VOL.

255, MARCH 15, 1996 99 Rules of Court—the decision, insofar as it orders the correction
Republic vs. Court of Appeals of name, is void and without force or effect.—With regard to the
second assignment of error in the petition, we hold that both the
G.R. No. 103695. March 15, 1996. *

Court of Appeals and the trial court erred in granting private

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. THE
respondents’ prayer for the correction of the name of the child in
COURT OF APPEALS, JAIME B. CARANTO, and ZENAIDA the civil registry. Contrary to what the trial court thought, Rule
P. CARANTO, respondents. 108 of the Rules of Court applies to this case and because its
Adoption; Actions; Jurisdiction; The court acquired provision was not complied with, the decision of the trial court,
jurisdiction over the petition for adoption even if the given name of insofar as it ordered the correction of the name of the minor, is
the child to be adopted was published as “Michael” instead of void and without force or effect.
“Midael,” which is the name appearing in the birth certificate— Same; Same; Same; Art. 412, Civil Code; Indeed, it has been
changing the name of the child from “Midael” to “Michael” cannot the uniform ruling of the Supreme Court that Art. 412 of the Civil
possibly cause any confusion, because both names can be read and Code covers “those harmless and innocuous changes, such as
pronounced with the same rhyme and tone.—The present case is correction of a name that is clearly misspelled.”—The trial court
different. It involves an obvious clerical error in the name of the was clearly in error in holding Rule 108 to be applicable only to the
child sought to be adopted. In this case the correction involves correction of errors concerning the civil status of persons. Indeed,
merely the substitution of the letters “ch” for the letter “d,” so that it has been the uniform ruling of this Court that Art. 412 of the
what appears as “Midael” as given name would read “Michael.” Civil Code—to implement which Rule 108 was inserted in the
Even the Solicitor General admits that the error is a plainly Rules of Court of 1964—covers “those harmless and innocuous
clerical one. Changing the name of the child from “Midael C. changes, such as correction of a name that is clearly misspelled.”
Mazon” to “Michael C. Mazon” cannot possibly cause any Same; Same; Same; Parties; Civil Registrar; The local civil
confusion, because both names “can be read and pronounced with registrar is an indispensable party in a proceeding for the
the same rhyme (tugma) and tone (tono, tunog, himig).” The correction of name in the civil registry.—The local civil registrar is
purpose of the publication requirement is to give notice so that thus required to be made a party to the proceeding. He is an
those who have any objection to the adoption can make their indispensable party, without whom no final determination of the
objection known. That purpose has been served by publication of case can be had. As he was not impleaded in this case much less
notice in this case. given notice of the proceeding, the decision of the trial court,
Same; Change of Name; Rule 108, Rules of Court; It is error to insofar as it granted the prayer for the correction of entry, is void.
grant a prayer for correction of the given name of the child in a The absence of an indispensable party in a case renders ineffectual
petition for adoption if there was no compliance with Rule 108 of all the proceedings subsequent to the filing of the complaint
the including the judgment.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Due Process; A notice made
_______________
pursuant to a petition for adoption, where only the prayer for
*SECOND DIVISION. adoption is stated and no mention is made of the prayer for
100 correction of name in the civil registry deprives the civil registrar of
1 SUPREME COURT REPORTS notice and of the opportunity to be heard.—While there was notice
00 ANNOTATED given by publication in this case, it was notice of the petition for
Republic vs. Court of Appeals adoption made in compliance with Rule 99, §4. In that notice only

Page 1 of 6
the prayer for adoption of the minor was stated. Nothing was 1. a)Declaring the child Michael C. Mazon the child of
mentioned that in addition the correction of his name in the civil petitioners for all intents and purposes;
registry was also 2. b)Dissolving the authority vested in the natural parents of
101 the child; and
VOL. 255, MARCH 15, 1996 1 3. c)That the surname of the child be legally changed to that
01 of the petitioners and that the first name which was
Republic vs. Court of Appeals mistakenly registered as “MIDAEL” be corrected to
being sought. The local civil registrar was thus deprived of “MICHAEL.”
notice and, consequently, of the opportunity to be heard.
_______________
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court Per Justice Artemon D. Luna and concurred in by Justices Serafin E.
1

of Appeals. Camilon, chairman, and Celso L. Magsino.

