SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE DIGESTS (CHANGE OF NAME)

1. ELEOSIDA vs CIVIL REGISTRAR party, it is deemed substantial, and the

OF QC procedure to be adopted is adversary. (Note:
CLERICAL -SUMMARY; SUBSTANTIAL-
FACTS: This is a petition for review on ADVERSARIAL)
certiorari of the Decision of the RTC of
Quezon City dismissing motu propio the If all the procedural requirements under Rule
petition for Ma. Lourdes Eleosida to correct 108 (Notice and publication [especially])
some entries in the birth certificate of her son, (Note: Adversarial) have been followed, it was
Charles Christian. therefore error for the trial court to dismiss the
petition motu propio without allowing the
Petitioner seeks to correct in the birth petitioner to present evidence to support her
cert. of her son the following: petition (and all the other persons who have
1. The surname “Borbon” should be an interest over the matter to oppose the
changed to Eleosida (since the parents same).
were never married; the child is
illegitimate and, therefore, should 2. REPUBLIC vs KHO
follow the mother’s surname;
2. The date of the wedding should be The enactment in March 2001 of Republic Act
blank; No. 9048, otherwise known as “An Act
3. Petitioner’s name should be Ma. Authorizing the City or Municipal Civil
Lourdes Eleosida (instead of Borbon). Registrar or the Consul General to Correct A
Clerical or Typographical Error In An Entry
No opposition was made to this petition. and/or Change of First Name or Nickname in
the Civil Register Without Need of Judicial
RTC, however, dismissed it on the basis that Order,” has been considered to lend legislative
only clerical errors (CLERICAL ERRORS) of a affirmation to the judicial precedence that
harmless and innocuous nature like substantial corrections to the civil status of
misspelled name, occupation of the parents, persons recorded in the civil registry may be
etc. may be subject of judicial order effected through the filing of a petition under
authorizing changes or corrections and not as Rule 108.When all the procedural
may affect the civil status, nationality or requirements under Rule 108 are thus
citizenship of the person (substantial/material followed, the appropriate adversary
change/error) involved. proceeding necessary to effect substantial
corrections to the entries of the civil register is
Hence this petition. satisfied.

ISSUE: Whether changes or corrections which FACTS: Carlito Kho and his family applied for
are substantial may be subject of a judicial the correction of various details in their birth
proceeding. certificate. Carlito petitioned for 1) change of
citizenship of his mother from “Chinese” to
RULING: Yes, Court find merit in the petition. “Filipino”; 2) delete “John” from his name; 3)
delete the word “married” opposite the date of
Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court marriage of his parents. The last correction
provides the procedure for cancellation or was ordered to be effected likewise in the birth
correction of entries in the civil registry. The certificates of respondents Michael, Mercy,
proceedings under said rule may either be Nona and Heddy Moira.
summary or adversary in nature. If the
correction sought to be made in the civil The petition from a non-adversarial nature of
register is clerical, then the procedure to be the change is premised on RA 9048, which
adopted is summary. If the rectification affects allows first name and nickname in the birth
the civil status, citizenship or nationality of a certificates without judicial order. The

54
 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE DIGESTS (CHANGE OF NAME)

Municipal officer approved the change. The When all the procedural requirements under
Solicitor General objected to the correction on Rule 108 are thus followed, the appropriate
the ground that the correction is not merely adversary proceeding necessary to effect
clerical but requires an adversarial proceeding. substantial corrections to the entries of the
The Court of Appeals favored with Kho. civil register is satisfied.

ISSUE: Whether or not Kho’s request for 3. PETITION FOR CHANGE OF

change in the details of their birth certificate NAME OF JULIAN LIM
requires an adversarial proceeding. CARULASAN

