G.R. No. 243288.   August 28, 2019.*

 
DR. RUBEN C. BARTOLOME, petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC
OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Remedial Law; Special Proceedings: Change of Entries in the

Civil Register; Change of First Name; In the instant case, petitioner
seeks to change his first name from “Feliciano” to “Ruben,” on the
ground that he has been using the latter since childhood. Contrary
to petitioner’s claims, the change sought is covered by Republic Act
(RA) No. 9048 and should have been filed with the local civil
registry of the city or municipality where the record being sought to
be corrected or changed is kept.—While the grounds for change of
name under Rule 103 are found in jurisprudence, the grounds for
change of first name or nickname are expressly provided in R.A.
9048, Section 4, viz.: SECTION 4. Grounds for Change of First
Name or Nickname.—The petition for change of first name or
nickname may be allowed in any of the following cases: (1) The
petitioner finds the first name or nickname to be ridiculous, tainted
with dishonor or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (2) The
new first name or nickname has been habitually and continuously
used by the petitioner and he has been publicly known by that first
name or nickname in the community; or (3) The change will avoid
confusion. In Republic v. Sali, 822 SCRA 239 (2017), the Court
held that a change of therein respondent Lorena Omapas Sali’s
first name from “Dorothy” to “Lorena” was primarily administrative
in nature and should be filed under the procedure provided in R.A.
9048. In the instant case, petitioner seeks to change his first name
from “Feliciano” to “Ruben,” on the ground that he has been using
the latter since childhood. Contrary to peti-

_______________

* SECOND DIVISION.

 
 
410

410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 Bartolome vs. Republic

tioner’s claims therefore, the change sought is covered by R.A.

9048 and should have been filed with the local civil registry of the
city or municipality where the record being sought to be corrected or
changed is kept.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Clerical Errors; While substantial
corrections of entries in the civil register are still covered by Rule
108, typographical or clerical corrections must now be filed under
Republic Act (RA) No. 9048 as amended.—While substantial
corrections of entries in the civil register are still covered by Rule
108, typographical or clerical corrections must now be filed under
R.A. 9048 as amended. Section 2 of the said law defines clerical or
typographical errors as follows: (3) ‘Clerical or typographical error’
refers to a mistake committed in the performance of clerical work in
writing, copying, transcribing or typing an entry in the civil register
that is harmless and innocuous, such as misspelled name or
 misspelled place of birth, mistake in the entry of day and month in
the date of birth or the sex of the person or the like, which is visible
to the eyes or  obvious to  the  understanding, and  can  be  corrected
or  changed only by reference to other existing record or records:
Provided, however, That no correction must involve the change of
nationality, age, or status of the petitioner.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Change of Middle Name; Petitioner’s
prayer that his middle name, “Cruz” be entered, is a mere clerical
correction, and must therefore be likewise undertaken through the
administrative proceeding provided under Republic Act (RA) No.
9048.—Evidently the test for whether a correction is clerical or
substantial is found in the provision itself. Misspelled names or
missing entries are clerical corrections if they are visible to the eyes
or obvious to the understanding and if they may be readily verified
by referring to the existing records in the civil register. They must
not, however, involve any change in nationality, age or status. In
Republic v. Gallo, 851 SCRA 570 (2018), the Court unequivocally
held that a prayer to enter a person’s middle name is a mere
clerical error, which may be corrected by referring to existing
records. Thus, it is primarily administrative in nature and should be
filed pursuant to R.A. 9048 as amended. Applying the
aforementioned ruling to the instant case therefore, petitioner’s
prayer that his middle name, “Cruz” be entered, is a mere clerical
correction, and

 
 

