1. Republic of the Philippines vs Michelle Soriano Gallo (GR No.

207074;
January 17, 2018

Leonen, Justice

FACTS: Changes to one's name, therefore, can be the result of either one of two
(2) motives. The first, as an exercise of one's autonomy, is to change the
appellation that one was given for various reasons. The other is not an exercise to
change the label that was given to a person; it is simply to correct the data as it was
recorded in the Civil Registry.

Gallo has never been known as "Michael Soriano Gallo." She has always been
female. Her parents, married on May 23, 1981, have never changed their names.
For her, in her petition before the Regional Trial Court, her Certificate of Live
Birth contained errors, which should be corrected. For her, she was not changing
the name that was given to her; she was merely correcting its entry.|

Gallo prayed before the Regional Trial Court of Ilagan City, Isabela in Special
Proc. No. 2155 5 for the correction of her name from "Michael" to "Michelle" and
of her biological sex from "Male" to "Female" under Rule 108 6 of the Rules of
Court.

In addition, Gallo asked for the inclusion of her middle name, "Soriano"; her
mother's middle name, "Angangan"; her father's middle name, "Balingao"; and
her parent's marriage date, May 23, 1981, in her Certificate of Live Birth, as
these were not recorded. 8

As proof, she attached to her petition copies of her diploma, voter's

certification, official transcript of records, medical certificate, mother's birth
certificate, and parents' marriage certificate.
It concluded that there was a necessity to correct Gallo's Certificate of Live Birth
and applied Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, 16 citing Republic v. Cagandahan.|

The Office of the Solicitor General appealed, alleging that the applicable rule
should be Rule 103 of the Rules of Court for Petitions for Change of Name.

The Court of Appeals also stated that Republic Act No. 10172, "the present law on
the matter, classifies a change in the first name or nickname, or sex of a person as
clerical error that may be corrected without a judicial order." 28 It applied this
ruling on the inclusion of Gallo's middle name, her parents' middle names, and the
latter's date of marriage, as they do not involve substantial corrections..

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Republic of the Philippines raised a question of fact in

alleging that the change sought by Michelle Soriano Gallo is substantive
and not a mere correction of error;

Second, whether or not Michelle Soriano Gallo's petition involves a

substantive change under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court instead of mere
correction of clerical errors; and

Finally, whether or not Michelle Soriano Gallo failed to exhaust

administrative remedies and observe the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.

HELD: This Court finds for the respondent. Hers was a Petition to correct the
entry in the Civil Registry.

I.
 By qualifying the definition of a clerical, typographical error as a mistake
"visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding," the law recognizes that
there is a factual determination made after reference to and evaluation of
existing documents presented.

Thus, corrections may be made even though the error is not typographical
if it is "obvious to the understanding," even if there is no proof that the name or
circumstance in the birth certificate was ever used.

This Court agrees with the Regional Trial Court's determination,

concurred in by the Court of Appeals, that this case involves the correction of a
mere error. As these are findings of fact, this Court is bound by the lower
courts' findings.

II. a) In any case, Rule 103 of the Rules of Court does not apply to the case at
bar. The change in the entry of Gallo's biological sex is governed by Rule
108 of the Rules of Court while Republic Act No. 9048 applies to all
other corrections sought.

b) As to the issue of which between Rules 103 and 108 applies, it is

necessary to determine the nature of the correction sought by Gallo.|

Upon scrutiny of the records in this case, this Court rules that Gallo's
Petition involves a mere correction of clerical errors.

A clerical or typographical error pertains to a:

[M]istake committed in the performance of clerical work in

writing, copying, transcribing or typing an entry in the civil
register that is harmless and innocuous . . . which is visible to the
 eyes or obvious to the understanding, and can be corrected or
changed only by reference to other existing record or records[.] 86

However, corrections which involve a change in nationality, age, or

status are not considered clerical or typographical.

