999.26 Given the evidence presented by
respondents, the CA observed that the minors were
illegitimate at birth, hence, the correction would bring
about no change at all in the nature of their filiation.
With respect to Carlitos mother, it bears noting that she
declared at the witness stand that she was not married
to Juan Kho who died in 1959. 27 Again, that testimony
was not challenged by the city prosecutor.
The documentary evidence supporting the deletion from
Carlitos and his siblings birth certificates of the entry
"Married" opposite the date of marriage of their parents,
moreover, consisted of a certification issued on
November 24, 1973 by St. Joseph (Butuan City) Parish
priest Eugene van Vught stating that Juan Kho and
Epifania had been living together as common law couple
since 1935 but have never contracted marriage legally. 28
A certification from the office of the city registrar, which
was appended to respondents Amended Petition,
likewise stated that it has no record of marriage
between
Juan
Kho
and
Epifania.29 Under
the
circumstances, the deletion of the word "Married"
opposite the "date of marriage of parents" is warranted.
With respect to the correction in Carlitos birth
certificate of his name from "Carlito John" to "Carlito,"
the same was properly granted under Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court. As correctly pointed out by the CA, the
cancellation or correction of entries involving changes of
name falls under letter "o" of the following provision of
Section 2 of Rule 108:30
Section 2. Entries subject to cancellation or correction.
Upon good and valid grounds, the following entries in
the civil register may be cancelled or corrected: (a)
births; (b) marriages; (c) deaths; (d) legal separation;
(e) judgments of annulment 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. (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
Hence, while the jurisdictional requirements of Rule 103
(which governs petitions for change of name) were not
complied with, observance of the provisions of Rule 108
suffices to effect the correction sought for.
More importantly, Carlitos official transcript of record
from the Urious College in Butuan City, 31 certificate of
eligibility from the Civil Service Commission, 32 and voter
registration record33 satisfactorily show that he has been
known by his first name only. No prejudice is thus likely
to arise from the dropping of the second name.
The correction of the mothers citizenship from Chinese
to Filipino as appearing in Carlitos birth record was also
proper. Of note is the fact that during the cross
examination by the city prosecutor of Epifania, he did
not deem fit to question her citizenship. Such failure to
oppose the correction prayed for, which certainly was
not respondents fault, does not in any way change the
adversarial nature of the proceedings.
Also significant to note is that the birth certificates of
Carlitos siblings uniformly stated the citizenship of
Epifania as "Filipino." To disallow the correction in
Carlitos birth record of his mothers citizenship would

perpetuate an inconsistency in the natal circumstances

of the siblings who are unquestionably born of the same
mother and father.
Outside the ambit of substantial corrections, of course,
is the correction of the name of Carlitos 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 34 considering that
the name reflected in the marriage certificate of Carlito
and his wife is "Marivel."
Apropos is Yu v. Republic 35 which held that changing the
appellants 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.36 The same ruling holds true with
respect to the correction in Carlitos marriage certificate
of his fathers 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.37
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision of the
Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
3.
Kilosbayan
Foundation
vs.
Executive
Secretary Ermita
G.R. No. 177721
July 3, 2007
Azcuna, J.
Nature:
Petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court.
Facts:
On May 16, 2007, respondent Executive Secretary, in
representation of the Office of the President, announced
an appointment in favor of respondent Gregory S. Ong
as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court to fill up the
vacancy created by the retirement on April 28, 2007 of
Associate Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. The appointment
was reported the following day, May 17, 2007, by the
major daily publications.
On May 18, 2007, the major daily publications reported
that the appointment was "recalled" or "held in
abeyance" by Malacaang in view of the question
relating to the citizenship of respondent Gregory S. Ong.
There is no indication whatever that the appointment
has been cancelled by the Office of the President.
On May 19, 2007, the major daily publications reported
that respondent Executive Secretary stated that the
appointment is "still there except that the validation of
the issue is being done by the Judicial and Bar Council
(JBC)."
Petitioners contend that the appointment extended to
respondent
Ong
through
respondent
Executive
Secretary is patently unconstitutional, arbitrary,
whimsical and issued with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioners claim that respondent Ong is a Chinese
citizen, that this fact is plain and incontestable, and that
his own birth certificate indicates his Chinese
citizenship. Petitioners attached a copy of said birth
certificate as Annex "H" to the petition. The birth
certificate, petitioners add, reveals that at the time of

