2 - Republic vs. Coseteng-Magpayo - 13 PDF

5/13/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 641
G.R. No. 189476. February 2, 2011.*
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. JULIAN

EDWARD EMERSON COSETENG-MAGPAYO (A.K.A. JULIAN
EDWARD EMERSON MARQUEZ-LIM COSETENG), respondent.
Civil Law; Change of Name; A person can effect a change of name

under Rule 103 using valid and meritorious grounds.—A person can effect
a change of name under Rule 103 (CHANGE OF
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
534
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Republic vs. Coseteng-Magpayo
NAME) using valid and meritorious grounds including (a) when the
name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or
pronounce; (b) when the change results as a legal consequence such as
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. Respondent’s
reason for changing his name cannot be considered as one of, or analogous
to, recognized grounds, however.
Same; Same; Changes which may affect the civil status from legitimate
to illegitimate are substantial and controversial alterations which can only
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001720cf36b9602421f92003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/13
be allowed after appropriate adversary proceedings.—Labayo-Rowe v.

Republic, 168 SCRA 294 [1988], categorically holds that “changes which
may affect the civil status from legitimate to illegitimate . . . are substantial
and controversial alterations which can only be allowed after appropriate
adversary proceedings . . .” Since respondent’s desired change affects his
civil status from legitimate to illegitimate, Rule 108 applies.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of

Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Office of the Solicitor General for petitioner.
Eufemio Law Offices for respondent.
CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
Born in Makati on September 9, 1972, Julian Edward Emerson
Coseteng Magpayo (respondent) is the son of Fulvio M. Magpayo Jr.
and Anna Dominique Marquez-Lim Coseteng
535
VOL. 641, FEBRUARY 2, 2011 535

who, as respondent’s certificate of live birth1 shows, contracted

marriage on March 26, 1972.
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
NAME OF JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON COSETENG
MAGPAYO TO JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON MARQUEZ-LIM
COSETENG.”
In 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 college3 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.”5
On order of Branch 77 of the Quezon City RTC,6 respondent
amended his petition by alleging therein compliance with the 3-year
residency requirement under Section 2, Rule 103 of the Rules of

Court.7
The notice setting the petition for hearing on November 20, 2008
was published in the newspaper Broadside in its issues of October
31-November 6, 2008, November 7-13, 2008, and
_______________
1 Records, p. 7.
2 Id., at p. 8.
3 Id., at pp. 9-16.
4 Id., at p. 16.
5 Id., at pp. 17-22.
6 Presided by Judge Vivencio S. Baclig.
7 Id., at p. 23.
536

November 14-20, 2008.8 And a copy of the notice was furnished

the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
No opposition to the petition having been filed, an order of
general default was entered by the trial court which then allowed
respondent to present evidence ex parte.9
By Decision of January 8, 2009,10 the trial court granted
respondent’s petition and directed the Civil Registrar of Makati City
to:
1. Delete the entry “March 26, 1972” in Item 24 for “DATE AND
PLACE OF MARRIAGE OF PARTIES” [in herein respondent’s
Certificate of live Birth];
2. Correct the entry “MAGPAYO” in the space for the Last Name of
the [respondent] to “COSETENG”;
3. Delete the entry “COSETENG” in the space for Middle Name of
the [respondent]; and
4. Delete the entry “Fulvio Miranda Magpayo, Jr.” in the space for
FATHER of the [respondent]… (emphasis and underscoring supplied;
capitalization in the original)
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.
The Republic assails the decision in this wise:
I. … THE PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME…INVOLVES THE

CHANGE OF [RESPONDENT’S] CIVIL STATUS FROM
LEGITIMATE TO ILLEGITIMATE AND, THEREFORE, SHOULD
BE MADE THROUGH APPROPRIATE ADVERSARIAL
PROCEEDINGS…
_______________
8 Id., at pp. 48-50.