III. This Court rules in favor of Gallo.

Failure to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not

affect the jurisdiction of the court. We have repeatedly stressed this in a long line
of decisions. The only effect of non-compliance with this rule is that it will deprive
the complainant of a cause of action, which is a ground for a motion to dismiss. If
not invoked at the proper time, this ground is deemed waived and the court can
then take cognizance of the case and try it.|||

WHEREFORE, The Petition for Correction of Entry in the Certificate

of Live Birth of Michelle Soriano Gallo is GRANTED. This Court directs that
the Certificate of Live Birth of Michelle Soriano Gallo be corrected as follows:

1) Correct her first name from "Michael" to "Michelle";

2) Correct her biological sex from "Male" to "Female";

3) Enter her middle name as "Soriano";

4) Enter the middle name of her mother as "Angangan";

5) Enter the middle name of her father as "Balingao"; and

6) Enter the date of her parents' marriage as "May 23, 1981

 2. In Re: Petition for Change of Name and/or Correction or Cancellation
of Entry in Civil Registry of Julian Lin Carulusan Wang also known as
Julian Lin Wang, to be amended/ corrected as Julian Lin Wang, duly
represented by his mother Anna Lisa Wang vs Cebu City Civil
Registrar, duly represented by the Registrar Oscar B. Molo (GR No.
159966; March 30, 2005)

Tinga, Justice

FACTS: On 22 September 2002, 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.|

The parents of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang plan to stay in Singapore for a long time
because they will let him study there together with his sister named Wang Mei
Jasmine who was born in Singapore. . . . Since in Singapore middle names or the
maiden surname of the mother are not carried in a person's name, they anticipate
that Julian Lin Carulasan Wang will be discriminated against because of his
current registered name which carries a middle name. Julian and his sister might
also be asking whether they are brother and sister since they have different
surnames. Carulasan sounds funny in Singapore's Mandarin language since they do
not have the letter "R" but if there is, they pronounce it as "L." It is for these
reasons that the name of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang is requested to be changed to
Julian Lin Wang.|
the RTC rendered a decision denying the petition. 2 The trial court found that the
reason given for the change of name sought in the petition did not fall within the
grounds recognized by law.

Under Article 174 of the Family Code, legitimate children have the right to bear
the surnames of the father and the mother, and there is no reason why this right
should now be taken from petitioner Julian, considering that he is still a minor. The
trial court added that when petitioner Julian reaches the age of majority, he could
then decide whether he will change his name by dropping his middle name.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision but this was denied.

Petitioner then filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari (Under Rule
45) 6 arguing that the trial court has decided a question of substance not
theretofore determined by the Court, that is: whether or not dropping the middle
name of a minor child is contrary to Article 174 7 of the Family Code.

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.

ISSUE: WON there is a compelling reason to drop the maiden name.

HELD: None.

In the case at bar, the only reason advanced by petitioner for the dropping
his middle name is convenience. However, how such change of name would make
his integration into Singaporean society easier and convenient is not clearly
established. That the continued use of his middle name would cause confusion and
difficulty does not constitute proper and reasonable cause to drop it from his
registered complete name.

In addition, petitioner is only a minor. Considering the nebulous foundation

on which his petition for change of name is based, it is best that the matter of
change of his name be left to his judgment and discretion when he reaches the age
of majority. 26 As he is of tender age, he may not yet understand and appreciate
the value of the change of his name and granting of the same at this point may just
prejudice him in his rights under our laws.

Petition for review is DENIED.

3. Emelita Basilio Gan vs Republic of the Philippines (GR 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. 3 The petitioner's
birth certificate, 4 which was registered in the Office of the Local Civil
Registrar (LCR) of Libmanan, Camarines Sur, indicates that her full name is
Emelita Basilio.

On June 29, 2010, the petitioner filed a Petition 5 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, which noted that the petition filed sought not merely a
correction of entry in the birth certificate, but a change of name. Accordingly, the
RTC ordered the petitioner to make the necessary amendment to her petition to
conform to the requirements of Rule 103 of the Rules of Court.|

The petitioner filed with the RTC an Amended Petition 8 dated August 3, 2010 for
change of name. The amended petition contained substantially the same allegations
as in the petition for correction of entry in the birth certificate. On August 10,
2010, the RTC set the initial hearing of the petition in a newspaper of general
circulation.|
RTC granted the petition. 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.