respondent Ongs birth on May 25, 1953, his father was

Chinese and his mother was also Chinese.
Petitioners invoke the Constitution:
Section 7 (1) of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution
provides that "No person shall be appointed Member of
the Supreme Court or any lower collegiate court unless
he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines ." Sec. 2 of
Art. IV defines "natural-born citizens as those who are
citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to
perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine
Citizenship."1
Petitioners maintain that even if it were granted that
eleven years after respondent Ongs birth his father was
finally granted Filipino citizenship by naturalization, that,
by itself, would not make respondent Ong a natural-born
Filipino citizen.
Petitioners thereupon pray that a writ of certiorari be
issued annulling the appointment issued to respondent
Ong as Associate Justice of this Court.
Subsequently, on May 24, 2007, petitioners filed an
Urgent Motion for the Issuance of a Temporary
Restraining Order (TRO), praying that a TRO be issued,
in accordance with the Rules of Court, to prevent and
restrain respondent Executive Secretary from releasing
the appointment of respondent Ong, and to prevent and
restrain respondent Ong from assuming the office and
discharging the functions of Associate Justice of this
Court.
Executive Secretarys Comment:
Respondent Executive Secretary accordingly filed his
Comment, essentially stating that the appointment of
respondent Ong as Associate Justice of this Court on
May 16, 2007 was made by the President pursuant to
the powers vested in her by Article VIII, Section 9 of the
Constitution, thus:
SEC. 9. The Members of the Supreme Court and Judges
of lower courts shall be appointed by the President from
a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial
and Bar Council for every vacancy. Such appointments
need no confirmation.
Respondent Executive Secretary added that the
President appointed respondent Ong from among the
list of nominees who were duly screened by and bore
the imprimatur of the JBC created under Article VIII,
Section 8 of the Constitution. Said respondent further
stated: "The appointment, however, was not released,
but instead, referred to the JBC for validation of
respondent Ongs citizenship."
Ongs Comment:
Respondent Ong submitted his Comment with
Opposition, maintaining that he is a natural-born Filipino
citizen; that petitioners have no standing to file the
present suit; and that the issue raised ought to be
addressed to the JBC as the Constitutional body
mandated to review the qualifications of those it
recommends to judicial posts. Furthermore, the
petitioners in his view failed to include the President
who is an indispensable party as the one who extended
the appointment.
As to his citizenship, respondent Ong traces his
ancestral lines to one Maria Santos of Malolos, Bulacan,
born on November 25, 1881, who was allegedly a
Filipino citizen5 who married Chan Kin, a Chinese citizen;
that these two had a son, Juan Santos; that in 1906
Chan Kin died in China, as a result of which Maria
Santos reverted to her Filipino citizenship; that at that

time Juan Santos was a minor; that Juan Santos thereby

also became a Filipino citizen;6 that respondent Ongs
mother, Dy Guiok Santos, is the daughter of the spouses
Juan Santos and Sy Siok Hian, a Chinese citizen, who
were married in 1927; that, therefore, respondents
mother was a Filipino citizen at birth; that Dy Guiok
Santos later married a Chinese citizen, Eugenio Ong Han
Seng, thereby becoming a Chinese citizen; that when
respondent Ong was eleven years old his father,
Eugenio Ong Han Seng, was naturalized, and as a result
he, his brothers and sisters, and his mother were
included in the naturalization.
Respondent Ong subsequently obtained from the
Bureau of Immigration and the DOJ a certification and
an identification that he is a natural-born Filipino citizen
under Article IV, Sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution,
since his mother was a Filipino citizen when he was
born.
Petitioners, in turn, filed a Consolidated Reply, in which
they asserted their standing to file this suit on the
strength
of
previous
decisions
of
this
Court, e.g., Kilosbayan,
Incorporated
v.
Guingona8 and Kilosbayan, Incorporated v. Morato,9 on
the ground that the case is one of transcendental
importance.
They
claim
that
the
Presidents
appointment of respondent Ong as Supreme Court
Justice violates the Constitution and is, therefore,
attended with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction. Finally, they reiterate that
respondent Ongs birth certificate, unless corrected by
judicial order in non-summary proceedings for the
purpose, is binding on all and is prima facie evidence of
what it states, namely, that respondent Ong is a
Chinese citizen. The alleged naturalization of his father
when he was a minor would not make him a naturalborn Filipino citizen.
Issue1:
Whether the petitioners have legal standing to raise the
issue?
Held:
Yes.
Ratio:
Petitioners have standing to file the suit simply as
peoples organizations and taxpayers since the matter
involves an issue of utmost and far-reaching
Constitutional importance, namely, the qualification
nay, the citizenship of a person to be appointed a
member of this Court. Standing has been accorded and
recognized in similar instances.
Issue2:
Whether the President should be impleaded?
Held:
No.
Ratio:
As to having to implead the President as an alleged
necessary party. This is not necessary since the suit
impleads the Executive Secretary who is the alter ego of
the President and he has in fact spoken for her in his
Comment. Furthermore, the suit does not seek to stop
the President from extending the appointment but only

