Change of Name

CORRECTION OF CIVIL ENTRIES
ELEOSIDA vs. CIVIL REGISTRAR OF Q.C

G.R. NO. 130277, MAY 9, 2002
Facts:
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.
The trial court dismissed the petition. 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.
In the present case, it is very clear that the changes desired by the petitioner will ultimately affect the civil status of
Charles Christian, as she wants the Court to direct the Civil Registrar of Quezon City to substitute her maiden name,
Eleosida, with that of borbon; to delete the information supplied in ITEM 12, respecting the date and place of marriage of
parents, on the ground that she was never married to respondent Carlos Villeba Borbon and amend the information in
ITEM 14, respecting the name of the informant, from Ma. Lourdes E. Borbon to Ma. Lourdes B. Eleosida, and is indicative
of petitioner's intention and device to establish that Charles Christian civil status as illegitimate.
Petitioner fled the instant petition for review raising the issue of 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.
Held:
We find merit in the petition. 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.
This is our ruling in Republic vs. Valencia 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 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.
If all these procedural requirements have been followed, a petition for correction and/or cancellation of entries in the
record of birth even if filed and conducted under Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court can no longer be described as
'summary.' xxx[12]
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. The records show that upon receipt of the petition, the trial court issued a notice
of hearing setting the hearing on June 26, 1997 at 8:30 in the morning at Room 118, Hall of Justice, Quezon City.
The trial court likewise ordered the publication of said notice once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a
newspaper of general circulation and its posting in selected places in Metro Manila. The notice stated that the
petitioner shall prove her petition during said hearing and all other persons having or claiming any interest
thereon shall also appear and show if there is any reason why the petition should not be granted. Respondents
Carlos Villena Borbon, the Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City and the Solicitor General were all furnished with a
copy of the notice of hearing together with a copy of the petition. On June 26, 1997, the trial court issued a
second order giving the petitioner an opportunity to show compliance with the jurisdictional requirements and to
present evidence during the hearing set on July 23, 1997. The foregoing satisfy all the requirements of Rule 108
to make it an adversary proceeding. It was therefore an error for the trial court to dismiss the petition motu
proprio without allowing the petitioner to present evidence to support her petition and all the other persons who
have an interest over the matter to oppose the same.
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.
SO ORDERED.
REPUBLIC vs. KHO

G.R. NO. 170340, JUNE 29, 2007
Facts:
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.
The Local Civil Registrar of Butuan City was impleaded as respondent.
Carlito et al. filed an Amended Petition 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.
By decision, 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.
Additionally, the trial court ordered the correction of the birth certificates of the minor children of Carlito to reflect the date
of marriage of Carlito and Marivel Dogmoc (Marivel) as January 21, 2000, instead of April 27, 1989, and the name Maribel
as Marivel.
With respect to the marriage certificate of Carlito and Marivel, the corrections ordered pertained to the alteration of the
name of Carlitos father from John Kho to Juan Kho and the latters citizenship from Filipino to Chinese.
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.
Petitioner also faulted the trial court for ordering the change of the name Carlito John Kho to Carlito Kho for non-
compliance with jurisdictional requirements for a change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court.
By the assailed Decision of October 27, 2005, the CA denied petitioners appeal and affirmed the decision of the trial court.
In the present petition, petitioner contends that since the changes sought by respondents were substantial in nature, they
could only be granted through an adversarial proceeding in which indispensable parties, such as Marivel and respondents
parents, should have been notified or impleaded.
Petitioner further contends that the jurisdictional requirements to change Carlitos name under Section 2 of Rule 103 of the
Rules of Court were not satisfied because the Amended Petition failed to allege Carlitos prior three-year bona fide
residence in Butuan City, and that the title of the petition did not state Carlitos aliases and his true name as Carlito John I.
Kho. Petitioner concludes that the same jurisdictional defects attached to the change of name of Carlitos father.
Held
The petition fails.
The changes sought to be change entail substantial and controversial amendments. Clearly, the changes sought can only
be granted in an adversary proceeding. 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.
When all the procedural requirements under Rule 108 are thus followed, the appropriate adversary proceeding necessary
to effect substantial corrections to the entries of the civil register is satisfied The pertinent provisions of Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court read:
SEC. 3. Parties. When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil registrar 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 of the petition, or from the last date of
publication of such notice, file his opposition thereto. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
There is no dispute that the trial courts Order setting the petition for hearing and directing any person or entity having
interest in the petition to oppose it was posted as well as published for the required period; that notices of hearings were
duly served on the Solicitor General, the city prosecutor of Butuan and the local civil registrar; and that trial was conducted
on January 31, 2002 during which the public prosecutor, acting in behalf of the OSG, actively participated by cross-
examining Carlito and Epifania.
What surfaces as an issue is whether the failure to implead Marivel and Carlitos parents rendered the trial short of the
required adversary proceeding and the trial courts judgment void.
A similar issue was earlier raised in Barco v. Court of Appeals where the Court ruled that the publication of the
order of hearing under Section 4 of Rule 108 cured the failure to implead an indispensable party.
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.
With respect to the date of marriage of Carlito and Marivel, their certificate of marriage 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. 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. 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.
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. 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. More importantly, Carlitos official transcript of record from the Urious
College in Butuan City, certificate of eligibility from the Civil Service Commission, and voter registration record
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 considering that the name reflected in the marriage certificate of Carlito and his wife is Marivel.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED
PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME OF JULIAN LIM CARULASAN WANG