411

VOL. 916, AUGUST 28, 2019 411

Bartolome vs. Republic

must therefore be likewise undertaken through the

administrative proceeding provided under R.A. 9048.
 Same; Same; Same; Same; Clerical Error in Surname; The
Supreme Court (SC) categorically holds that typographical or
clerical errors in a person’s surname must likewise be corrected
through the administrative proceeding under Republic Act (RA) No.
9048.—In Labayo-Rowe, the Court defined clerical errors as “those
harmless and innocuous changes such as the correction of names
clearly misspelled, occupation of parents, errors that are visible to
the eye or obvious to the understanding, errors made by a clerk or
transcriber, or a mistake in copying or writing.” It can be readily
seen that this jurisprudential definition was expressly incorporated
into R.A. 9048, which, as already discussed, expressly removed the
correction of clerical
or typographical errors from the ambit  of  Rule  108  of  the Rules of
Court. To obviate any further confusion on the matter, the
Court  categorically  holds  that typographical  or  clerical  errors  in  a
person’s surname must likewise be corrected through the
administrative proceeding under R.A. 9048. As herein petitioner’s
allegedly misspelled surname, “Bartholome,” may be readily
corrected by merely referring to the existing records of the civil
registrar, such as the surnames of petitioner’s parents and
immediate family members, the petition should have been filed
under R.A. 9048 and not under Rule 103 of the Rules. It likewise
follows that the petition should have been filed with the local civil
registry office of the city or municipality where the record being
sought to be corrected or changed is kept, in accordance with
Section 3 of R.A. 9048 and not in accordance with the venue
provided in Rule 103.
Same; Same; Same; Same; By “appropriate,” the Supreme Court
(SC) holds that if the prayer to administratively change petitioner’s
first name is denied, the same may be brought under Rule 103 of
the Rules of Court.—In sum, all changes sought by the petitioner
fall within the ambit of R.A. 9048. Petitioner may only avail of the
appropriate judicial remedies when the changes/corrections sought
through the administrative proceeding are denied. By “appropriate,”
the Court holds that if the prayer to administratively change
petitioner’s first name is denied, the same may be brought under
Rule 103 of the Rules of Court. If the prayers to administratively
correct petitioner’s middle name and surname

 
 
412

412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bartolome vs. Republic

are denied, the same may be brought under Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
 The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
    Bausa, Ampil, Suarez, Paredes & Associates for
petitioner.
  Office of the Solicitor General for respondent.

CAGUIOA,   J:
 
This is a petition for review on certiorari (Petition) under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (Rules) assailing the April 26,
2018 Decision1  and November 26, 2018 Resolution2  of  the
Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 106384. The
CA’s Decision denied the appeal and affirmed the October
21, 2015 Decision of Branch 258, Regional Trial Court of
Parañaque City (RTC) in S.P. Proc. Case No. 14-0100,
which denied petitioner’s petition for change of name under
Rule 103 of the Rules of Court for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies, insufficiency of evidence, and
improper venue.
 
The Facts and Antecedent Proceedings
 
In 2014, petitioner, a resident of Parañaque City,3 filed a
petition for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of
Court before the RTC, seeking “to correct the name
‘Feliciano Bartholome’  as   appearing   in his  birth
 certificate  x x x.  He

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 19-30. Penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan

Manahan, with Associate Justices Romeo F. Barza and Stephen C. Cruz,
concurring.
2 Id., at pp. 32-33.
3 Id., at p. 12.

 
 

413

VOL. 916, AUGUST 28, 2019 413

Bartolome vs. Republic

stated that he has been using the name ‘Ruben [Cruz]