RULING: It cannot be gainsaid that the DOCTRINE: Before a person can be

petition, insofar as it sought to change the authorized to change his name given him
citizenship of Carlito’s mother as it appeared either in his certificate of birth or civil registry,
in his birth certificate and delete the “married” he must show proper or reasonable cause, or
status of Carlito’s parents in his and his any compelling reason which may justify such
siblings’ respective birth certificates, as well as change. Otherwise, the request should be
change the date of marriage of Carlito and denied.
Marivel involves the correction of not just
clerical errors of a harmless and innocuous FACTS: Petitioner Julian Lin Carulasan Wang,
nature. Rather, the changes entail substantial a minor, represented by his mother Anna Lisa
and controversial amendments. Wang, filed a petition for change of name
and/or correction/cancellation of entry in the
For the change involving the nationality of Civil Registry of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang.
Carlito’s mother as reflected in his birth Petitioner sought to drop his middle name and
certificate is a grave and important matter that have his registered name changed from Julian
has a bearing and effect on the citizenship and Lin Carulasan Wang to Julian Lin Wang as
nationality not only of the parents, but also of they plan to stay long in Singapore. Since in
the offspring. Singapore middle names or the maiden
surname of the mother are not carried in a
Further, the deletion of the entry that Carlito’s person’s name, they anticipate that Julian Lin
and his sibllings’ parents were “married” Carulasan Wang will be discriminated against
alters their filiation from “legitimate” to because of his current registered name which
“illegitimate”. with significant implications on carries a middle name. Julian and his sister
their successional and other rights. Clearly, the might also be asking whether they are brother
changes sought can only be granted in an and sister since they have different surnames.
adversary proceeding. Carulasan sounds funny in Singapore’s
Mandarin language since they do not have the
The enactment in March 2001 of RA 9048 letter "R" but if there is, they pronounce it as
known as “An Act Authorizing the City or "L." It is for these reasons that the name of
Municipal Civil Registrar or the Consul Julian Lin Carulasan Wang is requested to be
General to Correct A Clerical or Typographical changed to Julian Lin Wang.
Error in an Entry and/or Change of First Name
or Nickname in the Civil Register Without RTC – denied the petition.
Need of Judicial Order.” has been considered
to lend legislative affirmation to the judicial ISSUE: WON the trial court is correct in
precedence that substantial corrections to the denying the petition based on the ground
civil status of persons recorded in the civil presented by the petitioner.
registry may be effected through the filing of a
petition under Rule 108. RULING: Yes, the Court is correct in denying
the petition.

55
 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE DIGESTS (CHANGE OF NAME)

The State has an interest in the names borne by TITULAR

individuals and entities for purposes of Date of Birth: 01 January 1996
identification, and that a change of name is a Mother: Lucille Celestial
privilege and not a right, so that before a Titular
person can be authorized to change his name Father: Pablito S. Braza
given him either in his certificate of birth or Date Received at the
civil registry, he must show proper or Local Civil Registrar: January
reasonable cause, or any compelling reason 13, 1997
which may justify such change. Otherwise, the Annotation: "Late
request should be denied. The touchstone for Registration"
the grant of a change of name is that there be
‘proper and reasonable cause’ for which the Annotation/Remarks: "Ackno
change is sought. To justify a request for wledge (sic) by the father
change of name, petitioner must show not PablitoBraza on January 13,
only some proper or compelling reason 1997"
therefore but also that he will be prejudiced by
the use of his true and official name. Remarks: Legitimated by
virtue of subsequent
In the case at bar, the only reason advanced by marriage of parents on April
petitioner for the dropping his middle name is 22, 1998 at
convenience. However, how such change of Manila. Henceforth, the child
name would make his integration into shall be known as Patrick
Singaporean society easier and convenient is Alvin Titular Braza
not clearly established. That the continued use
of his middle name would cause confusion Furthermore, Ma. Cristina obtained a copy of
and difficulty does not constitute proper and marriage contract of Lucille and Pablo with a
reasonable cause to drop it from his registered marriage date of April 22, 1998.
complete name.
Hence, Ma.Cristina and her 3 children filed a
4. BRAZA vs CIVIL REGISTRAR OF petition to the RTC of Negros Occidental to
NEGROS OCCIDENTAL correct the entries in the birth record of Patrick
in the Local Register as Patrick could not have
FACTS: Ma. Cristina Torres and Pablo Braza been legitimated due to the marriage between
were married on January 4, 1978. They had 3 Lucille and Pablo as the said marriage was
children named Paolo Jose and Janelle Ann bigamous.
and Gian Carlo.
The petition prayed for
On April 15, 2002, Pablo died in a vehicular
accident in Java, Indonesia. During the wake, 1) The correction of entries in Patrick’s
Lucille Titular introduced her and Pablo’s birth record with respect to his
alleged child, the minor Patrick Alvin Titular legitimation, acknowledgement of
Braza. Pablo and the use of the surname
“Braza”;
Ma. Cristina, to confirm the truth, obtained a 2) The directive to submit Patrick to
copy of Patrick’s birth certificate from the Civil DNA testing;
Registrar of Himamaylan City, Negros 3) The declaration of nullity of Patrick’s
Occidental. legitimation and consequently, the
declaration of marriage of Lucille and
Name of Child: PATRICK Pablo as bigamous.
ALVIN CELESTIAL

56
 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE DIGESTS (CHANGE OF NAME)

RTC dismissed the petition without prejudiced interested parties are impleaded and due
for lack of jurisdiction. In a special proceeding process is properly observed.
for correction of entry, the court is not acting
as a Family Court; and thus, has no The allegations of the petition filed before the
jurisdiction over an action to annul the trial court clearly show that petitioners seek to
marriage between Lucille and Pablo, impugn nullify the marriage between Pablo and Lucille
Patrick’s legitimacy, or order the DNA testing. on the ground that it is bigamous and impugn
Said controversies must be done in an Patrick’s filiation and not just a mere incident
ordinary adversarial action. to their petition to correct the entries on the
birth record.
Motion for reconsideration was denied and
thus this review. Petitioners’ causes of action are governed not
by Rule 108 but by A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC
ISSUE: Whether or not in a special proceeding which took effect on March 15, 2003, and Art.
for correction of entry under Rule 108, the 171 of the Family Code, respectively, hence,
court has jurisdiction to pass upon the validity the petition should be filed in a Family Court
of marriage and questions on legitimacy?--NO as expressly provided in said Code.