Respondent sought reconsideration alleging that:

- the petitioner is an illegitimate child

- failed to adduce evidence that she was duly recognized by her father, which
would have allowed her to use the surname of her father.

The RTC issued an Order 14 denying the respondent's motion for reconsideration.|

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, 16 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. 17 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. 18

In this petition for review, the petitioner maintains that the RTC correctly
granted her petition since she only sought to have her name indicated in her
birth certificate changed to avoid confusion as regards to her personal
records. 19 She insists that her failure to present evidence that her father
recognized her as his illegitimate child is immaterial; a change of name is
reasonable and warranted, if it is necessary to avoid confusion.

Court denied the petition. 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.

ISSUE: WON Petitioner’s change of name should be granted.

HELD: No.

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. If, at
the time of the petitioner's birth, either of her parents had an impediment to marry
the other, she may only bear the surname of her mother pursuant to Article 368 of
the Civil Code.Otherwise, she may use the surname of her father provided that
she was acknowledged by her father.

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."||

Here, the petitioner filed a petition for change of name under Rule 103
and not a petition for correction of entries under Rule 108.

WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the

petition is DENIED.

4. Republic of the Philippines vs Virgie (Virgel) L. Tipay (GR No.

209527; February 14, 2018)

Reyes jr, Justice

FACTS: In a petition dated February 13, 2009, Virgel sought the correction of
several entries in his birth certificate. Attached to the petition are two (2) copies
of his birth certificate, respectively issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar of
Governor Generoso, Davao Oriental and the National Statistics Office 5 (NSO).
Both copies reflect his gender as "FEMALE" and his first name as "Virgie." It
further appears that the month and day of birth in the local civil registrar's copy
was blank, while the NSO-issued birth certificate indicates that he was born on
May 12, 1976. Virgel alleged that these entries are erroneous, and sought the
correction of his birth certificate as follows:

(a) his gender, from "FEMALE" to "MALE;"

(b) his first name, from "VIRGIE" to "VIRGEL;" and

 (c) his month and date of birth to "FEBRUARY 25, 1976." 7

The petition was found sufficient in form and substance, and the case
proceeded to trial. Aside from his own personal testimony, Virgel's mother,
Susan L. Tipay, testified that she gave birth to a son on February 25, 1976, who
was baptized as "Virgel." The Certificate of Baptism, including other
documentary evidence such as a medical certificate stating that Virgel is
phenotypically male, were also presented to the trial court.

There was no opposition to the petition. Soon after, the RTC rendered its
Decision 9 dated July 27, 2010 granting Virgel's petition.

The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argued that the
change of Virgel's name from Virgie should have been made through a proceeding
under Rule 103, and not Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. This argument was
premised on the assumption that the summary procedure under Rule 108 is
confined to the correction of clerical or innocuous errors, which excludes one's
name or date of birth. Since the petition lodged with the RTC was not filed
pursuant to Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, the Republic asserted that the trial
court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case.

The CA denied the Republic's appeal.

The CA ruled in favor of Virgel, stating that while the correction of the entry on
his gender is considered a substantial change, it is nonetheless within the
jurisdiction of the trial court under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. The CA also
held that the petition filed with the trial court fully complied with the jurisdictional
requirements of Rule 108 because notices were sent to the concerned local civil
registrar and the OSG. Since Virgel was able to establish that he is indeed male, a
fact which remains undisputed, the CA upheld the trial court's decision.
ISSUE: WON the petition should be filed for correction under Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court

HELD: yes.

Evidently, the Republic incorrectly argued that the petition for correction
under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is limited to changes in entries
containing harmless and innocuous errors. 24 The cited cases in the petition
were already superseded by much later jurisprudence. 25 Most importantly, with
the enactment of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9048 26 in 2001, the local civil
registrars, or the Consul General as the case may be, are now authorized to correct
clerical or typographical errors in the civil registry, or make changes in the first
name or nickname, without need of a judicial order. 27 This law provided an
administrative recourse for the correction of clerical or typographical errors,
essentially leaving the substantial corrections in the civil registry to Rule 108 of
the Rules of Court.

It was further amended in 2011, when R.A. No. 10172 was not yet in effect.