Bartolome’ since his childhood.”4
After posting and publication,5  petitioner was allowed to
present the following documents to support his claim: 1)
Doctor of Medicine Diploma dated May 18, 1965; 2) CSC
Certifi- cate for Medical Examiners Physician dated
December 6, 1965; 3) PRC ID No. 0030981 dated December
6, 1968; 4) Marriage Contract No. 894-2-68 dated May 18,
1968; 5) Philippine Passport No. EB 1611302 dated
December 23, 2010; 6) Senior Citizens ID Card No. 2006661
dated December  11, 2002; and 7) NBI Clearance No.
15050159 dated November 25, 2011,6   which all bore the
name, “Ruben C. Bartolome.”
It appears from the records that although the Office of
the Solicitor General (OSG) was notified and the Office of the
City Prosecutor of Parañaque City was deputized to appear
on behalf of the State,7  no motion to dismiss was filed
questioning the jurisdiction of the court or the venue of the
petition.8  In fact, the State did not present any
controverting evidence nor file any comment or opposition
to the petition.9  It likewise appears from the records that
petitioner’s father and siblings were never impleaded.10
 
The Ruling of the RTC
 
After trial, the RTC denied the petition for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies, insufficiency of evidence,
and improper venue.11

_______________

4 Id., at pp. 20-21.

5 Id., at p. 5.
6 Id., at pp. 20-21.
7 Id., at p. 20.
8 Id., at p. 12.
9 Id., at p. 41.
10 Id.

 
 
414

414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bartolome vs. Republic

As regards petitioner’s first name, the RTC held that

petitioner availed of the wrong procedure. The RTC
explained that a petition for change of first name should
have been filed in accordance with Republic Act (R.A.)
9048,12  which vested the power and authority to entertain
petitions for change of first name with the city or municipal
registrar or consul general concerned.13
As regards the prayer for correction of petitioner’s
surname, the RTC denied the petition for improper
venue.14  The RTC held that the Regional Trial Court of
Manila where the corresponding civil registry is located was
the proper venue, pursuant to Section 1, Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court.15
In either case, the RTC found that the evidence adduced
was not sufficient to support petitioner’s claim that he had
been habitually and continuously using the name ‘Ruben C.
Bartolome’ since childhood.16
Petitioner thus appealed to the CA, claiming that Rule
103 was the applicable remedy.17
 
The Ruling of the CA
 
The CA denied the appeal. The CA noted that petitioner
was seeking to change his first name and8 to correct his
surname as indicated in his birth certificate.1  Thus, the CA
held that peti-

_______________

12 An Act Authorizing the City or Municipal Civil Registrar or the

Consul General to Correct a Clerical or T ypographical Error in an Entry

and/ or Change of F irst N ame or N ickname in the Civil Register W ithout
N eed of a Judicial Order, Amending for this P urpose Articles 376 and

412 of the Civil Code of the P hilippines, dated March 22, 2001.
13 Id., at pp. 21-22.
14 Id., at p. 22.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 Id., at p. 42.
18 Id., at pp. 24-25.

 
 
415

VOL. 916, AUGUST 28, 2019 415

Bartolome vs. Republic

tioner should have filed a petition for the correction of

entries in his birth certificate under R.A. 9048,19 instead of
a Rule 103 petition for change of name. The CA likewise
held that petitioner failed to adduce sufficient evidence to
show that his father and his  siblings’ last  name was
actually spelled  “Bartolome.”20
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which the
CA denied.
Hence, petitioner filed the instant Petition insisting that
Rule 103 is the proper remedy.21  Petitioner argues that,
contrary to the ruling of the CA, R.A. 9048 covers changes
in the “first name or nickname [only]”22 and does not cover
petitions to “correct [his] surname.”23  Thus, petitioner
claims that it would be “splitting [his] cause of action” if he
were compelled to file separate petitions for change of name
and correction of entries.
In its Comment, the OSG argued that the CA correctly
denied the appeal.24 The OSG claims that petitioner should
have first filed a petition before the local civil registrar
pursuant to R.A. 9048 in order to change his first name and
to correct the spelling of his last name.25  The OSG claims
that there was no splitting of cause of action as both reliefs
are covered by R.A. 9048.26
 
Issue
 
Whether the change/correction sought in petitioner’s first
name, middle name, and surname, as appearing in his birth

_______________

19 Id., at pp. 25-27.

20 Id., at p. 28.
21 Id., at p. 7.
22 Id., at p. 8.
23 Id.
24 Id., at p. 43.
25 Id., at p. 44.
26 Id., at p. 46.

 
 

416

416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bartolome vs. Republic

certificate, from “Feliciano Bartholome” to

“Ruben  Cruz  Bartolome” should be filed under R.A. 9048,
Rule 103, or Rule 108 of the Rules.
 