the Executive Secretary from releasing

respondent Ong from accepting the same.

it

and

Issue3:
Whether the Supreme Court is the proper forum to
litigate the issue?
Held:
Yes.
Ratio:
As to the proper forum for litigating the issue of
respondent Ongs qualification for memberhip of this
Court. This case is a matter of primordial importance
involving compliance with a Constitutional mandate. As
the body tasked with the determination of the merits of
conflicting claims under the Constitution, 11 the Court is
the proper forum for resolving the issue, even as the JBC
has the initial competence to do so.
Issue4 (Principal issue):
Is respondent Ong a natural-born Filipino citizen?
Held:
No. He is still required to submit evidentiary documents.
Ratio:
In his petition to be admitted to the Philippine bar,
docketed as B.E. No. 1398-N filed on September 14,
1979, under O.R. No. 8131205 of that date, respondent
Ong alleged that he is qualified to be admitted to the
Philippine bar because, among others, he is a Filipino
citizen; and that he is a Filipino citizen because his
father, Eugenio Ong Han Seng, a Chinese citizen, was
naturalized in 1964 when he, respondent Ong, was a
minor of eleven years and thus he, too, thereby became
a Filipino citizen. As part of his evidence, in support of
his petition, be submitted his birth certificate and the
naturalization papers of his father. His birth
certificate12 states that he was a Chinese citizen at birth
and that his mother, Dy Guiok Santos, was a Chinese
citizen and his father, Eugenio Ong Han Seng, was also
a Chinese citizen.
It was on the basis of these allegations under oath and
the submitted evidence of naturalization that this Court
allowed respondent Ong to take the oath as a lawyer.
It is clear, therefore, that from the records of this Court,
respondent Ong is a naturalized Filipino citizen. The
alleged subsequent recognition of his natural-born
status by the Bureau of Immigration and the DOJ cannot
amend the final decision of the trial court stating that
respondent Ong and his mother were naturalized along
with his father.
Furthermore, as petitioners correctly submit, no
substantial change or correction in an entry in a civil
register can be made without a judicial order, and,
under the law, a change in citizenship status is a
substantial change.
Republic Act No. 9048 provides in Section 2 (3) that a
summary administrative proceeding to correct clerical
or typographical errors in a birth certificate cannot apply
to a change in nationality. Substantial corrections to the
nationality or citizenship of persons recorded in the civil
registry should, therefore, be effected through a petition
filed in court under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