RULING: Petitioners contends that the court a It is well to emphasize that, doctrinally,
quo may pass upon the validity of marriage validity of marriages as well as legitimacy and
and questions on legitimacy even in an action filiation can be questioned only in a direct
to correct entries in the civil registrar as even action seasonably filed by the proper party,
substantial errorscan be the subject of a and not through collateral attack such as the
petition under Rule 108. Petition FAILS. petition filed before the court a quo.

In a special proceeding for correction of entry 5. REPUBLIC vs SILVERIO

under Rule 108 (Cancellation or Correction of
Entries in the Original Registry), the trial court FACTS: This is a case where the petitioner
has no jurisdiction to nullify marriages and seeks to change his name and sex in his birth
rule on legitimacy and filiation. certificate to reflect the result of sex
reassignment surgery.
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court vis a vis Article
412 of the Civil Code charts the procedure by Rommel Silverio, petition for the change of his
which an entry in the civil registry may be name and sex in his birth certificate in the RTC
cancelled or corrected. Manila wherein the trial court ruled in favor of
the petitioner on the basis that:
The proceeding contemplated therein may
generally be used only to correct clerical, 1. The court is of the opinion that
spelling, typographical and other innocuous granting the petition would be more
errors in the civil registry. in consonance with the principles of
justice and equity. With his sexual [re-
A clerical error is one which is visible to the assignment], petitioner, who has
eyes or obvious to the understanding; an error always felt, thought and acted like a
made by a clerk or a transcriber; a mistake in woman, now possesses the physique
copying or writing, or a harmless change such of a female. Petitioner’s misfortune to
as a correction of name that is clearly be trapped in a man’s body is not his
misspelled or of a misstatement of the own doing and should not be in any
occupation of the parent. Substantial or way taken against him.
contentious alterations may be allowed only in Also, the court believes that no harm,
adversarial proceedings, in which all injury [or] prejudice will be caused to
anybody or the community in

57
 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE DIGESTS (CHANGE OF NAME)

granting the petition. On the contrary, SECTION 4. Grounds for Change of

granting the petition would bring the First Name or Nickname. – The
much-awaited happiness on the part petition for change of first name or
of the petitioner and her [fiancé] and nickname may be allowed in any of
the realization of their dreams. the following cases:
(1) The petitioner finds the first name
2. No evidence was presented to show or nickname to be ridiculous, tainted
any cause or ground to deny the with dishonor or extremely difficult to
present petition despite due notice write or pronounce;
and publication thereof. Even the (2) The new first name or nickname
State, through the [OSG] has not seen has been habitually and continuously
fit to interpose any opposition. used by the petitioner and he has been
publicly known by that first name or
On August 18, 2003, the Republic of the nickname in the community; or
Philippines (Republic), thru the OSG, filed a (3) The change will avoid confusion.
petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals.6
It alleged that there is no law allowing the Petitioner’s basis in praying for the change of
change of entries in the birth certificate by his first name was his sex reassignment. He
reason of sex alteration. On February 23, 2006, intended to make his first name compatible
the Court of Appeals7 rendered a decision8 in with the sex he thought he transformed
favor of the Republic. It ruled that the trial himself into through surgery. However, a
court’s decision lacked legal basis. There is no change of name does not alter one’s legal
law allowing the change of either name or sex capacity or civil status. RA 9048 does not
in the certificate of birth on the ground of sex sanction a change of first name on the ground
reassignment through surgery. Thus, the of sex reassignment. Rather than avoiding
Court of Appeals granted the Republic’s confusion, changing petitioner’s first name for
petition, set aside the decision of the trial court his declared purpose may only create grave
and ordered the dismissal of SP Case No. 02- complications in the civil registry and the
105207. Petitioner moved for reconsideration public interest.
but it was denied.
For these reasons, while petitioner may have
ISSUE: Whether or not the sex reassignment succeeded in altering his body and appearance
shall be considered as ground for change of through the intervention of modern surgery,
name and sex in Civil Registry? no law authorizes the change of entry as to sex
in the civil registry for that reason. Thus, there
RULING: No, sex reassignment cannot be is no legal basis for his petition for the
considered as ground for change of name and correction or change of the entries in his birth
sex in the civil registry. certificate.