G.R. NO. 159966, MARCH 30, 2005
Facts:
Petitioner Julian Lin Carulasan Wang, a minor, represented by his mother Anna Lisa Wang, filed a petition dated 19
September 2002 for change of name and/or correction/cancellation of entry in the Civil Registry of Julian Lin Carulasan
Wang. Petitioner sought to drop his middle name and have his registered name changed from Julian Lin Carulasan Wang
to Julian Lin Wang.
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 child's 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 person's name, they anticipate that Julian Lin Carulasan Wang will be
discriminated against because of his current registered name which carries a middle name. Carulasan sounds funny in
Singapore's Mandarin language since they do not have the letter "R" but if there is, they pronounce it as "L." It is for these
reasons that the name of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang is requested to be changed to Julian Lin Wang
The RTC rendered a decision denying the petition. The trial court found that the reason given for the change of name
sought in the petition that is, that petitioner Julian may be discriminated against when studies in Singapore because of his
middle name did not fall within the grounds recognized by law.
Hence, this petition.
Petitioner contends that "[W]ith globalization and mixed marriages, there is a need for the Supreme Court to rule on the
matter of dropping of family name for a child to adjust to his new environment, for consistency and harmony among
siblings, taking into consideration the "best interest of the child. It is argued that convenience of the child is a valid reason
for changing the name as long as it will not prejudice the State and others. Petitioner points out that the middle name
"Carulasan" will cause him undue embarrassment and the difficulty in writing or pronouncing it will be an obstacle to his
social acceptance and integration in the Singaporean community. Petitioner also alleges that it is error for the trial court to
have denied the petition for change of name until he had reached the age of majority for him to decide the name to use,
contrary to previous cases9 decided by this Court that allowed a minor to petition for change of name.
Held
We affirm the decision of the trial court. The petition should be denied.
The Court has had occasion to express the view that the State has an interest in the names borne by individuals
and entities for purposes of identification, and that a change of name is a privilege and not a right, so that before
a person can be authorized to change his name given him either in his certificate of birth or civil registry, he must
show proper or reasonable cause, or any compelling reason which may justify such change. Otherwise, the
request should be denied.
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.
The names of individuals usually have two parts: the given name or proper name, and the surname or family name. The
given or proper name is that which is given to the individual at birth or baptism, to distinguish him from other individuals.
The name or family name is that which identifies the family to which he belongs and is continued from parent to child. The
given name may be freely selected by the parents for the child; but the surname to which the child is entitled is fixed by
law.
A name is said to have the following characteristics: (1) It is absolute, intended to protect the individual from being
confused with others. (2) It is obligatory in certain respects, for nobody can be without a name. (3) It is fixed,
unchangeable, or immutable, at least at the start, and may be changed only for good cause and by judicial proceedings.
(4) It is outside the commerce of man, and, therefore, inalienable and intransmissible by act inter vivos or mortis causa.
(5) It is imprescriptible.
This citation does not make any reference to middle names, but this does not mean that middle names have no
practical or legal significance. Middle names serve to identify the maternal lineage or filiation of a person as well
as further distinguish him from others who may have the same given name and surname as he has.
Our laws on the use of surnames state that legitimate and legitimated children shall principally use the surname of the
father. The Family Code gives legitimate children the right to bear the surnames of the father and the mother while
illegitimate children shall use the surname of their mother, unless their father recognizes their filiation, in which case they
may bear the father's surname.
Applying these laws, an illegitimate child whose filiation is not recognized by the father bears only a given name and his
mother's surname, and does not have a middle name. The name of the unrecognized illegitimate child therefore identifies
him as such. It is only when the illegitimate child is legitimated by the subsequent marriage of his parents or
acknowledged by the father in a public document or private handwritten instrument that he bears both his mother's
surname as his middle name and his father's surname as his surname, reflecting his status as a legitimated child or an
acknowledged illegitimate child.
Accordingly, the registration in the civil registry of the birth of such individuals requires that the middle name be indicated
in the certificate. The registered name of a legitimate, legitimated and recognized illegitimate child thus contains a given or
proper name, a middle name, and a surname.
Weighing petitioner's reason of convenience for the change of his name against the standards set in the cases
he cites to support his contention would show that his justification is amorphous, to say the least, and could not
warrant favorable action on his petition.
The Court, in Oshita, recognized the tangible animosity most Filipinos had during that time against the Japanese as a
result of World War II, in addition to the fact of therein petitioner's election of Philippine citizenship. In Alfon, the Court
granted the petition since the petitioner had been known since childhood by a name different from her registered name
and she had not used her registered name in her school records and voter's registration records; thus, denying the
petition would only result to confusion.
Calderon, on the other hand, granted the petition for change of name filed by a mother in behalf of her illegitimate minor
child. Petitioner cites this case to buttress his argument that he does not have to reach the age of majority to petition for
change of name. However, it is manifest in Calderon that the Court, in granting the petition for change of name, gave
paramount consideration to the best interests of the minor petitioner therein.
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.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.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
SILVERIO vs. REPUBLIC

G.R. NO. 174689, OCTOBER 22, 2007
Facts:
Petitioner Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio filed a petition for the change of his first name and sex in his birth certificate in
the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Petitioner alleged in his petition that he was born in the City of Manila to the spouses
Melecio Petines Silverio and Anita Aquino Dantes on April 4, 1962. His name was registered as "Rommel Jacinto Dantes
Silverio" in his certificate of live birth (birth certificate). His sex was registered as "male.
He further alleged that he is a male transsexual, that is, "anatomically male but feels, thinks and acts as a female" and
that he had always identified himself with girls since childhood. Feeling trapped in a man’s body, he consulted several
doctors in the United States. He underwent psychological examination, hormone treatment and breast augmentation. His
attempts to transform himself to a "woman" culminated on January 27, 2001 when he underwent sex reassignment
surgery in Bangkok, Thailand.
From then on, petitioner lived as a female and was in fact engaged to be married. He then sought to have his name in his
birth certificate changed from "Rommel Jacinto" to "Mely," and his sex from "male" to "female.
The trial court rendered a decision in favor of petitioner. The Republic, thru the OSG, appealed the decision. The CA
rendered a decision in favor of the Republic.
Hence, this petition. Petitioner essentially claims that the change of his name and sex in his birth certificate is allowed
under Articles 407 to 413 of the Civil Code, Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court and RA 9048.
Held
The petition lacks merit.
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.
The State has an interest in the names borne by individuals and entities for purposes of identification.11 A
change of name is a privilege, not a right.12 Petitions for change of name are controlled by statutes
RA 9048 likewise provides the grounds for which change of first name may be allowed:
SECTION 4. Grounds for Change of First Name or Nickname. – The petition for change of first name or
nickname may be allowed in any of the following cases:
(1) The petitioner finds the first name or nickname to be ridiculous, tainted with dishonor or extremely
difficult to write or pronounce;
(2) The new first name or nickname has been habitually and continuously used by the petitioner and he
has been publicly known by that first name or nickname in the community; or
(3) The change will avoid confusion.
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.
In sum, 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.
Together with Article 376 of the Civil Code, this provision was amended by RA 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, RA 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
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.
A person’s sex is an essential factor in marriage and family relations. It is a part of a person’s legal capacity and civil
status
Under the Civil Register Law, a birth certificate is a historical record of the facts as they existed at the time of
birth. Thus, the sex of a person is determined at birth, visually done by the birth attendant (the physician or
midwife) by examining the genitals of the infant. Considering that there is no law legally recognizing sex
reassignment, the determination of a person’s sex made at the time of his or her birth, if not attended by error, is
immutable.
The changes sought by petitioner will have serious and wide-ranging legal and public policy consequences. First, even
the trial court itself found that the petition was but petitioner’s first step towards his eventual marriage to his male fiancé.
However, marriage, one of the most sacred social institutions, is a special contract of permanent union between a man
and a woman. One of its essential requisites is the legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a
female. To grant the changes sought by petitioner will substantially reconfigure and greatly alter the laws on marriage and
family relations. It will allow the union of a man with another man who has undergone sex reassignment (a male-to-female
post-operative transsexual). Second, there are various laws which apply particularly to women such as the provisions of
the Labor Code on employment of women, certain felonies under the Revised Penal Code and the presumption of
survivorship in case of calamities under Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, among others. These laws underscore the public
policy in relation to women which could be substantially affected if petitioner’s petition were to be granted.
It is true that Article 9 of the Civil Code mandates that "[n]o judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of
the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the law." However, it is not a license for courts to engage in judicial legislation.
The duty of the courts is to apply or interpret the law, not to make or amend it.
To reiterate, the statutes define who may file petitions for change of first name and for correction or change of entries in
the civil registry, where they may be filed, what grounds may be invoked, what proof must be presented and what
procedures shall be observed. If the legislature intends to confer on a person who has undergone sex reassignment the
privilege to change his name and sex to conform with his reassigned sex, it has to enact legislation laying down the
guidelines in turn governing the conferment of that privilege.
It might be theoretically possible for this Court to write a protocol on when a person may be recognized as having
successfully changed his sex. However, this Court has no authority to fashion a law on that matter, or on anything else.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
REPUBLIC vs. CAGANDAHAN