The series of events and long string of alleged changes

in the nationalities of respondent Ongs ancestors, by
various births, marriages and deaths, all entail factual
assertions that need to be threshed out in proper
judicial proceedings so as to correct the existing records
on his birth and citizenship. The chain of evidence would
have to show that Dy Guiok Santos, respondent Ongs
mother, was a Filipino citizen, contrary to what still
appears in the records of this Court. Respondent Ong
has the burden of proving in court his alleged ancestral
tree as well as his citizenship under the time-line of
three Constitutions.17 Until this is done, respondent Ong
cannot accept an appointment to this Court as that
would be a violation of the Constitution. For this reason,
he can be prevented by injunction from doing so.
CHANGE OF NAME VS CORRECTION OF ENTRIES
CASE 4
REPUBLIC vs CAPOTE
514 SCRA 76
G.R. No. 157043, February 2, 2007
CORONA, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari1 seeks to set aside
the Court of Appeals (CA) decision 2 dated January 13,
2003 in CA-G.R. CV No. 66128, which affirmed the
decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 23 of
San Juan, Southern Leyte dated September 14, 1999
granting a petition for change of name.
FACTS:
Respondent Trinidad R. A. Capote: filed a
petition for change of name of her ward from Giovanni
N. Gallamaso toGiovanni Nadores. The minor, whose
mother is residing and working abroad, was left under
the care of [respondent] since he was yet nine (9) years
old up to the present and he is the illegitimate natural
child of Corazon P. Nadores and Diosdado Gallamaso.
[He] was born on July 9, 1982 [,] prior to the effectivity
of the New Family Code and as such, his mother used
the surname of the natural father despite the absence
of marriage between them; and [Giovanni] has been
known by that name since birth [as per his birth
certificate registered at the Local Civil Register of San
Juan, Southern Leyte]; The father, Diosdado Gallamaso,
from the time [Giovanni] was born and up to the
present, failed to take up his responsibilities [to him] on
matters of financial, physical, emotional and spiritual
concerns. [Giovannis pleas] for attention along that line
[fell] on deaf ears. She prayed for an order directing the
local civil registrar to effect the change of name on
Giovannis birth certificate.
TRIAL COURT:
gave
due
course
to
the
petition.5 Publication of the petition in a newspaper of
general circulation in the province of Southern Leyte
once a week for three consecutive weeks was likewise
ordered. It also directed that the local civil registrar be
notified and that the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) be sent a copy of the petition and order.7
RESPONDENT: moved for leave of court to present her
evidence ex
parte before
a
court-appointed
commissioner, since there was no opposition.

OSG, acting through the Provincial Prosecutor, did not

object;
TRIAL COURT: granted the motion. After the reception
of evidence, the trial court rendered a decision ordering
the change of name from Giovanni N. Gallamaso to
Giovanni Nadores.
OSG: filed an appeal with a lone assignment of error:
the court a quo erred in granting the petition in a
summary proceeding.
CA:
ruled that the proceedings were sufficiently
adversarial in nature, affirmed the RTC decision ordering
the change of name.
ISSUE 1: Whether rule 103 or 108 will apply
HELD 1: Rule 103. The Rules of Court provides the
requirements and procedure for change of name. Here,
the appropriate remedy is covered by Rule 103, 15 a
separate and distinct proceeding from Rule 108 on mere
cancellation and correction of entries in the civil registry
(usually dealing only with innocuous or clerical errors
thereon).
The law and facts obtaining here favor
Giovannis petition. Giovanni availed of the proper
remedy, a petition for change of name under Rule 103
of the Rules of Court, and complied with all the
procedural requirements. After hearing, the trial court
found (and the appellate court affirmed) that the
evidence presented during the hearing of Giovannis
petition sufficiently established that, under Art. 176 of
the Civil Code, Giovanni is entitled to change his name
as he was never recognized by his father while his
mother has always recognized him as her child. A
change of name will erase the impression that he was
ever recognized by his father. It is also to his best
interest as it will facilitate his mothers intended petition
to have him join her in the United States. This Court will
not stand in the way of the reunification of mother and
son.
ISSUE 2: Whether the proceeding is adversarial
HELD 2: Yes. A proceeding is adversarial where the
party seeking relief has given legal warning to the other
party and afforded the latter an opportunity to contest
it.
Respondent gave notice of the petition through
publication as required by the rules. 25 With this, all
interested parties were deemed notified and the whole
world considered bound by the judgment therein. In
addition, the trial court gave due notice to the OSG by
serving a copy of the petition on it. Thus, all the
requirements to make a proceeding adversarial were
satisfied when all interested parties, including petitioner
as represented by the OSG, were afforded the
opportunity to contest the petition. There is no doubt
that this petition does not fall under Rule 108 for it is
not alleged that the entry in the civil registry suffers
from clerical or typographical errors. The relief sought
clearly goes beyond correcting erroneous entries in the
civil registry, although by granting the petition, the
result is the same in that a corresponding change in the
entry is also required to reflect the change in name.
In this regard, [appellee] Capote complied
with
the
requirement
for
an
adversarial
proceeding by posting in a newspaper of general