9 Id., at p. 45.
10 Id., at pp. 116-117.
11 Id., at pp. 135-136.
537
VOL. 641, FEBRUARY 2, 2011 537

II. THE TRIAL COURT EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION WHEN

IT DIRECTED THE DELETION OF THE NAME OF RESPONDENT’S
FATHER FROM HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE.12 (emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
The Republic contends that the deletion of the entry on the date
and place of marriage of respondent’s parents from his birth
certificate has the effect of changing his civil status from legitimate
to illegitimate, hence, any change in civil status of a person must be
effected through an appropriate adversary proceeding.13
The Republic adds that by ordering the deletion of respondent’s
parents’ date of marriage and the name of respondent’s father from
the entries in respondent’s birth certificate,14 the trial court exceeded
its jurisdiction, such order not being in accord with respondent’s
prayer reading:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that

the Honorable Court issue an order allowing the change of name of
petitioner from JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON COSETENG MAGPAYO
to JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON MARQUEZ-LIM COSETENG, and that
the Honorable Court order the Local Civil Registrar and all other relevant
government agencies to reflect the said change of name in their records.
Petitioner prays for other reliefs deemed proper under the premises.”15
(underscoring supplied)
Respondent counters that the proceeding before the trial court

was adversarial in nature. He cites the serving of copies of the
petition and its annexes upon the Civil Registrar of Makati, the Civil
Registrar General, and the OSG; the posting of copies of the notice
of hearing in at least four public places at least ten days before the
hearing; the delegation to the
_______________
12 Rollo, pp. 16-17.

13 Id., at pp. 17-18.
14 Id., at pp. 18-19.
15 Rollo, p. 18.
538

OSG by the City Prosecutor of Quezon City to appear on behalf of

the Republic; the publication of the notice of hearing in a newspaper
of general circulation for three consecutive weeks; and the fact that
no oppositors appeared on the scheduled hearing.16
The petition is impressed with merit.
A person can effect a change of name under Rule 103 (CHANGE
OF NAME) using valid and meritorious grounds including (a) when
the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write
or pronounce; (b) when the change results as a legal consequence
such as 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.17 Respondent’s
reason for changing his name cannot be considered as one of, or
analogous to, recognized grounds, however.
The present petition must be differentiated from Alfon v. Republic
of the Philippines.18 In Alfon, the Court allowed the therein
petitioner, Estrella Alfon, to use the name that she had been known
since childhood in order to avoid confusion. Alfon did not deny her
legitimacy, however. She merely sought to use the surname of her
mother which she had been using since childhood. Ruling in her
favor, the Court held that she was lawfully entitled to use her
mother’s surname, adding that the avoidance of confusion was
justification enough to
_______________
16 Id., at pp. 53-56.

17 Vide See Republic v. Hernandez, 323 Phil. 606, 637-638; 253 SCRA 509, 535
(1996).
18 186 Phil. 600; 97 SCRA 858 (1980).
539
VOL. 641, FEBRUARY 2, 2011 539

allow her to do so. In the present case, however, respondent denies

his legitimacy.
The change being sought in respondent’s petition goes so far as
to affect his legal status in relation to his parents. It seeks to change
his legitimacy to that of illegitimacy. Rule 103 then would not
suffice to grant respondent’s supplication.
Labayo-Rowe v. Republic19 categorically holds that “changes
which may affect the civil status from legitimate to illegitimate . . .
are substantial and controversial alterations which can only be
allowed after appropriate adversary proceedings
. . .”
Since respondent’s desired change affects his civil status from
legitimate to illegitimate, Rule 108 applies. It reads:
“SECTION 1. Who may file petition.—Any person interested in any

act, event, order or decree concerning the civil status of persons which has
been recorded in the civil register, may file a verified petition for the
cancellation or correction of any entry relating thereto, with the [RTC] of
the province where the corresponding civil registry is located.
xxxx
SEC. 3. Parties.—When cancellation or correction of an entry in the
civil register is sought, the civil registrar and all persons who have or
claim any interest which would be affected thereby shall be made
parties to the proceeding.
SEC. 4. Notice and publication.—Upon the filing of the petition, the

court shall, by an order, fix the time and place for the hearing of the same,
and cause reasonable notice thereof to be given to the persons named in
the petition. The court shall also cause the order to be published once a
week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation
in the province.” (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
Rule 108 clearly directs that a petition which concerns one’s civil
status should be filed in the civil registry in which
_______________
19 G.R. No. L-53417, December 8, 1988, 168 SCRA 294.
540

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.
Respondent nevertheless cites Republic v. Capote20 in support of
his claim that his change of name was effected through an
appropriate adversary proceeding. Republic v. Belmonte,21
illuminates, however:
“The procedure recited in Rule 103 regarding change of name and in