Unfortunately, however, when Virgel filed the petition for correction with the RTC
in 2009, R.A. No. 10172 was not yet in effect. As such, to correct the erroneous
gender and date of birth in Virgel's birth certificate, the proper remedy was
to commence the appropriate adversarial proceedings with the RTC,
pursuant to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. |

The RTC proceedings were clearly adversarial in nature. It dutifully complied

with the requirements of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

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.

Furthermore, in the absence of evidence refuting Virgel's assertion that he is indeed

phenotypically male, the correction of the entry on Virgel's sex in his birth
certificate, from "FEMALE" to "MALE," was correctly granted.

With respect to the change of his name to "Virgel," the Court does not agree with
the CA that the requirements under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court may be
substituted with that of Rule 108. These remedies are distinct and separate from
one another, and compliance with one rule cannot serve as a fulfillment of the
requisites prescribed by the other.

Nonetheless, the Court has settled in Republic v. Mercadera 42 that

changes in one's name are not necessarily confined to a petition filed under Rule
103 of the Rules of Court. Rule 108, Section 2 of the Rules of Court include
"changes of name" in the enumeration of entries in the civil register that may be
cancelled or corrected.

Thus, the name "Virgie" may be corrected to "Virgel," as a necessary

consequence of the substantial correction on Virgel's gender, and to allow the
record to conform to the truth.

With respect to the date of Virgel's birth, the Court again disagrees with
the CA that the alleged date (i.e., February 25, 1976) is undisputed. The NSO
copy of Virgel's birth certificate indicates that he was born on May 12, 1976, a
date obviously different from that alleged in the petition for correction. 43 As a
public document, the date of birth appearing in the NSO copy is presumed valid
and prima facie evidence of the facts stated in it. Virgel bore the burden of
proving its supposed falsity. 44
 Virgel failed to discharge this burden. The police clearance presented to
the trial court corroborates the entry in the NSO copy, indicating Virgel's date
of birth as May 12, 1976. 45 The Court is also unconvinced by the other
documentary evidence supposedly showing that Virgel was born on February
25, 1976 because the information indicated in the identification card from the
Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Member Data Record from the Philippine
Health Insurance Corporation, were all supplied by Virgel. 46 These are self-
serving information, which do not suffice to overcome the presumption of
validity accorded to the date of birth reflected in the NSO copy of Virgel's birth
certificate.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review

on certiorari is DENIED.

AFFIRMED, only insofar as the corrections of the following entries in the birth
certificate are concerned: (a) first name, from "Virgie" to "Virgel;" and (b) gender,
from "FEMALE" to "MALE."||| (Republic v. Tipay, G.R. No. 209527, [February
14, 2018])
5. Republic of the Philippines vs Lorena Omapas Sali (GR No. 206023; April
3, 2017)

Peralta, Justice

FACTS: Lorena Omapas Sali filed a Verified Petition for Correction of Entry
under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court before the RTC.

Unfortunately, in recording the facts of her birth, the personnel of the

Local Civil Registrar of Baybay, Leyte[,] thru inadvertence and mistake[,]
erroneously entered in the records the following:

1. The first name of the petitioner as "DOROTHY" instead of

"LORENA" and

2. The date of birth of the petitioner as "June 24, 1968" instead of

"April 24, 1968."

A copy of the Certificate of Live Birth of Dorothy A. Omapas issued by

the National Statistics Office (NSO) and Certification from the Local Civil
Registrar of Baybay, Leyte are hereunto attachedrespectively.

- The petitioner has been using the name "Lorena A. Omapas["] and her
date of birth as "April 24, 1968" for as long as she (sic) since she could
remember and is known to the community in general as such;

- To sustain petitioner's claim that the entries in her Certificate of Live

Birth pertaining to her first name and date of birth should be corrected so
that it will now read as: "LORENA A. OMAPAS" and "April 24,
1968" respectively, attached hereto are: the Certificate of Marriage of
Morsalyn [D.] Sali and Lorena A. Omapas, and a photocopy of the Postal
Identity Card of the petitioner.
The trial court issued the assailed Decision in favor of [Sali].||

The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed the
RTC Decision for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the court a quo because the
title of the petition and the order setting the petition for hearing did not contain
Sali's aliases.