circulation notice of the filing of the petition. The

lower court also furnished the OSG a copy
thereof. Despite the notice, no one came forward
to oppose the petition including the OSG. The fact
that no one opposed the petition did not deprive
the court of its jurisdiction to hear the same nor
does it make the proceeding less adversarial in
nature. The lower court is still expected to exercise its
judgment to determine whether the petition is
meritorious or not and not merely accept as true the
arguments propounded. Considering that the OSG
neither opposed the petition nor the motion to present
its evidence ex parte when it had the opportunity to do
so, it cannot now complain that the proceedings in the
lower court were not adversarial enough.
CASE 5
PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME OF JULIAN LIM
CARULASON
WANG
vs.
CEBU
CITY
CIVIL
REGISTRAR
454 SCRA 155
G.R. No. 159966
TINGA, J.:
This is a Petition seeking to drop the petitioners
middle name and have his registered name changed
from Julian Lin Carulasan Wang to Julian Lin Wang.
FACTS: Julian Lin Carulasan Wang was born in Cebu City
on February 20, 1998 to parents Anna Lisa Wang and
Sing-Foe Wang who were then not yet married to each
other. When his parents subsequently got married on
September 22, 1998, ...they executed a deed of
legitimation of their son so that the childs name was
changed from Julian Lin Carulasan to Julian Lin
Carulasan 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 persons 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 Singapores 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.
RTC: rendered a decision denying the petition. It found
that the reason given for the change of name sought in
the petitionthat is, that petitioner Julian may be
discriminated against when studies in Singapore
because of his middle namedid not fall within the
grounds recognized by law. The change sought is merely
for the convenience of the child. It added that when
petitioner Julian reaches the age of majority, he could
then decide whether he will change his name by
dropping his middle name.
Petitioner: filed a motion for reconsideration of the
decision but this was denied. She then filed this Petition

for Review on Certiorari (Under Rule 45) 6 arguing that

the trial court has decided a question of substance not
theretofore determined by the Court, that is: whether or
not dropping the middle name of a minor child is
contrary to Article 1747 of the Family Code.
COURT: required the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) to comment on the petition.
OSG: filed itsComment11 positing that the trial court
correctly denied the petition for change of name. argues
that under Article 174 of the Family Code, legitimate
children have the right to bear the surnames of their
father and mother, and such right cannot be denied by
the mere expedient of dropping the same. There is also
no showing that the dropping of the middle name
"Carulasan" is in the best interest of petitioner, since
mere convenience is not sufficient to support a petition
for change of name and/or cancellation of entry. the
petitioner has not shown any compelling reason to
justify the change of name or the dropping of the middle
name, for that matter.
ISSUE: Whether the change of name / dropping of the
middle name of the petitioner should be granted
HELD: NO. To justify a request for change of name,
petitioner must show not only some proper or
compelling reason therefore but also that he will be
prejudiced by the use of his true and official name.
Among the grounds for change of name which have
been held valid are: (a) when the name is ridiculous,
dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or
pronounce; (b) when the change results as a legal
consequence, as in 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.
In the case at bar, the only reason advanced by
petitioner for the dropping his middle name is
convenience. However, how such change of name would
make his integration into Singaporean society easier
and convenient is not clearly established. That the
continued use of his middle name would cause
confusion and difficulty does not constitute proper and
reasonable cause to drop it from his registered complete
name.
In addition, petitioner is only a minor.
Considering the nebulous foundation on which his
petition for change of name is based, it is best that the
matter of change of his name be left to his judgment
and discretion when he reaches the age of majority. 26 As
he is of tender age, he may not yet understand and
appreciate the value of the change of his name and
granting of the same at this point may just prejudice
him in his rights under our laws.
CASE 6
CERUILA vs DELANTAR
477 SCRA 134
G.R. No. 140305, December 9, 2005