Rule 108 concerning the cancellation or correction of entries in the civil
registry are separate and distinct. They may not be substituted one for the
other for the sole purpose of expediency. To hold otherwise would render
nugatory the provisions of the Rules of Court allowing the change of one’s
name or the correction of entries in the civil registry only upon meritorious
grounds. . . .” (emphasis, capitalization and underscoring supplied)
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.
Republic v. Labrador22 mandates that “a petition for a
substantial correction or change of entries in the civil registry
should have as respondents the civil registrar, as well as all
_______________
20 G.R. No. 157043, February 2, 2007, 514 SCRA 76.

21 241 Phil. 966; 158 SCRA 173 (1988).
22 G.R. No. 132980, 305 SCRA 438 (1999).
541
VOL. 641, FEBRUARY 2, 2011 541

other persons who have or claim to have any interest that would be
affected thereby.” It cannot be gainsaid that change of status of a
child in relation to his parents is a substantial correction or change
of entry in the civil registry.
Labayo-Rowe23 highlights the necessity of impleading
indispensable parties in a petition which involves substantial and
controversial alterations. In that case, the therein petitioner
Emperatriz Labayo-Rowe (Emperatriz) filed a petition for the
correction of entries in the birth certificates of her children, Vicente
Miclat, Jr. and Victoria Miclat, in the Civil Registry of San
Fernando, Pampanga. Emperatriz alleged that her name appearing in
the birth certificates is Beatriz, which is her nickname, but her full
name is Emperatriz; and her civil status appearing in the birth
certificate of her daughter Victoria as “married” on “1953 Bulan”
are erroneous because she was not married to Vicente Miclat who
was the one who furnished the data in said birth certificate.
The trial court found merit in Emperatriz’s petition and
accordingly directed the local civil registrar to change her name
appearing in her children’s birth certificates from Beatriz to
Emperatriz; and to correct her civil status in Victoria’s birth
certificate from “married” to “single” and the date and place of
marriage to “no marriage.”
On petition before this Court after the Court of Appeals found
that the order of the trial court involved a question of law, the Court
nullified the trial court’s order directing the change of Emperatriz’
civil status and the filiation of her child Victoria in light of the
following observations:
“x x x x Aside from the Office of the Solicitor General, all other

indispensable parties should have been made respondents. They include
not only the declared father of the child but the child as well, together
with the paternal grandparents, if any, as their hereditary rights would be
adversely affected thereby. All other persons who may be affected by the
change should be noti-
_______________
23 Supra, note 19.
542

fied or represented. The truth is best ascertained under an adversary system

of justice.
The right of the child Victoria to inherit from her parents would be
substantially impaired if her status would be changed from “legitimate” to
“illegitimate.” Moreover, she would be exposed to humiliation and
embarrassment resulting from the stigma of an illegitimate filiation that she
will bear thereafter. The fact that the notice of hearing of the petition was
published in a newspaper of general circulation and notice thereof was
served upon the State will not change the nature of the proceedings taken.
Rule 108, like all the other provisions of the Rules of Court, was
promulgated by the Supreme Court pursuant to its rule-making authority
under Section 13, Article VIII of the 1973 Constitution, which directs that
such rules “shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights.” If
Rule 108 were to be extended beyond innocuous or harmless changes or
corrections of errors which are visible to the eye or obvious to the
understanding, so as to comprehend substantial and controversial alterations
concerning citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy
of marriage, without observing the proper proceedings as earlier
mentioned, said rule would thereby become an unconstitutional exercise
which would tend to increase or modify substantive rights. This situation
is not contemplated under Article 412 of the Civil Code.”24 (emphasis,
italics and underscoring supplied)
As for the requirement of notice and publication, Rule 108

provides:
“SEC. 4. Notice and publication.—Upon the filing of the petition, the

court shall, by an order, fix the time and place for the hearing of the
same, and cause reasonable notice thereof to be given to the persons
named in the petition. The court shall also cause the order to be published
once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
circulation in the province.
SEC. 5. Opposition.—The civil registrar and any person having or
claiming any interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction
is sought may, within fifteen (15) days
_______________
24 Id., at p. 301.
543
VOL. 641, FEBRUARY 2, 2011 543