A change of name is a privilege, not a right. 6. REPUBLIC vs CAGANDAHAN

Petitions for change of name are controlled by
statutes. In this connection, Article 376 of the FACTS: Jennifer Cagandahan filed before the
Civil Code provides: Regional Trial Court Branch 33 of Siniloan,
Laguna a Petition for Correction of Entries in
ART. 376. No person can change his Birth Certificate of her name from Jennifer B.
name or surname without judicial Cagandahan to Jeff Cagandahan and her
authority. gender from female to male. It appearing that
Jennifer Cagandahan is sufferingfrom
RA 9048 likewise provides the Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia which is a
grounds for which change of first rare medical condition where afflicted persons
name may be allowed: possess both male and female characteristics.

58
 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE DIGESTS (CHANGE OF NAME)

Jennifer Cagandahan grew up with secondary 7. REPUBLIC vs UY

male characteristics. To further her petition,
Cagandahan presented in court the medical FACTS: Respondent filed a Petition for
certificate evidencing that she is suffering Correction of Entry in her Certificate of Live
from Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia which Birth and it was only the Local Civil Registrar
certificate is issued by Dr. Michael Sionzon of of Gingoog City who was impleaded as
the Department of Psychiatry, University of respondent in the petition.
the Philippines-Philippine General Hospital,
who, in addition, explained that “Cagandahan She alleged that she was born on February 8,
genetically is female but because her body 1952 and is the illegitimate daughter of Sy Ton
secretes male hormones, her female organs did and Sotera Lugsanay. Her Certificate of Live
not develop normally, thus has organs of both Birth shows that her full name is "Anita Sy"
male and female.” The lower court decided in when in fact she is allegedly known to her
her favor but the Office of the Solicitor General family and friends as "Norma S. Lugsanay."
appealed before the Supreme Court invoking She further claimed that her school records,
that the same was a violation of Rules 103 and Professional Regulation Commission Board of
108 of the Rules of Court because the said Medicine Certificate, and passport bear the
petition did not implead the local civil name "Norma S. Lugsanay." She also alleged
registrar. that she is an illegitimate child considering
that her parents were never married, so she
ISSUE: WON filing a petition for change of had to follow the surname of her mother. She
name can be granted without impleading the also contended that she is a Filipino citizen
local civil registrar? and not Chinese, and all her siblings bear the
surname Lugsanay and are all Filipinos.
RULING: Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed
the decision of the lower court. It held that, in Respondent allegedly filed earlier a petition
deciding the case, the Supreme Court for correction of entries with the Office of the
considered “the compassionate calls for Local Civil Registrar of Gingoog City to effect
recognition of the various degrees of intersex the corrections on her name and citizenship
as variations which should not be subject to which was supposedly granted. However, the
outright denial.” The Supreme Court made National Statistics Office records did not bear
use of the availale evidence presented in court such changes. Hence, the petition before the
including the fact that private respondent RTC.
thinks of himself as a male and as to the
statement made by the doctor that The RTC issued an Order finding the petition
Cagandahan’s body produces high levels of to be sufficient in form and substance and
male hormones (androgen), which is setting the case for hearing, with the directive
preponderant biological support for that the said Order be published in a
considering him as being male.” newspaper of general circulation in the City of
Gingoog and the Province of Misamis Oriental
The Supreme Court further held that they give at least once a week for three (3) consecutive
respect to (1) the diversity of nature; and (2) weeks at the expense of respondent, and that
how an individual deals with what nature has the order and petition be furnished the Office
handed out. That is, the Supreme Court of the Solicitor General and the City
respects the respondent’s congenital condition Prosecutor’s Office for their information and
and his mature decision to be a male. Life is guidance. Pursuant to the RTC Order,
already difficult for the ordinary person. The respondent complied with the publication
Court added that a change of name is not a requirement. Consequently, the RTC granted
matter of right but of judicial discretion, to be her petition and allowed the correction sought
exercised in the light of the reasons and the by respondent, which decision was affirmed in
consequences that will follow. toto by the CA.

59
 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE DIGESTS (CHANGE OF NAME)