The CA denied the appeal, ruling that: (1) the records are bereft of any
indication that Sali is known by a name other than "Lorena," hence, it would be
absurd to compel her to indicate any other alias that she does not have; (2) Sali
not only complied with the mandatory requirements for an appropriate
adversarial proceeding under Rule 108 of the Rules but also gave the Republic
an opportunity to timely contest the purported defective petition; and (3) the
change in the first name of Sali will certainly avoid further confusion as to her
identity and there is no showing that it was sought for a fraudulent purpose or
that it would prejudice public interest.

||

ISSUE: Whether or not the grant of the Petition for Correction of Entry was
correct?

HELD: No.

The Republic argues that although Sali's petition is entitled: "IN THE MATTER
OF THE PETITION FOR CORRECTION OF ENTRY IN THE CERTIFICATE
OF LIVE BIRTH OF DOROTHY A. OMAPAS," it is actually a petition for a
change of name.

This considering, the applicable rule is Rule 103, which requires that the
applicant's names and aliases must be stated in the title of the petition and the
order setting it for hearing, and that the petition can be granted only on specific
 grounds provided by law. Further, assuming that a petition for correction of
entries under Rule 108 is the appropriate remedy, the petition should not have
been granted for failure to exhaust administrative remedies provided for
under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9048.

The petition is partially granted.

In this case, the petition, insofar as it prayed for the change of Sali's first name, was
not within the RTC's primary jurisdiction. It was improper because the remedy
should have been administrative, i.e., filing of the petition with the local civil
registrar concerned. For failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the RTC
should have dismissed the petition to correct Sali's first name.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED.

The February 11, 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CV No.
03442, which affirmed in toto the February 23, 2010 Decision of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 14, Baybay City, Leyte, is AFFIRMED WITH
MODIFICATION. The Petition for Correction of Entry in the Certificate of Live
Birth of Dorothy A. Omapas with respect to her first name is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE to its filing with the local civil registrar concerned.
6. Republic vs Zosa (GR No. L-48762; September 12, 1988)

Bidin, Justice

FACTS: respondent Lee King Sing filed a petition with the CFI of Samar for
change of name.

The Honorable Court issues an order changing the name of the petitioner LEE
KING SING to ANTONIO C. LEE.

Herein petitioner through the Solicitor General filed a motion to dismiss the
petition on the ground that the name sought to be adopted by respondent and
other names by which he is known are not indicated or included in the title of the
petition. On December 10, 1977, respondent filed an opposition to the motion to
dismiss. On March 8, 1978, the lower court denied the aforesaid motion.

After trial and hearing, the court a quo on July 20, 1978. as already stated,
granted the petition; hence, the instant appeal, petitioner raising a lone
assignment of error:

"THAT RESPONDENT JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST

INSTANCE OF SAMAR ERRED IN TAKING COGNIZANCE OF
THE PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME DESPITE
SUBSTANTIAL DEFECT IN THE PETITION AND
PUBLICATION OF THE NOTICE OF HEARING."

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent judge erred in taking cognizance of

the petition for change of name despite substantial defect in the petition
HELD: Yes.

In a petition for change of name the title of the petition should include (1) the
applicant's real name, (2) his aliases or other names, if any, and (3) the name
sought to be adopted even if these data are found in the body of the petition.

For the publication to be valid and effective, the published order should reproduce
the title of the petition containing the data already stated and should contain correct
information as to (1) the name or names of the applicant; (2) the cause for the
changed name, and (3) the new name asked for.

In the present case, the petition itself, as well as the order published, carries the
following title "In Re: Petition for Change of Name Lee King Sing, Petitioner."|

The title should have read "In the Matter of the Change of Name of Lee King Sing,
otherwise known as Antonio or Tony to Antonio C. Lee, Lee King Sing,
Petitioner."

The petition does not indicate in its title or caption that herein respondent desires to
change his name to Antonio C. Lee.