G.R. NO. 166676, SEPTEMBER 12, 2008
Facts:.
Petitioner Jennifer Cagandahan filed a petition for correction of entries in birth certificate before the RTC of Siniloan,
Laguina. In her petition, she alleged that she was born on January 13, 1981 and was registered as a female in the
Certificate of Live Birth but while growing up, she developed secondary male characteristics and was diagnosed to have
Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) which is a condition where persons thus afflicted possess both male and female
characteristics. She further alleged that she was diagnosed to have clitoral hyperthropy in her early years and at age six,
underwent an ultrasound where it was discovered that she has small ovaries. At age thirteen, tests revealed that her
ovarian structures had minimized, she has stopped growing and she has no breast or menstrual development. She then
alleged that for all interests and appearances as well as in mind and emotion, she has become a male person. Thus, she
prayed that her birth certificate be corrected such that her gender be changed from female to male and her first name be
changed from Jennifer to Jeff.
To prove her claim, respondent testified and presented the testimony of Dr. Michael Sionzon of the Department of
Psychiatry, University of the Philippines-Philippine General Hospital. Dr. Sionzon issued a medical certificate stating that
respondents condition is known as CAH.
The RTC granted respondents petition
Thus, this petition by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) seeking a reversal of the abovementioned ruling. The OSG
contends that the petition below is fatally defective for non-compliance with Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court
because while the local civil registrar is an indispensable party in a petition for cancellation or correction of entries under
Section 3, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, respondents petition before the court a quo did not implead the local civil
registrar.
The OSG further contends respondents petition is fatally defective since it failed to state that respondent is a bona fide
resident of the province where the petition was filed for at least three (3) years prior to the date of such filing as mandated
under Section 2(b), Rule 103 of the Rules of Court. The OSG argues that Rule 108 does not allow change of sex or
gender in the birth certificate and respondents claimed medical condition known as CAH does not make her a male. The
OSG argues that the petition below is fatally defective for non-compliance with Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court
because respondents petition did not implead the local civil registrar. Section 3, Rule 108 provides that the civil registrar
and all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby shall be made parties to the proceedings.
Likewise, the local civil registrar is required to be made a party in a proceeding for the correction of name in the civil
registry. He is an indispensable party without whom no final determination of the case can be had
On the other hand, respondent counters that although the Local Civil Registrar of Pakil, Laguna was not formally named a
party in the Petition for Correction of Birth Certificate, nonetheless the Local Civil Registrar was furnished a copy of the
Petition, the Order to publish on December 16, 2003 and all pleadings, orders or processes in the course of the
proceedings,respondent is actually a male person and hence his birth certificate has to be corrected to reflect his true
sex/gender, change of sex or gender is allowed under Rule 108, and respondent substantially complied with the
requirements of Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court
Held
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.
Under Rep. Act No. 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:
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.
ART. 412. No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order.
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-mans 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.
In the instant case, if we determine respondent to be a female, then there is no basis for a change in the birth certificate
entry for gender. But if we determine, based on medical testimony and scientific development showing the respondent to
be other than female, then a change in the subjects birth certificate entry is in order.
Ultimately, we are of the view that where the person is biologically or naturally intersex the determining factor in his
gender classification would be what the individual, like respondent, having reached the age of majority, with good reason
thinks of his/her sex. Respondent here thinks of himself as a male and considering that his body produces high levels of
male hormones (androgen) there is preponderant biological support for considering him as being male.
In the absence of a law on the matter, the Court will not dictate on respondent concerning a matter so innately
private as ones sexuality and lifestyle preferences, much less on whether or not to undergo medical treatment to
reverse the male tendency due to CAH. The Court will not consider respondent as having erred in not choosing
to undergo treatment in order to become or remain as a female. Neither will the Court force respondent to
undergo treatment and to take medication in order to fit the mold of a female, as society commonly currently
knows this gender of the human species. Respondent is the one who has to live with his intersex anatomy. To
him belongs the human right to the pursuit of happiness and of health. Thus, to him should belong the primordial
choice of what courses of action to take along the path of his sexual development and maturation. In the absence
of evidence that respondent is an incompetent and in the absence of evidence to show that classifying
respondent as a male will harm other members of society who are equally entitled to protection under the law,
the Court affirms as valid and justified the respondents position and his personal judgment of being a male.
In so ruling we do no more than give respect to (1) the diversity of nature; and (2) how an individual deals with
what nature has handed out. In other words, we respect respondents congenital condition and his mature
decision to be a male. Life is already difficult for the ordinary person. We cannot but respect how respondent
deals with his unordinary state and thus help make his life easier, considering the unique circumstances in this
case.
As for respondents change of name under Rule 103, this Court has held that a 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 courts grant of respondents change of name from Jennifer to Jeff implies a change of a feminine
name to a masculine name. Considering the consequence that respondents change of name merely recognizes
his preferred gender, we find merit in respondents change of name. Such a change will conform with the change
of the entry in his birth certificate from female to male.
WHEREFORE, the Republics petition is DENIED. The Decision dated January 12, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna, is AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
REPUBLIC vs. UY
G.R. NO. 198010, AUGUST 12, 2013
Facts:
Respondent filed a Petition for Correction of Entry in her Certificate of Live Birth. Impleaded as respondent is the Local
Civil Registrar of Gingoog City. She alleged that she was born on February 8, 1952 and is the illegitimate daughter of Sy
Ton and Sotera Lugsanay. Her Certificate of Live Birth shows that her full name is "Anita Sy" when in fact she is allegedly
known to her family and friends as "Norma S. Lugsanay." She further claimed that her school records, Professional
Regulation Commission (PRC) Board of Medicine Certificate, and passport bear the name "Norma S. Lugsanay." She
also alleged that she is an illegitimate child considering that her parents were never married, so she had to follow the
surname of her mother. She also contended that she is a Filipino citizen and not Chinese, and all her siblings bear the
surname Lugsanay and are all Filipinos.
Respondent allegedly filed earlier a petition for correction of entries with the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Gingoog
City to effect the corrections on her name and citizenship which was supposedly granted. However, the National Statistics
Office (NSO) records did not bear such changes. Hence, the petition before the RTC
The RTC issued an order in favor of the respondent. The RTC concluded that respondent’s petition would neither
prejudice the government nor any third party. It also held that the names "Norma Sy Lugsanay" and "Anita Sy" refer to
one and the same person, especially since the Local Civil Registrar of Gingoog City has effected the correction.
Considering that respondent has continuously used and has been known since childhood as "Norma Sy Lugsanay" and
as a Filipino citizen, the RTC granted the petition to avoid confusion.
The CA affirmed in toto the RTC Order. The CA held that respondent’s failure to implead other indispensable parties was
cured upon the publication of the Order setting the case for hearing in a newspaper of general circulation for three (3)
consecutive weeks and by serving a copy of the notice to the Local Civil Registrar, the OSG and the City Prosecutor’s
Office. As to whether the petition is a collateral attack on respondent’s filiation, the CA ruled in favor of respondent,
considering that her parents were not legally married and that her siblings’ birth certificates uniformly state that their
surname is Lugsanay and their citizenship is Filipino. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied in a Resolution
dated July 27, 2011.
Held
In this case, respondent sought the correction of entries in her birth certificate, particularly those pertaining to her first
name, surname and citizenship. She sought the correction allegedly to reflect the name which she has been known for
since childhood, including her legal documents such as passport and school and professional records. She likewise relied
on the birth certificates of her full blood siblings who bear the surname "Lugsanay" instead of "Sy" and citizenship of
"Filipino" instead of "Chinese." The changes, however, are obviously not mere clerical as they touch on respondent’s
filiation and citizenship. In changing her surname from "Sy" (which is the surname of her father) to "Lugsanay" (which is
the surname of her mother), she, in effect, changes her status from legitimate to illegitimate; and in changing her
citizenship from Chinese to Filipino, the same affects her rights and obligations in this country. Clearly, the changes are
substantial.
In this case, it was only the Local Civil Registrar of Gingoog City who was impleaded as respondent in the petition below.
We do not agree with the RTC and the CA.
Respondent’s birth certificate shows that her full name is Anita Sy, that she is a Chinese citizen and a legitimate
child of Sy Ton and Sotera Lugsanay. In filing the petition, however, she seeks the correction of her first name
and surname, her status from "legitimate" to "illegitimate" and her citizenship from "Chinese" to "Filipino." Thus,
respondent should have impleaded and notified not only the Local Civil Registrar but also her parents and
siblings as the persons who have interest and are affected by the changes or corrections respondent wanted to
make.
The fact that the notice of hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation and notice thereof was
served upon the State will not change the nature of the proceedings taken. 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.
It is clear from the foregoing discussion that when a petition for cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil
register involves substantial and controversial alterations, including those on citizenship, legitimacy of paternity
or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, a strict compliance with the requirements of Rule 108 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.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Court of Appeals Decision dated
February 18, 2011 and Resolution dated July 27, 20011 in CA-G.R. CV No. 00238-MIN, are SET ASIDE.
Consequently, the June 28, 2004 Order of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Gingoog City, in Spl. Proc. No.
230-2004 granting the Petition for Correction of Entry of Certificate of Live Birth filed by respondent Dr. Norma S.
Lugsanay Uy, is NULLIFIED.
SO ORDERED.
MINORU FUJIKI vs. MARINAY