from notice of the petition, or from the last date of publication of such
notice, file his opposition thereto.” (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
A reading of these related provisions readily shows that Rule 108

clearly mandates two sets of notices to different “potential
oppositors.” The first notice is that given to the “persons named in
the petition” and the second (which is through publication) is that
given to other persons who are not named in the petition but
nonetheless may be considered interested or affected parties, such as
creditors. That two sets of notices are mandated under the above-
quoted Section 4 is validated by the subsequent Section 5, also
above-quoted, which provides for two periods (for the two types of
“potential oppositors”) within which to file an opposition (15 days
from notice or from the last date of publication).
This is the overriding principle laid down in Barco v. Court of
Appeals.25 In that case, Nadina Maravilla (Nadina) filed a petition
for correction of entries in the birth certificate of her daughter June
from June Salvacion Maravilla to June Salvacion “Gustilo,”
Armando Gustilo being, according to Nadina, her daughter’s real
father. Gustilo in fact filed before the trial court a “CONSTANCIA”
wherein he acknowledged June as his daughter. The trial court
granted the petition.
After Gustilo died, his son Jose Vicente Gustilo filed with the
Court of Appeals a petition for annulment of the Order of the trial
court granting the change of June’s family name to Gustilo.
Milagros Barco (Barco), natural guardian of her minor daughter

Mary Joy Ann Gustilo, filed before the appellate court a motion for
intervention, alleging that Mary Joy had a legal interest in the
annulment of the trial court’s Order as Mary Joy was, by Barco’s
claim, also fathered by Gustilo.
_______________
25 465 Phil. 39; 420 SCRA 162 (2004).
544

The appellate court dismissed the petition for annulment and

complaint-in-intervention.
On appeal by Barco, this Court ruled that she should have been
impleaded in Nadina’s petition for correction of entries of the birth
certificate of Mary Joy. But since a petitioner, like Nadina, is not
expected to exhaustively identify all the affected parties, the
subsequent publication of the notice cured the omission of Barco as
a party to the case. Thus the Court explained:
“Undoubtedly, Barco is among the parties referred to in Section 3 of

Rule 108. Her interest was affected by the petition for correction, as any
judicial determination that June was the daughter of Armando would affect
her ward’s share in the estate of her father. It cannot be established whether
Nadina knew of Mary Joy’s existence at the time she filed the petition for
correction. Indeed, doubt may always be cast as to whether a petitioner
under Rule 108 would know of all the parties whose interests may be
affected by the granting of a petition. For example, a petitioner cannot
be presumed to be aware of all the legitimate or illegitimate offsprings
of his/her spouse or paramour. x x x x.
xxxx
The purpose precisely of Section 4, Rule 108 is to bind the whole world
to the subsequent judgment on the petition. The sweep of the decision
would cover even parties who should have been impleaded under
Section 3, Rule 108 but were inadvertently left out. x x x x.”26 (emphasis,
italics and underscoring supplied)
Meanwhile, in Republic v. Kho,27 Carlito Kho (Carlito) and his

siblings named the civil registrar as the sole respondent in the
petition they filed for the correction of entries in their respective
birth certificates in the civil registry of Butuan City, and correction

of entries in the birth certificates of Carlito’s minor children. Carlito
and his siblings requested the
_______________
26 Id., at pp. 55-56; pp. 172-173.

27 G.R. No. 170340, June 29, 2007, 526 SCRA 177.
545
VOL. 641, FEBRUARY 2, 2011 545

correction in their birth certificates of the citizenship of their mother

Epifania to “Filipino,” instead of “Chinese,” and the deletion of the
word “married” opposite the phrase “Date of marriage of parents”
because their parents—Juan and Epifania—were not married. And
Carlito requested the correction in the birth certificates of their
children of his and his wife’s date of marriage to reflect the actual
date of their marriage as appearing in their marriage certificate. In
the course of the hearing of the petition, Carlito also sought the
correction of the name of his wife from Maribel to “Marivel.”
The Khos’ mother Epifania took the witness stand where she
declared that she was not married to Juan who died before the filing
of the Khos’ petition.
The trial court granted the petition.
On the issue of whether the failure to implead Marivel and the
Khos’ parents rendered the trial of the petition short of the required
adversary proceedings and the trial court’s judgment void, this Court
held that when all the procedural requirements under Rule 108 are
followed, the publication of the notice of hearing cures the failure to
implead an indispensable party. In so ruling, the Court noted that the
affected parties were already notified of the proceedings in the case
since the petitioner-siblings Khos were the ones who initiated the
petition respecting their prayer for correction of their citizenship,
and Carlito respecting the actual date of his marriage to his wife;
and, with respect to the Khos’ petition for change of their civil status
from legitimate to illegitimate, their mother Epifania herself took the
witness stand declaring that she was not married to their father.
What is clear then in Barco and Kho is the mandatory directive
under Section 3 of Rule 108 to implead the civil registrar and the
parties who would naturally and legally be affected by the grant of a
petition for correction or cancellation of entries. Non-impleading,