ISSUE: Whether the petition is dismissible for the State will not change the nature of the
failure to implead indispensable parties. proceedings taken. A reading of Sections 4 and
5, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court shows that
RULING: Yes. the Rules mandate two sets of notices to
different potential oppositors: one given to the
Respondent’s birth certificate shows that her persons named in the petition and another
full name is Anita Sy, that she is a Chinese given to other persons who are not named in
citizen and a legitimate child of Sy Ton and the petition but nonetheless may be
Sotera Lugsanay. In filing the petition, considered interested or affected
however, she seeks the correction of her first parties. Summons must, therefore, be served
name and surname, her status from not for the purpose of vesting the courts with
"legitimate" to "illegitimate" and her jurisdiction but to comply with the
citizenship from "Chinese" to "Filipino." requirements of fair play and due process to
Clearly, the changes are substantial. Thus, afford the person concerned the opportunity
respondent should have impleaded and to protect his interest if he so chooses.
notified not only the Local Civil Registrar but
also her parents and siblings as the persons While there may be cases where the Court
who have interest and are affected by the held that the failure to implead and notify the
changes or corrections respondent wanted to affected or interested parties may be cured by
make. the publication of the notice of hearing,
earnest efforts were made by petitioners in
Section 3 of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court bringing to court all possible interested
provides that when cancellation or correction parties. Such failure was likewise excused
of an entry in the civil register is sought, the where the interested parties themselves
civil registrar and all persons who have or initiated the corrections proceedings; when
claim any interest which would be affected there is no actual or presumptive awareness of
thereby shall be made parties to the the existence of the interested parties;42 or
proceeding. Further, it has been settled in a when a party is inadvertently left out.
number of cases that even substantial errors in
a civil registry may be corrected and the true It is clear from the foregoing discussion that
facts established provided the parties when a petition for cancellation or correction
aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the of an entry in the civil register involves
appropriate adversary proceeding. What is substantial and controversial alterations,
meant by "appropriate adversary proceeding?" including those on citizenship, legitimacy of
Black’s Law Dictionary defines "adversary paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of
proceeding" as follows: marriage, a strict compliance with the
requirements of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court
One having opposing parties; is mandated. If the entries in the civil register
contested, as distinguished could be corrected or changed through mere
from an ex parte application, summary proceedings and not through
one of which the party appropriate action wherein all parties who
seeking relief has given legal may be affected by the entries are notified or
warning to the other party, represented, the door to fraud or other
and afforded the latter an mischief would be set open, the consequence
opportunity to contest it. of which might be detrimental and far
Excludes an adoption reaching.
proceeding.
8. MINORU FUJIKI vs MARINAY
The fact that the notice of hearing was
published in a newspaper of general FACTS: Minoru Fujiki (Fujiki), a Japanese
circulation and notice thereof was served upon national married Maria Paz GalelaMarinay

60
 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE DIGESTS (CHANGE OF NAME)

(Marinay), a Filipina. However, Fujiki’s be reinstated in the trial court for further
parents did not allow Marinay to go to Japan. proceedings. The Solicitor General argued that
Eventually, they lost contact. Marinay then Fujiki, as the spouse of the first marriage, is an
met Shinichi Maekara, Japanese, and married injured party who can sue to declare the
Marinay. However, Marinay suffered physical bigamous marriage between Marinay and
abuse from Maekara so she left him and Maekara void.
reconnected with Fujiki.
The SG contended that the petition to
Fujiki helped Marinay obtain a judgment from recognize the Japanese Family Court
a family court in Japan which declared the judgement may be made in a Rule 108
marriage between Marinay and Maekara void proceeding. Moreover, the SG argued that
on the ground of bigamy. Fujiki filed a petition there is no jurisdictional infirmity in assailing
in the RTC for Judicial Recognition of Foreign a void marriage under Rule 108, citing De
Judgment (Decree of Absolute Nullity of Castro v. De Castroand Nil v. Bayadog which
Marriage). declared that "the validity of a void marriage
may be collaterally attacked."
RTC dismissed the petition. RTC ruled that
petition was in gross violation of the ISSUES:
provisions of the Rule on Declaration of
Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and 1.Whether a husband or wife of a prior
Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. marriage can file a petition to
02-11-10-SC). RTC ruled that only the husband recognize a foreign judgment
or the wife (either Maekara or Marinay) can nullifying the subsequent marriage
file the petition to declare their marriages between his or her spouse and a
void, and not Fujiki. Fujiki argued that Rule foreign citizen on the ground of
108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in bigamy.
the Civil Registry) of the Rules of Court is 2. Whether the RTC can recognize the
applicable. foreign judgment in a proceeding for
cancellation or correction of entries in
Fujiki moved that the Order be the Civil Registry under Rule 108 of
reconsidered.RTC resolved to deny petitioners the Rules of Court.
motion for reconsideration. In its Resolution, RULING:
the RTC stated that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC
applies because the petitioner, in effect, prays 1. Yes. Since the recognition of a foreign
for a decree of absolute nullity of marriage.The judgment only requires proof of fact of
trial court reiterated its two grounds for the judgment, it may be made in a
dismissal, i.e. lack of personality to sue and special proceeding for cancellation or
improper venue under Sections 2(a) and 4 of correction of entries in the civil
A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. registry under Rule 108 of the ROC.
As noted by the SC, in Corpuz v Sto.
The Court required respondents to file their Tomas, this court declared that the
comment on the petition for review.The public recognition of the foreign divorce
respondents, the Local Civil Registrar of decree may be made in a Rule 108
Quezon City and the Administrator and Civil proceeding itself, as the object of
Registrar General of the NSO, participated special proceedings is precisely to
through the Office of the Solicitor General and establish the status or right of a party
filed a Manifestation and Motion. or a particular fact.