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
FACTS: Rosilyn complained against her father, Simplicio
Delantar (Simplicio) for child abuse, particularly
prostitution. Simplicio was incarcerated at the Pasay
City Jail starting August 22, 1996 which prompted the
filing of a petition for involuntary commitment of
Rosilyn in favor of the Department of Social Welfare and
Development (DSWD), as the whereabouts of the
mother, Librada Ceruila, was unknown.
RTC: granted the petition and Simplicios motion to
vacate said judgment was denied.
CERUILAS: filed a petition before the RTC of Manila,
entitled "IN THE MATTER OF CANCELLATION AND
ANNULMENT OF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF MARIA
ROSILYN TELIN DELANTAR," praying that the birth
certificate of Rosilyn be canceled and declared null and
void for the reasons that said birth certificate was made
an instrument of the crime of simulation of birth and
therefore invalid and spurious, and it falsified all
material entries therein.
a. The name of her mother which should not be
petitioner Librada A. Telin;
b. The signature of informant referring to Librada T.
Delantar being a forgery;
c. The name of Simplicio Delantar as the biological
father, considering that, as already mentioned, he is
merely the foster father and co-guardian in fact of Maria
Rosilyn and the name of the natural father in (sic)
unknown;
d. The date of marriage of the supposed parents, since
the parents reflected in said certificate were (sic)
actually full blood brother and sister and therefore
marriage between the two is virtually impossible;
e. The status of Maria Rosilyn as a legitimate child as
the same (sic) is actually not legitimate;
f. The date of actual birth of Marial (sic) Rosilyn, since
the known father merely made it appear that she was
born at the time the informations for the birth certificate
were supplied by him to the civil registrar or (sic) proper
recording;
g. The name of the physician who allegedly attended at
the time of birth of Maria Rosilyn, being a fictitious Dr.
Santos.
RTC: issued an Order setting the case for hearing on
March 19, 1997 and directed the publication of said
order once a week for three consecutive weeks in a
newspaper of general circulation. The Order also stated
that any person who is interested in the petition may
interpose his/her comment or opposition thereto on or
before the scheduled hearing.
Summons was sent to the Civil Register of
Manila.8 However, no representative appeared during
the scheduled hearing.

RTC: rendered its decision granting the petition of the

Ceruilas.
1. DECLARING the certificate of live birth of the Minor
Maria Rosilyn Telin Delantar as registered under the
Local Civil Registry No. 85-27325 of the office of the City
Civil Registrar of Manila as null and void ab initio: and
2. ORDERING the City Civil Registrar of Manila and the
National Statistics Office, Manila, to expunge from their
respective marriage registers the entry of the birth of
said minor and such other documents pertaining
thereto, if any.
ROSILYN, represented by her legal guardian, the
DSWD, filed, with the CA, a petition for the annulment of
judgment in the petition for cancellation of entry of her
birth certificate.13 She claimed that she and her
guardian were not notified of the petition and the
subsequent judgment and learned about the same only
from the news on May 16, 1997. 14 She argued that the
RTC decision was issued without jurisdiction and in
violation of her right to due process; that the Judge did
not have authority to declare her to be illegitimate; and
that mere correction of entries, not cancellation of the
entire certificate, is the appropriate remedy
CA: rendered the herein assailed decision, instant
Petition is GRANTED
ISSUE 1: Is the petition for annulment and cancellation
of the birth certificate of Rosilyn an ordinary civil action
or a special proceeding?
HELD 1: Considering that the petition, based on its
allegations, does not question the fact of birth of
Rosilyn, all matters assailing the truthfulness of any
entry in the birth certificate properly, including the date
of birth, fall under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court which
governs cancellation or correction of entries in the Civil
Registry. Thus, the petition filed by the Ceruilas, alleging
material entries in the certificate as having been
falsified, is properly considered as a special proceeding
pursuant to Section 3(c), Rule 1 and Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court.
ISSUE 2: whether the Ceruilas
requirements of Rule 108

comply with the

HELD 2: NO. 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.
Indeed, not only the civil registrar but also all
persons who have or claim any interest which would be
affected by a proceeding concerning the cancellation or
correction of an entry in the civil register must be made
parties thereto.35 As enunciated in Republic vs.
Benemerito,36 unless all possible indispensable parties
were duly notified of the proceedings, the same shall be
considered as falling much too short of the
requirements of the rules.37
Here, it is clear that no party could be more
interested in the cancellation of Rosilyns birth