The failure to include the name sought to be adopted in the title of the petition nor
in the title or caption of the notices published in the newspapers renders the trial
court without jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition.|

The non-inclusion of all the names or aliases of the applicant in the

caption of the order or in the title of the petition defeats the very purpose of the
required publication.

Considering that the title of the petition in this case and the order setting
it for hearing are defective as indicated above, the lower court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the proceeding.
 WHEREFORE, the lower court's order under appeal is Reversed and the
petition for change of name is Denied.

7. Go Chin Beng vs Republic (46 SCRA 617 (1972))

Concepcion, justice

FACTS: This is an appeal, taken by the Government, from a decision of the Court
of First Instance of Leyte granting the petition of appellee Go Chiu Beng for
change of name to that of "Reynaldo Bingo," as prayed for in his amended petition,
instead of "Reynaldo Gosibeng," as prayed for in his original petition.

Upon a review of the records, it is manifest therefrom that the decision appealed
from must be set aside as null and void for want of jurisdiction to entertain
appellee's petition for change of name, it being undisputed, as it appears from
petitioner's Exhibit "A", that the only name given in the title of the notice of the
order about the filing of appellee's amended petitions was that of Go Chiu Beng;
that no other name was given in said title, despite the fact that, in both his original
and amended petition, appellee alleged that he had "always" been known, "since
his arrival in the Philippines," as "Reynaldo"; and that his own certificate of
naturalization, Exhibit "B", shows that he is likewise known as "Jimmy Go."|

ISSUE: Whether or not the non-inclusion of all the names by which applicant
is known in title of notice of the order of the filing of a petition is a
jurisdictional effect.

HELD: Yes.
Change of name is a judicial proceeding in rem. Jurisdiction to hear and determine
a petition therefor, by law, is acquired after publication of the 'order reciting the
purpose of the petition' and the 'date and place for the hearing thereof' — for three
(3) successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation.

To inform, the publication should recite, amongst others, the following facts: (1)
the name or names of the applicant, (2) the cause for which the change of name is
sought, and (3) the new name asked for.

"Change of name is a matter of public interest.|

"Change of name is not a right. It is a privilege. The court may give or withhold its
consent."|

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from should be as it is hereby annulled and

set aside and this case dismissed, with costs against petitioner-appellee Go Chiu
Beng.|||

8. Republic vs Cagandahan (GR No. 166676; September 12, 2008)

Quisimbing, Justice

FACTS: Respondent Jennifer Cagandahan filed a Petition for Correction of

Entries in Birth Certificate 2 before the RTC, Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna.||

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 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.|

He explained that genetically respondent is female but because her body secretes
male hormones, her female organs did not develop normally and she has two sex
organs — female and male.||

ISSUE: whether the trial court erred in ordering the correction of entries in
the birth certificate of respondent to change her sex or gender, from female to
male, on the ground of her medical condition known as CAH, and her name
from "Jennifer" to "Jeff", under Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court.

HELD: NO.

The OSG argues that the petition below is fatally defective for non-compliance
with Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court because respondent's petition did not
implead the local civil registrar. ||
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.|

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 respondent's 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 respondent's 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. 28 The trial court's grant of respondent's change of name from Jennifer
to Jeff implies a change of a feminine name to a masculine name. Considering
the consequence that respondent's change of name merely recognizes his
preferred gender, we find merit in respondent's change of name. Such a change
will conform with the change of the entry in his birth certificate from female to
male.

WHEREFORE, the Republic's petition is DENIED. The Decision dated

January 12, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna, is
AFFIRMED.

9. Lee vs CA (GR No.118387; October 22, 2007)

De Leon Jr, Justice

 FACTS: This is a story of two (2) sets of children sired by one and the same
man but begotten of two (2) different mothers. One set, the private respondents
herein, are the children of Lee Tek Sheng and his lawful wife, Keh Shiok Cheng.
The other set, the petitioners herein, are allegedly children of Lee Tek Sheng and
his concubine, Tiu Chuan.

Rita K. Lee, Leoncio Lee Tek Sheng, Rosa K. Lee-Vanderlek, Melody K.