The SG prayed that the RTCs "pronouncement Rule 108, Section 1 of the ROC states:
that the petitioner failed to comply with A.M.
No. 02-11-10-SC be set aside" and that the case

61
 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE DIGESTS (CHANGE OF NAME)

Who may file petition. — Any this Court held that a "trial court has
person interested in any act, no jurisdiction to nullify marriages" in
event, order or decree a special proceeding for cancellation
concerning the civil status of or correction of entry under Rule 108
persons which has been of the Rules of Court.Thus, the
recorded in the civil register, "validity of marriage[] x xx can be
may file a verified petition for questioned only in a direct action" to
the cancellation or correction nullify the marriage. The RTC relied
of any entry relating thereto, on Braza in dismissing the petition for
with the Court of First recognition of foreign judgment as a
Instance of the province collateral attack on the marriage
where the corresponding civil between Marinay and Maekara.
registry is located.
Braza is not applicable because Braza does not
Fujiki has the personality to file a petition to involve a recognition of a foreign judgment
recognize the Japanese Family Court judgment nullifying a bigamous marriage where one of
nullifying the marriage between Marinay and the parties is a citizen of the foreign country.
Maekara on the ground of bigamy because the
judgment concerns his civil status as married To be sure, a petition for correction or
to Marinay. For the same reason, he has the cancellation of an entry in the civil registry
personality to file a petition under Rule 108 to cannot substitute for an action to invalidate a
cancel the entry of marriage between Marinay marriage. A direct action is necessary to
and Maekara in the civil registry on the basis prevent circumvention of the substantive and
of the decree of the Japanese Family Court. procedural safeguards of marriage under the
Family Code, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC and other
There is no doubt that the prior spouse has a related laws.A direct action for declaration of
personal and material interest in maintaining nullity or annulment of marriage is also
the integrity of the marriage he contracted and necessary to prevent circumvention of the
the property relations arising from it. There is jurisdiction of the Family Courts under the
also no doubt that he is interested in the Family Courts Act of 1997 (Republic Act No.
cancellation of a n entry of a bigamous 8369), as a petition for cancellation or
marriage in the civil registry, which correction of entries in the civil registry may
compromises the public record of his be filed in the Regional Trial Court "where the
marriage. corresponding civil registry is located."In
other words, a Filipino citizen cannot dissolve
When the right of the spouse to protect his his marriage by the mere expedient of
marriage is violated, the spouse is clearly an changing his entry of marriage in the civil
injured party and is therefore interested in the registry.
judgment of the suit. Being a real party in
interest, the prior spouse is entitled to sue in However, this does not apply in a petition for
order to declare a bigamous marriage void. correction or cancellation of a civil registry
For this purpose, he can petition a court to entry based on the recognition of a foreign
recognize a foreign judgment nullifying the judgment annulling a marriage where one of
bigamous marriage and judicially declare as a the parties is a citizen of the foreign country.
fact that such judgment is effective in the There is neither circumvention of the
Philippines. substantive and procedural safeguards of
marriage under Philippine law, nor of the
2. Yes, the RTC can recognize the foreign jurisdiction of Family Courts under R.A. No.
judgment under Rule 108. In Braza v. 8369. A recognition of a foreign judgment is
The City Civil Registrar of not an action to nullify a marriage. It is an
Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental, action for Philippine courts to recognize the

62
 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE DIGESTS (CHANGE OF NAME)

effectivity of a foreign judgment, which She presented as witness Eufrocina Natinga,

presupposes a case which was already tried an employee of MTCC, Branch 1, who
and decided under foreign law. The procedure confirmed that the marriage of Ye Son Sune
in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not apply in a was indeed celebrated in their office but
petition to recognize a foreign judgment claimed that the alleged wife who appeared
annulling a bigamous marriage where one of was definitely not OLAYBAR.
the parties is a citizen of the foreign country.
Neither can R.A. No. 8369 define the A document examiner testified that the
jurisdiction of the foreign court. signature appearing in the marriage contract
was forged.
9. PEOPLE vs MERLINDA OLAYBAR
The RTC rendered granted the petition and
FACTS: MERLINDA L. OLAYBAR, ordered The Local Civil Registrar of Cebu City
discovered that she was already married to a is directed to cancel all the entries in the WIFE
certain Ye Son Sune, a Korean National, on portion of the alleged marriage contract of
June 24, 2002, at the Office of the Municipal OLAYBAR and respondent Ye Son Sune.
Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Palace of Justice.
She denied having contracted said marriage The Office of the Solicitor General (SOLGEN)
and claimed that she did not know the alleged moved for reconsideration on the grounds
husband; she did not appear before the that:
solemnizing officer; and, that the signature (1) there was no clerical spelling,
appearing in the marriage certificate is not typographical and other innocuous errors in
hers. the marriage contract for it to fall within the
provisions of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court;
OLAYBAR filed a Petition for Cancellation of and
Entries in the Marriage Contract, especially the (2) granting the cancellation of all the
entries in the wife portion thereof.5 entries in the wife portion of the alleged
Respondent impleaded the Local Civil marriage contract is, in effect, declaring the
Registrar of Cebu City, as well as her alleged marriage void ab initio.
husband, as parties to the case. The RTC denied SOLGEN’s motion for
reconsideration. The RTC held that it had
During trial, OLAYBAR testified that: jurisdiction to take cognizance of cases for
correction of entries even on substantial errors
She was then in Makati working as a medical under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court being the
distributor in Hansao Pharma, at the time the appropriate adversary proceeding required.
marriage was allegedly celebrated Considering that respondent’s identity was
(solemnized) by Judge Mamerto Califlores used by an unknown person to contract
marriage with a Korean national, it would not
She completely denied having known the be feasible for OLAYBAR to institute an action
supposed husband, but she revealed that she for declaration of nullity of marriage since it is
recognized the named witnesses to the not one of the void marriages under Articles
marriage as she had met them while she was 35 and 36 of the Family Code.
working as a receptionist in Tadels Pension
House. Hence, this case.