certificate than Rosilyn herself. Her filiation, legitimacy,

and date of birth are at stake.
In the present case, only the Civil Registrar of Manila
was served summons, who, however, did not participate
in the proceedings. This alone is clearly not sufficient to
comply with the requirements laid down by the rules.
Petitioners further claim that the lack of
summons on Rosilyn was cured by the publication of the
order of the trial court setting the case for hearing for
three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
circulation.
Summons must still be served, not for the
purpose of vesting the courts with jurisdiction, but to
comply with the requirements of fair play and due
process.40 This is but proper, to afford the person
concerned the opportunity to protect her interest if she
so chooses.
Indeed, there were instances when we ruled that even
though an interested party was not impleaded in the
petition, such defect was cured by compliance with Sec.
4, Rule 108 on publication. In said cases, however,
earnest efforts were made by the petitioners in bringing
to court all possible interested parties.
CASE 7
BRAZA vs CITY CIVIL REGISTRAR OF HIMAMAYLAN
CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL
607 SCRA 638, G.R. No. 181174, December 4, 2009
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
FACTS: Petitioner Ma. Cristina Torres (Ma. Cristina) and
Pablo Sicad Braza, Jr. (Pablo), also known as "Pablito
Sicad Braza," were married1 on January 4, 1978. The
union bore Ma. Cristinas co-petitioners Paolo Josef2 and
Janelle Ann3 on May 8, 1978 and June 7, 1983,
respectively, and Gian Carlo4 on June 4, 1980. Pablo
died5 on April 15, 2002 in a vehicular accident in
Bandung, West Java, Indonesia. During the wake
following the repatriation of his remains to the
Philippines, respondent Lucille Titular (Lucille) began
introducing her co-respondent minor Patrick Alvin Titular
Braza (Patrick) as her and Pablo's son. Ma. Cristina
thereupon made inquiries in the course of which she
obtained Patrick's birth certificate6 from the Local Civil
Registrar of Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental with
the following entries:

subsequent marriage of
parents
on April
22,
1998at Manila. Henceforth,
the child shall be known
as Patrick
Alvin
Titular
Braza
Ma. Cristina likewise obtained a copy 7 of a marriage
contract showing that Pablo and Lucille were married on
April 22, 1998, drawing her and her co-petitioners to file
on December 23, 2005 before the Regional Trial Court of
Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental a petition 8 to
correct the entries in the birth record of Patrick in the
Local Civil Register.
Contending that Patrick could not have been legitimated
by the supposed marriage between Lucille and Pablo,
said marriage being bigamous on account of the valid
and subsisting marriage between Ma. Cristina and
Pablo, petitioners prayed for (1) the correction of the
entries in Patrick's birth record with respect to his
legitimation,
the
name
of
the
father
and
his acknowledgment, and the use of the last name
"Braza"; 2) a directive to Leon, Cecilia and Lucille, all
surnamed Titular, as guardians of the minor Patrick,
to submit Parick to DNA testing to determine his
paternity and filiation; and 3) the declaration of nullity
of the legitimation of Patrick as stated in his birth
certificate and, for this purpose, the declaration of the
marriage of Lucille and Pablo as bigamous.
PATRICK: filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction
TRIAL COURT: dismissed the petition without prejudice,
it holding that in a special proceeding for correction of
entry, the court, which is not acting as a family court
under the Family Code, has no jurisdiction over an
action to annul the marriage of Lucille and Pablo,
impugn the legitimacy of Patrick, and order Patrick to be
subjected to a DNA test, hence, the controversy should
be ventilated in an ordinary adversarial action.
PETITIONERS: filed motion for reconsideration, but was
denied. Hence, the petition for review.
ISSUE: Whether the court a quo may pass upon the
validity of marriage and questions on legitimacy even in
an action to correct entries in the civil registrar.

HELD: NO. In a special proceeding for correction of

entry under Rule 108 (Cancellation or Correction of
Entries in the Original Registry), the trial court has no
Name of Child :
PATRICK ALVIN CELESTIAL
jurisdiction to nullify marriages and rule on legitimacy
TITULAR
and filiation.
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court vis a vis Article 412 of the
Date of Birth :
01 January 1996
Civil Code15 charts the procedure by which an entry in
Mother :
Lucille Celestial Titular
the civil registry may be cancelled or corrected. The
proceeding contemplated therein may generally be
Father :
Pablito S. Braza
used only to correct clerical, spelling, typographical and
other innocuous errors in the civil registry. A clerical
Date Received at the January 13, 1997
error is one which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the
Local Civil Registrar :
understanding; an error made by a clerk or a
Annotation :
"Late Registration"
transcriber; a mistake in copying or writing, or a
harmless change such as a correction of name that is
Annotation/Remarks :
"Acknowledge (sic) by the
clearly misspelled or of a misstatement of the
father
Pablito
Braza
occupation of the parent. Substantial or contentious
on January 13, 1997"
alterations may be allowed only in adversarial
in which all interested parties are
Remarks :
Legitimated by virtue proceedings,
of
impleaded and due process is properly observed.