102
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. 102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
The Solicitor General for petitioner. ANNOTATED
Encarnacion, De Guzman & Associates Law Office for Republic vs. Court of Appeals
private respondents. The RTC set the case for hearing on September 21, 1988,
giving notice thereof by publication in a newspaper of general
MENDOZA, J.:
circulation in the Province of Cavite and by service of the
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of 1
order upon the Department of Social Welfare and
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 24453 which Development and the Office of the Solicitor General.
affirmed in toto the decision of Branch XVI of the Regional The Solicitor General opposed the petition insofar as it
Trial Court of Cavite City, granting private respondents’ sought the correction of the name of the child from “Midael”
petition for the adoption of Midael C. Mazon with prayer for to “Michael.” He argued that although the correction sought
the correction of the minor’s first name “Midael” to “Michael.” concerned only a clerical and innocuous error, it could not be
The petition below was filed on September 2, 1988 by granted because the petition was basically for adoption, not
private respondents spouses Jaime B. Caranto and Zenaida the correction of an entry in the civil registry under Rule 108
P. Caranto for the adoption of Midael C. Mazon, then fifteen of the Rules of Court.
years old, who had been living with private respondent Jaime Thereafter the case was heard during which private
B. Caranto since he was seven years old. When private respondent Zenaida Caranto, Florentina Mazon (natural
respondents were married on January 19, 1986, the minor mother of the child), and the minor testified. Also presented
Midael C. Mazon stayed with them under their care and was Carlina Perez, social worker of the Department of Social
custody. Private respondents prayed that judgment be Welfare and Development, who endorsed the adoption of the
rendered: minor, being of the opinion that the same was in the best
interest of the child.

Page 2 of 6
 On May 30, 1989, the RTC rendered its decision. The RTC The Solicitor General appealed to the Court of Appeals
dismissed the opposition of the Solicitor General on the reiterating his contention that the correction of names cannot
ground that Rule 108 of the Rules of Court (Cancellation or be effected in the same proceeding for adoption. As additional
Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) applies only to the ground for his appeal, he argued that the RTC did not
correction of entries concerning the civil status of persons. It acquire jurisdiction over the case for adoption because in the
cited Rule 108, §1, which provides that “any person notice published in the newspaper, the name given was
interested in an act, event, order or decree concerning the “Michael,” instead of “Midael,” which is the name of the
civil status of persons which has been recorded in the civil minor given in his Certificate of Live Birth.
register, may file a verified petition for the cancellation or On January 23, 1992, the Court of Appeals affirmed in
correction of any entry relating thereto.” It held that the toto the decision of the RTC. The Court of Appeals ruled that
correction of names in the civil registry is not one of the the case of Cruz v. Republic, invoked by the petitioner in
2

matters enumerated in Rule 108, §2 as “entries subject to support of its plea that the trial court did not acquire
cancellation or correction.” According to the trial court, the jurisdiction over the case, was inapplicable because that case
error could be corrected in the same proceeding for adoption involved a substantial error. Like the trial court, it held that
to prevent multiplicity of actions and inconvenience to the to require the petitioners to file a separate petition for
petitioners. correction of name would entail “additional time and
The dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads: expenses for them as well as for the Government and the
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered granting the herein Courts.”
petition and declaring that: Hence this petition for review. Private respondents were
103 required to comment. Despite opportunity given to them,
VOL. 255, MARCH 15, 1996 103 however, they did not file any comment.
Republic vs. Court of Appeals The first issue is whether on the facts stated, the RTC
acquired jurisdiction over the private respondents’ petition
1. 1.Michael C. Mazon is, for all legal intents and purposes, for adoption. Petitioner’s contention is that the trial court did
the son by adoption of petitioners Jaime B. Caranto and not acquire jurisdiction over the petition for adoption because
Zenaida P. Caranto;
the
2. 2.Henceforth, the minor’s name shall be Michael Caranto,
in lieu of his original name of Michael Mazon, or Midael _______________
Mazon, as appearing in his record of birth;
3. 3.The Local Civil Registrar of Cavite City, the birthplace of 217 SCRA 693 (1966).
said minor, is hereby directed to accordingly amend (and) 104
correct the birth certificate of said minor; and 104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
4. 4.This judgment shall retroact to September 2, 1988, the ANNOTATED
date of filing of the herein petition. Republic vs. Court of Appeals
notice by publication did not state the true name of the minor
child. Petitioner invokes the ruling in Cruz v.
Page 3 of 6
Republic. There the petition for adoption and the notice
3 _______________
published in the newspaper gave the baptismal name of the 3Id.
child (“Rosanna E. Cruz”) instead of her name in the record 105
of birth (“Rosanna E. Bucoy”). It was held that this was a VOL. 255, MARCH 15, 1996 105
“substantial defect in the petition and the published order of Republic vs. Court of Appeals
hearing.” Indeed there was a question of identity involved in and without force or effect.
that case. Rosanna E. Cruz could very well be a different The trial court was clearly in error in holding Rule 108 to
person from Rosanna E. Bucoy, as common experience would be applicable only to the correction of errors concerning the
indicate. civil status of persons. Rule 108, §2 plainly states:
The present case is different. It involves an obvious §2. Entries subject to cancellation or correction.—Upon good and
clerical error in the name of the child sought to be adopted. valid grounds, the following entries in the civil register may be
In this case the correction involves merely the substitution of cancelled or corrected: (a) births; (b) marriages; (c) deaths; (d) legal
the letters “ch” for the letter “d,” so that what appears as separations; (e) judgments of annulments of marriage; (f)
“Midael” as given name would read “Michael.” Even the judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning; (g)
Solicitor General admits that the error is a plainly clerical legitimations; (h) adoptions; (i) acknowledgments of natural
one. Changing the name of the child from “Midael C. Mazon” children; (j) naturalization; (k) election, loss or recovery of
to “Michael C. Mazon” cannot possibly cause any confusion, citizenship; (l) civil interdiction; (m) judicial determination of
because both names “can be read and pronounced with the filiation; (n) voluntary emancipation of a minor; and (o) changes of
name.
same rhyme (tugma) and tone (tono, tunog, himig).” The
This case falls under letter “(o),” referring to “changes of
purpose of the publication requirement is to give notice so
name.” Indeed, it has been the uniform ruling of this Court
that those who have any objection to the adoption can make
that Art. 412 of the Civil Code—to implement which Rule
their objection known. That purpose has been served by
108 was inserted in the Rules of Court in 1964—covers “those
publication of notice in this case.
harmless and innocuous changes, such as correction of a
For this reason we hold that the RTC correctly granted
name that is clearly misspelled.” Thus, in Yu v. Republic it
the petition for adoption of the minor Midael C. Mazon and
4 5