G.R. NO. 196049, JUNE 26, 2013
Facts:
Petitioner Minoru Fujiki (Fujiki) is a Japanese national who married respondent Maria Paz Galela Marinay (Marinay). The
marriage did not sit well with petitioner’s parents. Thus, Fujiki could not bring his wife to Japan where he resides.
Eventually, they lost contact with each other.
In 2008, Marinay met another Japanese, Shinichi Maekara (Maekara). Without the first marriage being dissolved, Marinay
and Maekara were married. Maekara brought Marinay to Japan. However, Marinay allegedly suffered physical abuse from
Maekara. She left Maekara and started to contact Fujiki.
Fujiki and Marinay met in Japan and they were able to reestablish their relationship. In 2010, Fujiki helped Marinay obtain
a judgment from a family court in Japan which declared the marriage between Marinay and Maekara void on the ground
of bigamy. On 14 January 2011, Fujiki filed a petition in the RTC entitled: "Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment (or
Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage)." Fujiki prayed that (1) the Japanese Family Court judgment be recognized; (2)
that the bigamous marriage between Marinay and Maekara be declared void ab initio under Articles 35(4) and 41 of the
Family Code of the Philippines;5 and (3) for the RTC to direct the Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City to annotate the
Japanese Family Court judgment on the Certificate of Marriage between Marinay and Maekara and to endorse such
annotation to the Office of the Administrator and Civil Registrar General in the National Statistics Office (NSO).
A few days after the filing of the petition, the RTC immediately issued an Order dismissing the petition. The RTC took the
view that only "the husband or the wife," in this case either Maekara or Marinay, can file the petition to declare their
marriage void, and not Fujiki.
Fujiki moved that the Order be reconsidered. He argued that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC contemplated ordinary civil actions for
declaration of nullity and annulment of marriage. Thus, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not apply. A petition for recognition of
foreign judgment is a special proceeding, which "seeks to establish a status, a right or a particular fact," and not a civil
action which is "for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong.
Fujiki argued that Rule 108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) of the Rules of Court is applicable.
Rule 108 is the "procedural implementation" of the Civil Register Law (Act No. 3753) in relation to Article 413 of the Civil
Code. The Civil Register Law imposes a duty on the "successful petitioner for divorce or annulment of marriage to send a
copy of the final decree of the court to the local registrar of the municipality where the dissolved or annulled marriage was
solemnized. Section 2 of Rule 108 provides that entries in the civil registry relating to "marriages," "judgments of
annulments of marriage" and "judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning" are subject to cancellation or
correction.The petition in the RTC sought (among others) to annotate the judgment of the Japanese Family Court on the
certificate of marriage between Marinay and Maekara. The motion for reconsideration.
Held
We grant the petition.
The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-
SC) does not apply in a petition to recognize a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage where one of the
parties is a citizen of a foreign country.
To hold that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC applies to a petition for recognition of foreign judgment would mean that the
trial court and the parties should follow its provisions, including the form and contents of the petition, the service
of summons, the investigation of the public prosecutor, the setting of pre-trial, the trial and the judgment of the
trial court. This is absurd because it will litigate the case anew. It will defeat the purpose of recognizing foreign
judgments, which is "to limit repetitive litigation on claims and issues."
A foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage affects the civil status, condition and legal capacity of its parties.
However, the effect of a foreign judgment is not automatic. To extend the effect of a foreign judgment in the Philippines,
Philippine courts must determine if the foreign judgment is consistent with domestic public policy and other mandatory
laws.
A petition to recognize a foreign judgment declaring a marriage void does not require relitigation under a
Philippine court of the case as if it were a new petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. Philippine courts
cannot presume to know the foreign laws under which the foreign judgment was rendered. They cannot
substitute their judgment on the status, condition and legal capacity of the foreign citizen who is under the
jurisdiction of another state. Thus, Philippine courts can only recognize the foreign judgment as a fact according
to the rules of evidence.
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 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.
Fujiki has the personality to file a petition to recognize the Japanese Family Court judgment nullifying the
marriage between Marinay and Maekara on the ground of bigamy because the judgment concerns his civil status
as married to Marinay. For the same reason he has the personality to file a petition under Rule 108 to cancel the
entry of marriage between Marinay and Maekara in the civil registry on the basis of the decree of the Japanese
Family Court.
Under prevailing jurisprudence, a "trial court has no jurisdiction to nullify marriages" in a special proceeding for
cancellation or correction of entry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. Thus, the "validity of marriage[] x x x can be
questioned only in a direct action" to nullify the marriage
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. 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. 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.
Article 26 of the Family Code confers jurisdiction on Philippine courts to extend the effect of a foreign divorce decree to a
Filipino spouse without undergoing trial to determine the validity of the dissolution of the marriage. The second paragraph
of Article 26 of the Family Code provides that "[w]here a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly
celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the
Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law." this Court recognized the legislative intent of the
second paragraph of Article 26 which is "to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the
alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse"89 under the laws of his or her
country. The second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code only authorizes Philippine courts to adopt the effects of a
foreign divorce decree precisely because the Philippines does not allow divorce. Philippine courts cannot try the case on
the merits because it is tantamount to trying a case for divorce.
For this purpose, Philippine courts will only determine (1) whether the foreign judgment is inconsistent with an
overriding public policy in the Philippines; and (2) whether any alleging party is able to prove an extrinsic ground
to repel the foreign judgment, i.e. want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear
mistake of law or fact. If there is neither inconsistency with public policy nor adequate proof to repel the
judgment, Philippine courts should, by default, recognize the foreign judgment as part of the comity of nations.
Section 48(b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court states that the foreign judgment is already "presumptive evidence of
a right between the parties." Upon recognition of the foreign judgment, this right becomes conclusive and the
judgment serves as the basis for the correction or cancellation of entry in the civil registry. The recognition of the
foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous marriage is a subsequent event that establishes a new status, right and
fact that needs to be reflected in the civil registry. Otherwise, there will be an inconsistency between the
recognition of the effectivity of the foreign judgment and the public records in the Philippines.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. The Order dated 31 January 2011 and the Resolution dated 2 March 2011
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 107, Quezon City, in Civil Case No. Q-11-68582 are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. The Regional Trial Court is ORDERED to REINSTATE the petition for further proceedings in accordance
with this Decision.
SO ORDERED.
PEOPLE vs. MERLINDA OLAYBAR