Lee-Chin, Lucia K. Lee Tek Sheng-Ong, Julian K. Lee, Henry K. Lee, Martin K.
Lee, Victoriano K. Lee, Natividad K. Lee-Miguel and Thomas K. Lee (hereinafter
referred to as private respondents) filed two (2) separate petitions for the
cancellation and/or correction of entries in the records of birth of Marcelo Lee,
Albina Lee-Young, Mariano Lee, Pablo Lee, Helen Lee, Catalino K. Lee, Eusebio
Lee, and Emma Lee (hereinafter referred to as petitioners). On December 2, 1992,
the petition against all petitioners, with the exception of Emma Lee, was filed
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila and docketed as SP. PROC. NO.
92-63692 5 and later assigned to Branch 47 presided over by respondent Judge
Lorenzo B. Veneracion. On February 3, 1993, a similar petition against Emma Lee
was filed before the RTC of Kalookan and docketed as SP. PROC. NO. C-
1674 6 and assigned to the sala of respondent Judge Jaime T. Hamoy of Branch
130.

Both petitions sought to cancel and/or correct the false and erroneous entries
in all pertinent records of birth of petitioners by deleting and/or canceling therein
the name of "Keh Shiok Cheng" as their mother, and by substituting the same with
the name "Tiu Chuan", who is allegedly the petitioners' true birth mother.

||| (Lee v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118387, [October 11, 2001], 419 PHIL 392-
421)
Both petitions sought to cancel and/or correct the false and erroneous entries in all
pertinent records of birth of petitioners by deleting and/or canceling therein the
name of "Keh Shiok Cheng" as their mother, and by substituting the same with the
name "Tiu Chuan", who is allegedly the petitioners' true birth mother.||| (Lee v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118387, [October 11, 2001], 419 PHIL 392-421)

Sometime in October, 1948, Lee Tek Sheng, facilitated the arrival in the
Philippines from China of a young girl named Tiu Chuan. She was introduced by
Lee Tek Sheng to his family as their new housemaid but far from becoming their
housemaid, Tiu Chuan immediately became Lee Tek Sheng's mistress. As a result
of their illicit relations, Tiu Chuan gave birth to petitioners.||| (Lee v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 118387, [October 11, 2001], 419 PHIL 392-421)

NBI conducted a report. NBI concluded: as per Chinese General Hospital Patients
Records, it is very obvious that the mother of these 8 children is certainly not KEH
SHIOK CHENG, but a much younger woman, most probably TIU CHUAN. Upon
further evaluation and analysis by these Agents, LEE TEK SHENG, is in a
quandary in fixing the age of KEH SHIOK CHENG possibly to conform with his
grand design of making his 8 children as their own legitimate children,
consequently elevating the status of his 2nd family and secure their future. The
doctor lamented that this complaint would not have been necessary had not the
father and his 2nd family kept on insisting that the 8 children are the legitimate
children of KEH SHIOK CHENG.||| (Lee v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118387,
[October 11, 2001], 419 PHIL 392-421)

It was this report that prompted private respondents to file the petitions for
cancellation and/or correction of entries in petitioners' records of birth with the
lower courts.||| (Lee v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118387, [October 11, 2001],
419 PHIL 392-421)
The petitioners filed a motion to dismiss both petitions on the grounds that: (1)
resort to Rule 108 is improper where the ultimate objective is to assail the
legitimacy and filiation of petitioners; (2) the petition, which is essentially an
action to impugn legitimacy was filed prematurely; and (3) the action to impugn
has already prescribed.||| (Lee v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118387, [October 11,
2001], 419 PHIL 392-421)

Respondent Judge Veneracion denied the motion to dismiss for failure of the
herein petitioners (defendants in the lower court) to appear at the hearing of the
said motion.||| (Lee v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118387, [October 11, 2001], 419
PHIL 392-421)

Petitioners' attempts at seeking a reconsideration of the above-mentioned orders of

Judge Veneracion and Judge Hamoy failed, hence their recourse to the Court of
Appeals via a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Application for the
Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary
Injunction.||| (Lee v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118387, [October 11, 2001], 419
PHIL 392-421)