The Court’s Ruling
 
The Petition lacks merit. The CA and the OSG correctly
found that  the administrative proceeding under R.A.  9048
applies to all corrections sought in the instant case.
 
Application of Rules 103
and 108 in relation to R.A.
9048, as amended by R.A.
10172
 
In Republic v. Gallo,27  the Court outlined the difference
between Rule 103 and Rule 108 of the Rules and the effects
brought about by the enactment of R.A. 9048 as amended
by R.A. 10172,28      on   the   aforementioned   rules. The
 Court  explained:

Names are labels for one’s identity. They facilitate social

interaction, including the allocation of rights and determination of
liabilities. It is for this reason that the State has an interest in one’s
name.
The name through which one is known is generally, however,
 not  chosen  by  the  individual  who  bears  it.

_______________

27 G.R. No. 207074, January 17, 2018, 851 SCRA 570. Third Division,
penned by Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, with the concurrence
of then Associate Justice, now Chief Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, Retired
Associate Justice Samuel R. Martires, and Associate Justice Alexander J.
Gesmundo.
28 An Act F urther Authorizing the City or Municipal Civil Registrar or

the Consul General to Correct Clerical or T ypographical Errors in the

Day and Month in the Date of Birth or Sex of a P erson Appearing in the

Civil Register W ithout N eed of a Judicial Order, Amending for this

P urpose Republic Act N umbered N inety F orty-eight, approved August 15,

2012.

 
 

417

VOL. 916, AUGUST 28, 2019 417

Bartolome vs. Republic

Rather, it is chosen by one’s parents. In this sense, the choice of

one’s name is not a product of the exercise of autonomy of the
individual to whom it refers.
In view of the State’s interest in names as markers of one’s
identity, the law requires that these labels be registered.
Understandably, in some cases, the names so registered or other
aspects of one’s identity that pertain to one’s name are not reflected
with accuracy in the Certificate of Live Birth filed with the civil
registrar.
Changes to one’s name, therefore, can be the result of either one
of two (2) motives. The first, as an exercise of one’s autonomy, is to
change the appellation that one was given for various reasons. The
other is not an exercise to change the label that was given to a
person; it is simply to correct the data as it was recorded in the Civil
Registry.
xxxx
Under Article 407 of the Civil Code, the books in the Civil
Register include “acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the
civil status of persons,” which are prima facie evidence of the facts
stated there.
Entries in the register include births, marriages, deaths, legal
separations, annulments of marriage, judgments declaring
marriages void from the beginning, legitimations, adoptions,
acknowledgments of natural children, naturalization, loss or
recovery of citizenship, civil interdiction, judicial determination of
filiation, voluntary emancipation of a minor, and changes of name.
 As  stated,  the  governing  law  on  changes  of  first name [and
correction of clerical and typographical errors in the civil register] is
currently Republic Act No. 10172,
which  amended  Republic  Act  No.  9048.  Prior  to  these laws, the
controlling provisions on changes or corrections of name were
Articles 376 and 412 of the Civil Code.
Article 376 states the need for judicial authority before any
person can change his or her name. On the other hand, Article 412
provides that judicial authority is also

 
 