G.R. NO. 189538, FEBRUARY 10, 2014
Facts:
Respondent requested from the National Statistics Office (NSO) a Certificate of No Marriage (CENOMAR) as one of the
requirements for her marriage with her boyfriend of five years. Upon receipt thereof, she discovered that she was already
married to a certain Ye Son Sune, a Korean National, on June 24, 2002, at the Office of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities
(MTCC), Palace of Justice. She denied having contracted said marriage and claimed that she did not know the alleged
husband; she did not appear before the solemnizing officer; and, that the signature appearing in the marriage certificate is
not hers. She, thus, filed a Petition for Cancellation of Entries in the Marriage Contract, especially the entries in the wife
portion thereof. Respondent impleaded the Local Civil Registrar of Cebu City, as well as her alleged husband, as parties
to the case.
During trial, respondent testified on her behalf and explained that she could not have appeared before Judge Mamerto
Califlores, the supposed solemnizing officer, at the time the marriage was allegedly celebrated, because she was then in
Makati working as a medical distributor in Hansao Pharma. She completely denied having known the supposed husband,
but she revealed that she recognized the named witnesses to the marriage as she had met them while she was working
as a receptionist in Tadels Pension House. She believed that her name was used by a certain Johnny Singh, who owned
a travel agency, whom she gave her personal circumstances in order for her to obtain a passport. Respondent also
presented as witness a certain Eufrocina Natinga, an employee of MTCC, Branch 1, who confirmed that the marriage of
Ye Son Sune was indeed celebrated in their office, but claimed that the alleged wife who appeared was definitely not
respondent. Lastly, a document examiner testified that the signature appearing in the marriage contract was forged.
The trial court granted the petition.
Petitioner, however, moved for the reconsideration of the assailed Decision on the grounds that: (1) there was no clerical
spelling, typographical and other innocuous errors in the marriage contract for it to fall within the provisions of Rule 108 of
the Rules of Court; and (2) granting the cancellation of all the entries in the wife portion of the alleged marriage contract is,
in effect, declaring the marriage void ab initio.
The Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the RTC.
Contrary to petitioner’s stand, the RTC held that it had jurisdiction to take cognizance of cases for correction of entries
even on substantial errors under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court being the appropriate adversary proceeding required.
Considering that respondent’s identity was used by an unknown person to contract marriage with a Korean national, it
would not be feasible for respondent to institute an action for declaration of nullity of marriage since it is not one of the
void marriages under Articles 35 and 36 of the Family Code.
Held
We deny the petition.
At the outset, it is necessary to stress that a direct recourse to this Court from the decisions and final orders of the RTC
may be taken where only questions of law are raised or involved. There is a question of law when the doubt arises as to
what the law is on a certain state of facts, which does not call for the examination of the probative value of the evidence of
the parties. Here, the issue raised by petitioner is whether or not the cancellation of entries in the marriage contract which,
in effect, nullifies the marriage may be undertaken in a Rule 108 proceeding. Verily, petitioner raised a pure question of
law.
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 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.
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 cou rt 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.
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.
Aside from the certificate of marriage, no such evidence was presented to show the existence of
marriage.1âwphi1 Rather, respondent showed by overwhelming evidence that no marriage was entered into and
that she was not even aware of such existence. The testimonial and documentary evidence clearly established
that the only "evidence" of marriage which is the marriage certificate was a forgery. While we maintain that Rule
108 cannot be availed of to determine the validity of marriage, we cannot nullify the proceedings before the trial
court where all the parties had been given the opportunity to contest the allegations of respondent; the
procedures were followed, and all the evidence of the parties had already been admitted and examined.
Respondent indeed sought, not the nullification of marriage as there was no marriage to speak of, but the
correction of the record of such marriage to reflect the truth as set forth by the evidence. Otherwise stated, in
allowing the correction of the subject certificate of marriage by cancelling the wife portion thereof, the trial court
did not, in any way, declare the marriage void as there was no marriage to speak of.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Regional Trial Court Decision
dated May 5, 2009 and Order dated August 25, 2009 in SP. Proc. No. 16519-CEB, are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
ONDE vs, CIVIL REGISTRAR OF LAS PINAS