In their petition before the Court of Appeals, the petitioners raised the following
arguments: (1) Rule 108 is inappropriate for impugning the legitimacy and filiation
of children; (2) Respondents judges are sanctioning a collateral attack against the
filiation and legitimacy of children; (3) Respondents judges are allowing private
respondents to impugn the legitimacy and filiation of their siblings despite the fact
that their undisputed common father is still alive; (4) Respondents judges are
entertaining petitions which are already time-barred; and (5) The petitions below
are part of a forum-shopping spree. ||| (Lee v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118387,
[October 11, 2001], 419 PHIL 392-421)

GO BACK

10. Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio vs Republic (GR No. 174689; October 22,
2007)

Corona, Justice

FACTS: On November 26, 2002, 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,

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.|

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 4 in favor of petitioner.

The Republic of the Philippines (Republic),thru the OSG, filed a petition
for certiorari in the Court of Appeals. 6 It alleged that there is no law allowing the
change of entries in the birth certificate by reason of sex alteration.|

The Court of Appeals 7 rendered a decision 8 in favor of the Republic.

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. 10||

ISSUE: WON petitioner is entitled to the relief asked for.

HELD: No.

Before a person can legally change his given name, he must present proper or
reasonable cause or any compelling reason justifying such change. 19 In
addition, he must show that he will be prejudiced by the use of his true and
official name. 20 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.

Their effects are expressly sanctioned by the laws. In contrast, sex reassignment is
not among those acts or events mentioned in Article 407. Neither is it recognized
nor even mentioned by any law, expressly or impliedly.||

For these reasons, while petitioner may have succeeded in altering his body and
appearance through the intervention of modern surgery, no law authorizes the
change of entry as to sex in the civil registry for that reason. Thus, there is no legal
basis for his petition for the correction or change of the entries in his birth
certificate.||

Petition is denied.

11. Republic of the Philippines vs Julian Edward Emerson Coseteng-Magpayo

(GR No. 189476; February 2, 2011)

Carpio Morales, Justice

FACTS: Claiming, however, that his parents were never legally married,
respondent filed on July 22, 2008 at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon
City a Petition to change his name to Julian Edward Emerson Marquez Lim
Coseteng. The petition, docketed as SPP No. Q-0863058, was entitled "IN RE
PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAMEOF JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON
COSETENG MAGPAYO TO JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON MARQUEZ-LIM
COSETENG."
Support of his petition, respondent submitted a certification from the National
Statistics Office stating that his mother Anna Dominique "does not appear in [its]
National Indices of Marriage." 2 Respondent also submitted his academic records
from elementary up to college 3 showing that he carried the surname "Coseteng,"
and the birth certificate of his child where "Coseteng" appears as his surname. 4 In
the 1998, 2001 and 2004 Elections, respondent ran and was elected as Councilor of
Quezon City's 3rd District using the name "JULIAN M.L. COSETENG."|

The trial court granted respondent's petition.|

The Republic of the Philippines (Republic) filed a motion for reconsideration but it
was denied by the trial court by Order of July 2, 2009, 11 hence, it, thru the OSG,
lodged the present petition for review to the Court on pure question of law.|

Issue: Whether the change in Julian’s legitimacy is a substantial change

thereby making Rule 108 of the Rules of Court inapplicable?

HELD: Yes.

Rule 108 clearly directs that a petition which concerns one's civil status should
be filed in the civil registry in which the entry is sought to be cancelled or
corrected — that of Makati in the present case, and "all persons who have or
claim any interest which would be affected thereby" should be made parties to
the proceeding.

As earlier stated, however, the petition of respondent was filed not in

Makati where his birth certificate was registered but in Quezon City. And as the
above-mentioned title of the petition filed by respondent before the RTC shows,
 neither the civil registrar of Makati nor his father and mother were made parties
thereto.

Even assuming arguendo that respondent had simultaneously availed of these two
statutory remedies, respondent cannot be said to have sufficiently complied with
Rule 108. For, as reflected above, aside from improper venue, he failed to
implead the civil registrar of Makati and all affected parties as respondents in
the case.|||

IN FINE, 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.

WHEREFORE, the petition is, in light of the foregoing

discussions, GRANTED.

|||