was held that “to change ‘Sincio’ to ‘Sencio’ which merely

the Court of Appeals, in affirming the decision of the trial
involves the substitution of the first vowel ‘i’ in the first
court, correctly did so.
name into the vowel ‘e’ amounts merely to the righting of a
With regard to the second assignment of error in the
clerical error.” In Labayo-Rowe v. Republic it was held that
6

petition, we hold that both the Court of Appeals and the trial
“the change of petitioner’s name from Beatriz Labayo/Beatriz
court erred in granting private respondents’ prayer for the
Labayu to Emperatriz Labayo is a mere innocuous alteration
correction of the name of the child in the civil registry.
wherein a summary proceeding is appropriate.”
Contrary to what the trial court thought, Rule 108 of the
Rule 108 thus applies to the present proceeding. Now §3 of
Rules of Court applies to this case and because its provision
this Rule provides:
was not complied with, the decision of the trial court, insofar
§3. Parties.—When cancellation or correction of an entry in the
as it ordered the correction of the name of the minor, is void civil register is sought, the civil registrar and all persons who
Page 4 of 6
_______________ The necessary consequence of the failure to implead the
4 Ansaldo v. Republic, 102 Phil. 1046 (1958); Barillo v. Republic, 113 Phil.
civil registrar as an indispensable party and to give notice by
695 (1961); Tan v. Republic, 114 Phil. 1070 (1962); Yu v. Republic, 21 SCRA publication of the petition for correction of entry was to
1018 (1967); Labayo-Rowe v. Republic, 168 SCRA 294 (1988). render the proceeding of the trial court, so far as the
5 Supra note 4 at 1020.

6 Supra note 4 at 300.

correction of entry was concerned, null and void for lack of
106 jurisdiction
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
_______________
ANNOTATED
Republic vs. Court of Appeals 7Republic v. Belmonte, 158 SCRA 173 (1988).
have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby shall 8Galarosa v. Valencia, 227 SCRA 728 (1993); Espiritu v. Court of
be made parties to the proceeding. Appeals, 58 SCRA 195 (1974).
107
The local civil registrar is thus required to be made a party to
VOL. 255, MARCH 15, 1996 107
the proceeding. He is an indispensable party, without whom
Republic vs. Court of Appeals
no final determination of the case can be had. As he was not
7

impleaded in this case much less given notice of the both as to party and as to the subject matter. 9

proceeding, the decision of the trial court, insofar as it WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the
granted the prayer for the correction of entry, is void. The Court of Appeals is MODIFIED by deleting from the decision
absence of an indispensable party in a case renders of the Regional Trial Court the order to the local civil
ineffectual all the proceedings subsequent to the filing of the registrar to change the name “MIDAEL” to “MICHAEL” in
complaint including the judgment. 8
the birth certificate of the child. In other respects relating to
Nor was notice of the petition for correction of entry the adoption of Midael C. Mazon, the decision appealed from
published as required by Rule 108, §4 which reads: is AFFIRMED.
§4. Notice and publication.—Upon filing of the petition, the court SO ORDERED.
shall, by an order, fix the time and place for the hearing of the Regalado (Chairman), Romero and Puno, JJ., concur.
same, and cause reasonable notice thereof to be given to the Judgment affirmed with modification.
persons named in the petition. The court shall also cause the order Notes.—In adoption, the paramount consideration is
to be published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a given to the physical, moral, social and intellectual welfare of
newspaper of general circulation in the province. the adopted. (Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 227 SCRA
While there was notice given by publication in this case, it 401[1993])
was notice of the petition for adoption made in compliance Adoption is geared more towards the promotion of the
with Rule 99, §4. In that notice only the prayer for adoption welfare of the child and enhancement of his opportunities for
of the minor was stated. Nothing was mentioned that in a useful and happy life. (Republic vs. Toledano, 233 SCRA
addition the correction of his name in the civil registry was 9[1994])
also being sought. The local civil registrar was thus deprived
of notice and, consequently, of the opportunity to be heard. ——o0o——

Page 5 of 6
_______________

9 Lim Tanhu v. Ramolete, 66 SCRA 425 (1975); Director of Lands v. Court

of Appeals, 93 SCRA 238 (1974).

Page 6 of 6