G.R. NO. 197174, SEPTEMBER 10, 2014
Facts:
Petitioner 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 Pifias City as sole respondent. Petitioner alleged that he is the illegitimate child of
his parents Guillermo A. Onde and Matilde DC Pakingan, but his birth certificate stated that his parents were married. His
birth certificate also stated that his mother's first name is Tely and that his first name is Franc Ler. The petitioner prays for
the following changes as follows:
Entry From To
1) Date and place of marriage of his parents December 23, 1983 - Bicol Not Married
2) First name of his mother Tely Matilde
3) His first name Franc Ler Francler
The RTC dismissed the petition for correction of entries on the ground that it is insufficient in form and substance. It ruled
that the proceedings must be adversarial since the first correction is substantial in nature and would affect petitioner’s
status as a legitimate child. It was further held that the correction in the first name of petitioner and his mother can be
done by the city civil registrar under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9048, entitled An Act Authorizing the City or Municipal Civil
Registrar or the ConsulGeneral to Correct a Clerical or Typographical Error in an Entry and/or Change of First Name or
Nickname in the Civil Registrar Without Need of a Judicial Order, Amending for this Purpose Articles 376 and 412 of the
Civil Code of the Philippines.
Petitioner argues that Rule 108 ofthe Rules of Court allows a substantial correction of entries in the civil registry, stating
that in Eleosida v. Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City, the case cited by the RTC, we have actually ruled that substantial
changes in the civil registry are now allowed under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. He likewise adds that proof that his
parents were not married will be presented during the trial, not during the filing of the petition for correction of entries.
In its comment, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) contends that the RTC correctly dismissed the petition for
correction of entries. It points out that the first names of petitioner and his mother can be corrected thru administrative
proceedings under R.A. No. 9048. Such correction of 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 affecting his legitimacy. Hence, it must
be dealt with in adversarial proceedings where all interested parties are impleaded.
Held
We deny the petition.
WHETHER THE RTC ERRED IN RULING THAT THE CORRECTION ON THE FIRST NAME OF PETITIONER AND HIS
MOTHER CAN BE DONE UNDER RA 9048
On the first issue, 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 15 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.
WHETHER THE ENTRY ON PETITIONER’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE THAT HIS PARENTS WERE MARRIED TO “NOT
MARRIED” IS SUBSTANTIAL IN NATURE
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, we held that corrections of entries in the civil register including those on citizenship, legitimacyof 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
adversaryproceedings.
On the third issue, we likewise affirm the RTC in dismissing the petition for correction of entries. As mentioned,
petitioner no longer contested the RTC ruling that the correction he sought on his and his mother’s first name
can be done by the city civil registrar. Under the circumstances, we are constrained to deny his prayer that the
petition for correction of entries before the RTC bereinstated since the same petition includes the correction he
sought on his and his mother’s first name. We clarify, however, that 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.
We also stress that 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.
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 Pifias 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.
ALMOJUELA vs. REPUBLIC