Her name was used by a certain Johnny Singh, ISSUE: Whether or not the cancellation of
who owned a travel agency, whom she gave entries in the marriage contract which, in
her personal circumstances in order for her to effect, nullifies the marriage may be
obtain a passport. undertaken in a Rule 108 proceeding?

RULING: NO.

63
 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE DIGESTS (CHANGE OF NAME)

Rule 108 of the Rules of Court provides the respondent herself, the stenographer of the
procedure for cancellation or correction of court where the alleged marriage was
entries in the civil registry. The proceedings conducted, as well as a document examiner,
may either be summary or adversary. If the testified. Several documents were also
correction is clerical, then the procedure to be considered as evidence. With the testimonies
adopted is summary. If the rectification affects and other evidence presented, the trial court
the civil status, citizenship or nationality of a found that the signature appearing in the
party, it is deemed substantial, and the subject marriage certificate was different from
procedure to be adopted is adversary. Since respondent’s signature appearing in some of
the promulgation of Republic v. Valencia in her government issued identification cards.
1986, the Court has repeatedly ruled that The court thus made a categorical conclusion
"even substantial errors in a civil registry may that respondent’s signature in the marriage
be corrected through a petition filed under certificate was not hers and, therefore, was
Rule 108, with the true facts established and forged. Clearly, it was established that, as she
the parties aggrieved by the error availing claimed in her petition, no such marriage was
themselves of the appropriate adversarial celebrated.
proceeding." An appropriate adversary suit or
proceeding is one where the trial court has To be sure, a petition for correction or
conducted proceedings where all relevant cancellation of an entry in the civil registry
facts have been fully and properly developed, cannot substitute for an action to invalidate a
where opposing counsel have been given marriage. A direct action is necessary to
opportunity to demolish the opposite party’s prevent circumvention of the substantive and
case, and where the evidence has been procedural safeguards of marriage under the
thoroughly weighed and considered. Family Code, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC and other
In this case, the entries made in the wife related laws.
portion of the certificate of marriage are
admittedly the personal circumstances of Among these safeguards are the requirement
OLAYBAR. The latter, however, claims that of proving the limited grounds for the
her signature was forged and she was not the dissolution of marriage, support pendente lite
one who contracted marriage with the of the spouses and children, the liquidation,
purported husband. In other words, she partition and distribution of the properties of
claims that no such marriage was entered into the spouses and the investigation of the public
or if there was, she was not the one who prosecutor to determine collusion. A direct
entered into such contract. It must be recalled action for declaration of nullity or annulment
that when respondent tried to obtain a of marriage is also necessary to prevent
CENOMAR from the NSO, it appeared that circumvention of the jurisdiction of the Family
she was married to a certain Ye Son Sune. She Courts under the Family Courts Act of 1997
then sought the cancellation of entries in the (Republic Act No. 8369), as a petition for
wife portion of the marriage certificate. cancellation or correction of entries in the civil
registry may be filed in the Regional Trial
In filing the petition for correction of entry Court where the corresponding civil registry is
under Rule 108, respondent made the Local located. In other words, a Filipino citizen
Civil Registrar of Cebu City, as well as her cannot dissolve his marriage by the mere
alleged husband Ye Son Sune, as parties- expedient of changing his entry of marriage in
respondents. It is likewise undisputed that the the civil registry.
procedural requirements set forth in Rule 108
were complied with. The Office of the Solicitor Aside from the certificate of marriage, no such
General was likewise notified of the petition evidence was presented to show the existence
which in turn authorized the Office of the City of marriage. Rather, respondent showed by
Prosecutor to participate in the proceedings. overwhelming evidence that no marriage was
More importantly, trial was conducted where entered into and that she was not even aware