however, as party-respondent of one who is inadvertently left out or
is not established to be known by the petitioner to be affected by the
grant of the
546

petition or actually participates in the proceeding is notified through

publication.
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. The January 8, 2009 Decision of Branch
77 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in SP Proc. No. Q-
0863058 is NULLIFIED.
SO ORDERED.
Brion, Bersamin, Villarama, Jr. and Sereno, JJ., concur.
Petition granted.
Note.—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. (Republic vs. Cagandahan, 565
SCRA 72 [2008])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

2 - Republic vs. Coseteng-Magpayo - 13 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 - Republic vs. Coseteng-Magpayo - 13 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 - Republic vs. Coseteng-Magpayo - 13 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5/13/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 641

G.R. No. 189476. February 2, 2011.*

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. JULIAN

Civil Law; Change of Name; A person can effect a change of name

534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Coseteng-Magpayo

be allowed after appropriate adversary proceedings.—Labayo-Rowe v.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of

VOL. 641, FEBRUARY 2, 2011 535

who, as respondent’s certificate of live birth1 shows, contracted

residency requirement under Section 2, Rule 103 of the Rules of

536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

November 14-20, 2008.8 And a copy of the notice was furnished

The Republic of the Philippines (Republic) filed a motion for

I. … THE PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME…INVOLVES THE

8 Id., at pp. 48-50.

VOL. 641, FEBRUARY 2, 2011 537

II. THE TRIAL COURT EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION WHEN

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that

Respondent counters that the proceeding before the trial court

12 Rollo, pp. 16-17.

538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

OSG by the City Prosecutor of Quezon City to appear on behalf of

16 Id., at pp. 53-56.

VOL. 641, FEBRUARY 2, 2011 539

allow her to do so. In the present case, however, respondent denies

“SECTION 1. Who may file petition.—Any person interested in any

SEC. 4. Notice and publication.—Upon the filing of the petition, the

19 G.R. No. L-53417, December 8, 1988, 168 SCRA 294.

540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

the entry is sought to be cancelled or corrected – that of Makati in

“The procedure recited in Rule 103 regarding change of name and in

Even assuming arguendo that respondent had simultaneously

aside from improper venue, he failed to implead the civil

20 G.R. No. 157043, February 2, 2007, 514 SCRA 76.

VOL. 641, FEBRUARY 2, 2011 541

“x x x x Aside from the Office of the Solicitor General, all other

23 Supra, note 19.

542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

fied or represented. The truth is best ascertained under an adversary system

As for the requirement of notice and publication, Rule 108

“SEC. 4. Notice and publication.—Upon the filing of the petition, the

VOL. 641, FEBRUARY 2, 2011 543

A reading of these related provisions readily shows that Rule 108

Milagros Barco (Barco), natural guardian of her minor daughter

25 465 Phil. 39; 420 SCRA 162 (2004).

544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The appellate court dismissed the petition for annulment and

“Undoubtedly, Barco is among the parties referred to in Section 3 of

Meanwhile, in Republic v. Kho,27 Carlito Kho (Carlito) and his

birth certificates in the civil registry of Butuan City, and correction

26 Id., at pp. 55-56; pp. 172-173.

VOL. 641, FEBRUARY 2, 2011 545

correction in their birth certificates of the citizenship of their mother

petition for correction or cancellation of entries. Non-impleading,

546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

petition or actually participates in the proceeding is notified through

Brion, Bersamin, Villarama, Jr. and Sereno, JJ., concur.

Note.—A change of name is not a matter of right but of judicial