G.R. NO. 211724, AUGUST 24, 2016
Facts:
For almost sixty (60) years, petitioner has been using the surname "Almojuela." However, when he requested for a copy
of his birth certificate from the National Statistics Office (NSO), he was surprised to discover that he was registered as
"Felipe Condeno," instead of "Felipe Almojuela." Thus, he filed a Petition for Correction of Entry
Petitioner alleged that he was born on February 25, 1950 in Pandan, Catanduanes and is the acknowledged natural child
of Jorge V. Almojuela (Jorge), fonner governor of the said province, and Francisca B. Condeno (Francisca), both
deceased. He averred that while his parents did not marry each other, he has been known to his family and friends as
"Felipe Almojuela" and has been using the said surname in all of his official and legal documents, including his school
records from elementary to college, certificate of Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) membership, government
service records, appointment as Provincial General Services Officer, report of rating in the First Grade Entrance
Examination of the Civil Service Commission, Philippine Passport, Marriage Contract, and Certificate of Compensation
Payment/Tax Withheld. In support of his petition, he also presented a copy of his birth certificate issued by the Local Civil
Registrar of the Municipality of Pandan, Catanduanes showing that "Felipe Almojuela" appears as his registered full
name.
The RTC initially dismissed the petition on the ground that petitioner's recourse to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court was
improper, as the petition did not involve mere correction of clerical errors but a matter of filiation which should, thus, be
filed in accordance with Rule 103 of the same Rules. Moreover, it found that a similar petition docketed as Spec. Proc.
No. 1229 had already been ruled upon and dismissed by the court. Petitioner moved for reconsideration, maintaining that
the issue of filiation is immaterial since he was only seeking a correction of entry by including the surname "Almojuela" to
"Felipe Condeno," his first and middle names appearing on his birth certificate with the NSO. He likewise insisted that the
name "Jorge V. Almojuela" was clearly indicated thereon as the name of his father. Finding merit in petitioner's
arguments, the RTC, in an Order11 dated February 9, 2011, reconsidered its earlier disposition and allowed petitioner to
present his evidence.
On 2011, the RTC granted the petition and accordingly, directed the Municipal Civil Registrar .of Pandan, Catanduanes to
cause the correction of entry of the facts of petitioner's birth by changing his surname from "Condeno" to "Almojuela" and
to furnish the Civil Registrar General with a copy of the corrected birth certificate.
In so ruling, the RTC found that the change in petitioner's surname would cause no prejudice to the Almojuela family nor
would they be the object of future mischief. Instead, petitioner has shown that he was accepted and acknowledged by his
half-siblings. Moreover, allowing petitioner to retain the surname that he has been using for over sixty (60) years, i.e.,
"Almojuela," would avoid confusion in his personal undertakings, as well as in the community.
The Republic move to appeal the decision, thru the Office of the Solicitor General. the CA reversed and set aside the
assailed RTC Decision and Order, and nullified the RTC's order for the correction of entry in petitioner's birth
certificate.The CA noted that the petitioner correctly invoked Rule 108 but failed to strictly comply with the requirements
thereunder when he omitted to implead the Local Civil Registrar and his half-siblings, who stand to be affected by the
corrections prayed for, as parties. Moreover, the CA also found that the correction of entry sought by petitioner was not
merely clerical in nature, but necessarily involved a determination of his filiation.
Held
The petition is bereft of merit.
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court provides the procedure for the correction of substantial changes in the civil registry through
an appropriate adversary proceeding. An adversary proceeding is 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.
Sections 3, 4, and 5, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court state:

SEC. 3. Parties. - When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register is sought, the civil registrar and
all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby shall be made parties to the
proceeding.
SEC. 4. Notice and publication. - Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall, by an order, fix the time and place
for the hearing of the same, and cause reasonable notice thereof to be given to the persons named in the petition.
The court shall also cause the order to be published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper
of general circulation in the province.
SEC. 5. Opposition. - The civil registrar and any person having or claiming any interest under the entry whose
cancellation or correction is sought may, within fifteen (15) days from notice of the petition, or from the last date of
publication of such notice, file his opposition thereto. (Emphases supplied)
A reading of Sections 4 and 5 shows that the Rule mandates two (2) sets of notices to potential oppositors: one
given to 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. Consequently, the petition for a substantial
correction of an entry in the civil registry should implead as respondents the civil registrar, as well as all other
persons who have or claim to have any interest that would be affected thereby.
The Court emphasized that in a petition for a substantial correction or change of entry in the civil registry under
Rule 108, it is mandatory that the civil registrar, as well as all other persons who have or claim to have any
interest that would be affected thereby be made respondents for the reason that they are indispensable parties.
In this case, the CA correctly found that petitioner failed to implead both the Local Civil Registrar and his half-siblings.
Although he claims that his half-siblings have acknowledged and accepted him, the procedural rules nonetheless
mandate compliance with the requirements in the interest of fair play and due process and to afford the person concerned
the opportunity to protect his interest if he so chooses
Moreover, although it is true that in certain instances, the Court has allowed the subsequent publication of a
notice of hearing to cure the petition's lack/failure to implead and notify the affected or interested parties, such
as when: (a) earnest efforts were made by petitioners in bringing to court all possible interested parties; (b) the
parties themselves initiated the corrections proceedings; (c) there is no actual or presumptive awareness of the
existence of the interested parties; or, (d) when a party is inadvertently left out,44 these exceptions are,
unfortunately, unavailing in this case.
In sum, the failure to strictly comply with the above-discussed requirements of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court for
correction of an entry in the civil registrar involving substantial and controversial alterations renders the entire proceedings
therein null and void.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated February 27, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
C.V. No. 98082 is hereby AFFIRMED. Consequently, the Decision dated October 6, 2011 of the Regional Trial
Court of Virac, Catanduanes, Branch 43 in Spec. Proc. No. 1345 granting the Petition for Correction of Entry in
the Certificate of Live Birth in NULLIFIED.
SO ORDERED.
GAN vs. REPUBLIC