64
 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE DIGESTS (CHANGE OF NAME)

of such existence. The testimonial and his mother

documentary evidence clearly established that His first Franc Ler Francler
the only "evidence" of marriage which is the name
marriage certificate was a forgery.
ISSUES:
While we maintain that Rule 108 cannot be
availed of to determine the validity of 1) Whether the RTC erred in ruling that
marriage, we cannot nullify the proceedings the correction on the first name of
before the trial court where all the parties had petitioner and his mother can be done
been given the opportunity to contest the by the city civil registrar under R.A.
allegations of respondent; the procedures were No. 9048;
followed, and all the evidence of the parties 2) Whether the RTC erred in ruling that
had already been admitted and examined. correcting the entry on petitioner’s
Respondent indeed sought, not the birth certificate that his parents were
nullification of marriage as there was no married on December 23, 1983 in Bicol
marriage to speak of, but the correction of the to “not married” is substantial in
record of such marriage to reflect the truth as nature requiring adversarial
set forth by the evidence. proceedings;
3) Whether the RTC erred in dismissing
Otherwise stated, in allowing the correction of the petition for correction of entries;
the subject certificate of marriage by cancelling and
the wife portion thereof, the trial court did not, 4) Whether the RTC erred in ruling that
in any way, declare the marriage void as there there is no proof that petitioner’s
was no marriage to speak of. parents were not married on
December 23, 1983.
10. ONDE vs CIVIL REGISTRAR OF
LAS PINAS RULING:

FACTS: Petitioner filed a petition for 1) On the first issue, the first name of
correction of entries in his certificate of live petitioner and his mother as
birth before the RTC and named respondent appearing in his birth certificate can
Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Las Piñas be corrected by the city civil registrar
City as sole respondent. under R.A. No. 9048. The petitioner no
longer contested the RTC’s ruling on
Petitioner alleged that he is the illegitimate this point. Indeed, under Section 1 of
child of his parents Guillermo A. Onde and R.A. No. 9048, clerical or
Matilde DC Pakingan, but his birth certificate typographical errors on entries in a
stated that his parents were married. His birth civil register can be corrected and
certificate also stated that his mother's first changes of first name can be done by
name is Tely and that his first name is Franc the concerned city civil registrar
Ler. without need of a judicial order.
Aforesaid Section 1, as amended by
He prayed that the following entries on his R.A. No. 10172, now reads:
birth certificate be corrected as follows:
SECTION 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or
Entry From To Typographical Error and Change of First
Date and December 23, Not married Name or Nickname. – No entry in a civil
place of 1983 / Bicol register shall be changed or corrected without
marriage of a judicial order, except for clerical or
his parents typographical errors and change of first name
First name of Tely Matilde or nickname, the day and

65
 SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS CASE DIGESTS (CHANGE OF NAME)

month in the date of birth or sex of a person substantial alterations. Substantial

where it is patently clear that there was a errors in a civil registry may be
clerical or typographical error or mistake in corrected and the true facts
the entry, which can be corrected or changed established provided the parties
by the concerned city or municipal civil aggrieved by the error avail
registrar or consul general in accordance with themselves of the appropriate
the provisions of this Act and its adversary proceedings.
implementing rules and regulations.
(Emphasis supplied.) 3) On the third issue, RTC dismissed the
petition for correction of entries. As
In Silverio v. Republic, we held that under mentioned, petitioner no longer
R.A. No. 9048, jurisdiction over applications contested the RTC ruling that the
for change of first name is now primarily correction he sought on his and his
lodged with administrative officers. mother’s first name can be done by the
city civil registrar. Under the
The intent and effect of said law is to exclude circumstances, we are constrained to
the change of first name from the coverage of deny his prayer that the petition for
Rules 103 (Change of Name) and 108 correction of entries before the RTC be
(Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the reinstated since the same petition
Civil Registry) of the Rules of Court, until and includes the correction he sought on
unless an administrative petition for change of his and his mother’s first name.
name is first filed and subsequently denied. 4) In view of the foregoing discussion, it
The remedy and the proceedings regulating is no longer necessary to dwell on the
change of first name are primarily last issue as petitioner will have his
administrative in nature, not judicial. In opportunity to prove his claim that his
Republic v. Cagandahan, we said that under parents were not married on
R.A. No. 9048, the correction of clerical or December 23, 1983 when he files the
typographical errors can now be made new petition for the purpose, where
through administrative proceedings and he shall be made a party to the
without the need for a judicial order. The law proceeding under Section 3 of the Rule
removed from the ambit of Rule 108 of the 108 of the Rules of Court.
Rules of Court the correction of clerical or ---
typographical errors. Thus petitioner can avail
of this administrative remedy for the aiza/2017
correction of his and his mother’s first name.

2) On the second issue, it was ruled that

correcting 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 requiring adversarial
proceedings. 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,
legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or
legitimacy of marriage, involve

66