The allegations of the petition filed before the

trial court clearly show that petitioners seek to nullify
the marriage between Pablo and Lucille on the ground
that it is bigamous and impugn Patricks filiation in
connection with which they ask the court to order
Patrick to be subjected to a DNA test.
Petitioners position does not lie. Their cause of
action is actually to seek the declaration of Pablo and
Lucilles marriage as void for being bigamous and
impugn Patricks legitimacy, which causes of action are
governed not by Rule 108 but by A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC
which took effect on March 15, 2003, and Art. 171 18 of
the Family Code, respectively, hence, the petition
should be filed in a Family Court as expressly provided
in said Code.1avvphi1
It is well to emphasize that, doctrinally, validity
of marriages as well as legitimacy and filiation can be
questioned only in a direct action seasonably filed by
the proper party, and not through collateral attack such
as the petition filed before the court a quo.
CASE 8
REPUBLIC vs MERCADERA
637 SCRA 654, G.R. No. 186027
8, 2010

December

MENDOZA, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari assails the
December
9,
2008
Decision1 of
the Court
of
Appeals (CA), in CA G.R. CV No. 00568-MIN, which
affirmed the September 28, 2005 Order of the Regional
Trial Court of Dipolog City, Branch 8 (RTC), in a petition
for correction of entries, docketed as Special
Proceedings No. R-3427 (SP No. R-3427), filed by
respondent Merlyn Mercadera (Mercadera) under Rule
108 of the Rules of Court.
FACTS: Merlyn Mercadera (Mercadera), represented by
her sister and duly constituted Attorney-in-Fact, Evelyn
M. Oga (Oga), sought the correction of her given name
as it appeared in her Certificate of Live Birth fromMarilyn L. Mercadera to Merlyn L. Mercadera before
the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Dipolog City
pursuant to Republic Act No. 9048 (R.A. No. 9048).
The Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Dipolog City,
however, refused to effect the correction unless a court
order was obtained "because the Civil Registrar therein
is not yet equipped with a permanent appointment
before he can validly act on petitions for corrections
filed before their office as mandated by Republic Act
9048."
MERCADERA: filed a Petition For Correction of Some
Entries as Appearing in the Certificate of Live
Birth under Rule 108 before the Regional Trial Court of
Dipolog City (RTC). The petition was docketed as Special
Proceedings No. R-3427 (SP No. R-3427). Section 2 of
Rule 108
RTC: issued an order, Finding the petition sufficient in
form and substance
OSG: entered its appearance for the Republic of the
Philippines and deputized the Office of the City
Prosecutor to assist in the case only on the very day of
the hearing.
RTC: reset the hearing

Mercadera: moved for leave of court to present

evidence ex parte, being no opposition. Without any
objection from the City Prosecutor.
RTC: designated the branch clerk of court to receive
evidence for Mercadera. Granted Mercaderas petition
and directed the Office of the City Civil Registrar of
Dipolog City to correct her name appearing in her
certificate of live birth, Marilyn Lacquiao Mercadera, to
MERLYN Lacquiao Mercadera
OSG: timely interposed an appeal praying for the
reversal and setting aside of the RTC decision. It mainly
anchored its appeal on the availment of Mercadera of
the remedy and procedure under Rule 108.
CA: was not persuaded, affirmed the questioned RTC
Order.
ISSUE: whether petition filed by Mercadera before the
RTC falls under Rule 103 or 108
HELD: RULE 108.
Rule 103 procedurally governs judicial petitions
for change of given name or surname, or both, pursuant
to Article 376 of the Civil Code. 16 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. 17 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." 18 When
granted, a persons 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."19 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.
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." Essentially, a change
of name does not define or effect a change of ones
existing family relations or in the rights and duties
flowing therefrom. It does not alter ones legal capacity
or civil status.21 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."22 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
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.24 Entries in the civil register refer to "acts, events

and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of

persons,"25 also as enumerated in Article 408 of the
same law.26Before, 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.
The petition filed by Mercadera before the RTC
correctly falls under Rule 108 as it simply sought a
correction of a misspelled given name. To correct simply
means "to make or set aright; to remove the faults or
error from." To change means "to replace something
with something else of the same kind or with something
that serves as a substitute." 36 From the allegations in
her petition, Mercadera clearly prayed for the lower
court "to remove the faults or error" from her registered
given name "MARILYN," and "to make or set aright" the
same to conform to the one she grew up to, "MERLYN."
It does not take a complex assessment of said petition

to learn of its intention to simply correct the clerical

error in spelling. Mercadera even attempted to avail of
the remedy allowed by R.A. No. 9048 but she
unfortunately failed to enjoy the expediency which the
law provides and was constrained to take court action to
obtain relief.