G.R. NO. 207147, SEPTEMBER 14, 2016
Facts:
Emelita Basilio Gan (petitioner) was born on December 21, 1956 out of wedlock to Pia Gan, her father who is a Chinese
national, and Consolacion Basilio, her mother who is a Filipino citizen. The petitioner's birth certificate, which was
registered in the Office of the Local Civil Registrar (LCR) of Libmanan, Camarines Sur, indicates that her full name is
Emelita Basilio.
The petitioner filed a Petition for correction of name with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Libmanan, Camarines Sur. The
petitioner sought to change the full name indicated in her birth certificate from "Emelita Basilio" to "Emelita Basilio Gan."
She claimed that she had been using the name "Emelita Basilio Gan" in her school records from elementary until college,
employment records, marriage contract, and other government records
The RTC issued an Order granting the petition for change of name. The RTC thus, directed the Local Civil Registrar
Camarines Sur to change the petitioner's name in her birth certificate from "Emelita Basilio" to "Emelita Basilio Gan." The
RTC opined that, from the evidence presented, the said petition was filed solely to put into order the records of the
petitioner and that changing her name in her birth certificate into Emelita Basilio Gan would avoid confusion in her
personal records.
On appeal, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC Orders. The CA opined that pursuant to Article 176 of the Family
Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 9255, the petitioner, as an illegitimate child, may only use the surname of her
mother; she may only use the surname of her father if their filiation has been expressly recognized by her father. The CA
pointed out that the petitioner has not adduced any evidence showing that her father had recognized her as his illegitimate
child and, thus, she may not use the surname of her father.
Held
The petition is denied.
A change of name is a privilege and not a matter of right; a proper and reasonable cause must exist before a person may
be authorized to change his name."In granting or denying petitions for change of name, the question of proper and
reasonable cause is left to the sound discretion of the court. x x x 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 in support thereof, mindful of the consequent results in the event of its grant and with the
sole prerogative for making such determination being lodged in the courts."
After a judicious review of the records of this case, the Court agrees with the CA that the reason cited by the petitioner in
support of her petition for change of name, i.e. that she has been using the name "Emelita Basilio Gan" in all of her
records, is not a sufficient or proper justification to allow her petition. When the petitioner was born in 1956, prior to the
enactment and effectivity of the Family Code, the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code then regarding the petitioner's use
of surname provide:
Article 366. A natural child acknowledged by both parents shall principally use the surname of the father. If
recognized by only one of the parents, a natural child shall employ the surname of the recognizing parent.
Article 368. Illegitimate children referred to in Article 287 shall bear the surname of the mother.
In her amended petition for change of name, the petitioner merely stated that she was born out of wedlock;23 she did not
state whether her parents, at the time of her birth, were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other, which
would make her a natural child pursuant to Article 269 of the Civil Code.
However, the petitioner failed to adduce any evidence that would show that she indeed was duly acknowledged
by his father. The petitioner's evidence consisted only of her birth certificate signed by her mother, school
records, employment records, marriage contract, certificate of baptism, and other government records. Thus,
assuming that she is a natural child pursuant to Article 269 of the Civil Code, she could still not insist on using
her father's surname. It was, thus, a blatant error on the part of the RTC to have allowed the petitioner to change
her name from "Emelita Basilio" to "Emelita Basilio Gan."
In Alfon, the name of the petitioner therein which appeared in her birth certificate was Maria Estrella Veronica Primitiva
Duterte; she was a legitimate child of her father and mother. She filed a petition for change of name, seeking that she be
allowed to use the surname "Alfon," her mother's surname, instead of "Duterte." The trial court denied the petition,
ratiocinating that under Article 364 of the Civil Code, legitimate children shall principally use the surname of the father.
The Court allowed the petitioner therein to use the surname of her mother since Article 364 of the Civil Code used the
word "principally" and not "exclusively" and, hence, there is no legal obstacle if a legitimate child should choose to use the
mother's surname to which he or she is legally entitled.
In contrast, Articles 366 and 368 of the Civil Code do not give to an illegitimate child or a natural child not
acknowledged by the father the option to use the surname of the father. Thus, the petitioner cannot insist that
she is allowed to use the surname of her father.
In Coseteng-Magpayo, the issue was the proper procedure to be followed when the change sought to be effected in the
birth certificate affects the civil status of the respondent therein from legitimate to illegitimate. The respondent therein
claimed that his parents were never legally married; he filed a petition to change his name from "Julian Edward Emerson
Coseteng Magpayo," the name appearing in his birth certificate, to "Julian Edward Emerson Marquez-Lim Coseteng." The
notice setting the petition for hearing was published and, since there was no opposition thereto, the trial court; issued an
order of general default and eventually granted the petition of the respondent therein by, inter alia, deleting the entry on
the date and place of marriage of his parents and correcting his surname from "Magpayo" to "Coseteng."28 The Court
reversed the trial court's decision since the proper remedy would have been to file a petition under Rule 108 of the Rules
of Court. The Court ruled that the change sought by the respondent therein involves his civil status as a legitimate child; it
may only be given due course through an adversarial proceedings under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. The Court's
pronouncement in Coseteng-Magpayo finds no application in this case.
Finally, Lim likewise finds no application in this case. In Lim, the petition that was filed was for correction of entries under
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court; the petition sought, among others, is the correction of the surname of the respondent
therein from "Yo" to "Yu." Further, the respondent therein, although an illegitimate child, had long been using the surname
of her father. It bears stressing that the birth certificate of the respondent therein indicated that her surname was the same
as her father albeit misspelled. Thus, a correction of entry in her birth certificate is appropriate.
Here, the petitioner filed a petition for change of name under Rule 103 and not a petition for correction of entries under
Rule 108. Unlike in Lim, herein petitioner's birth certificate indicated that she bears the surname of her mother and not of
her father.
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the petition is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.

Change of Name

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Change of Name

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

CORRECTION OF CIVIL ENTRIES

ELEOSIDA vs. CIVIL REGISTRAR OF Q.C

REPUBLIC vs. KHO

The Local Civil Registrar of Butuan City was impleaded as respondent.

The petition fails.

PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME OF JULIAN LIM CARULASAN WANG

Hence, this petition.

SILVERIO vs. REPUBLIC

The petition lacks merit.

(3) The change will avoid confusion.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.

Costs against petitioner.

REPUBLIC vs. CAGANDAHAN

The RTC granted respondents petition

ART. 408. The following shall be entered in the civil register:

Hence, this petition.

We do not agree with the RTC and the CA.

MINORU FUJIKI vs. MARINAY

Hence, this petition.

We grant the petition.

PEOPLE vs. MERLINDA OLAYBAR

The trial court granted the petition.

The Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the RTC.

Hence, this petition.

We deny the petition.

ONDE vs, CIVIL REGISTRAR OF LAS PINAS

Hence, this petition.

We deny the petition.

ALMOJUELA vs. REPUBLIC

The petition is bereft of merit.

Sections 3, 4, and 5, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court state:

GAN vs. REPUBLIC

Hence, this petition.

The petition is denied.

WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the petition is DENIED.

S-ar putea să vă placă și