418

418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bartolome vs. Republic

necessary before any entry in the civil register may be changed or

corrected.
Under the old rules, a person would have to file an action in
court under Rule 103 for substantial changes in the given name or
surname provided they fall under any of the valid reasons
recognized by law, or Rule 108 for corrections of clerical errors.
xxxx
Applying Article 412 of the Civil Code, a person
desiring  to  change  his  or  her  name  altogether  must  file  a
petition under  Rule  103  with  the  Regional  Trial  Court, which will
then issue an order setting a hearing date and directing the order’s
publication in a newspaper of general circulation. After finding that
there is proper and reasonable cause to change his or her name, the
Regional Trial Court may grant the petition and order its entry in
the civil register.
On the other hand, Rule 108 applies when the person is seeking
to correct clerical and innocuous mistakes
in his or her  documents  with  the  civil  register. It also governs the
correction of substantial errors in the entry of the information
enumerated in Section 2 of this Rule and those affecting the civil
status, citizenship, and nationality of a person.
The  proceedings  under  this  rule may either be summary, if the
correction pertains to clerical mistakes, or adversary, if it pertains to
substantial errors.
xxxx
Following the procedure in Rule 103, Rule 108 also requires a
petition to be filed before the Regional Trial Court. The trial court
then sets a hearing and directs the publication of its order in a
newspaper of general circulation in the province. After the hearing,
the trial court may grant or dismiss the petition and serve a copy of
its judgment to the Civil Registrar.
Mercadera clarified the applications of Article 376 and Rule 103,
and of Article 412 and Rule 108, thus:

 
 
 419

VOL. 916, AUGUST 28, 2019 419

Bartolome vs. Republic

The “change of name” contemplated

under Article 376 and Rule 103 must not be
confused  with  Article  412  and  Rule  108. A
change of one’s name under Rule 103 can be
granted, only on grounds provided by law.
In order to justify a request for change of
name, there must be a proper and
compelling reason for the change and proof
that the person requesting will be
prejudiced by the use of his official name. To
assess the sufficiency of the grounds
invoked therefor, there must be adversarial
proceedings.
In petitions for correction, only clerical,
spelling, typographical  and other innocuous
errors in the civil registry may be raised.
Considering that the enumeration in
Section 2, Rule 108 also includes “changes of
name,” the correction of a patently
misspelled name is covered by Rule 108.
Suffice it to say, not all alterations allowed
in one’s name are confined under Rule 103.
Corrections for clerical errors may be set
right under Rule 108.
This rule in “names,” however, does not
operate to entirely limit Rule 108 to the correction of clerical errors in civil registry entries
by way of a summary proceeding. As
explained above. Republic v. Valencia is the
authority for allowing  substantial  errors  in
other entries like citizenship, civil status,
and paternity, to be corrected using Rule
108 provided there is an adversary
proceeding. “After all, the role of the Court
under Rule 108 is to ascertain the truths
about the facts recorded therein.” x x x

However, Republic Act No. 9048  amended  Articles 376 and 412

of the Civil Code, effectively removing clerical errors and changes of
the name outside the ambit of Rule 108 and putting them under the
jurisdiction of the civil registrar.

 
 

420

420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bartolome vs. Republic

In Silverio v. Republic:

The State has an interest in the names

borne by individuals and entities for
purposes of identification. A change of name
is a privilege, not a right. Petitions for
change of name are controlled by statutes.
 In this connection, Article 376 of the Civil
Code provides:

ART. 376. No person can

change his name or surname
without judicial authority.

This Civil Code provision was amended

by RA 9048 (Clerical Error Law) x x x
xxxx
RA  9048  now  governs  the  change of
first name. It vests the power and
authority to entertain petitions for change of
first name to the city or municipal civil
registrar or con-
sul general concerned. Under the law, there-
fore, jurisdiction over applications for
change of first name is now primarily
lodged with the aforementioned
administrative officers. The
intent and effect of the law is to exclude the
change of first name from the coverage of
Rules 103 (Change of Name) and 108
(Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the
Civil Registry) of the Rules of Court, until
and
unless an administrative petition for change
of name is first filed and subsequently
denied. It likewise lays down the
corresponding venue, form and procedure.
In sum, the remedy and the proceedings
regulating change of first name are
primarily administrative in nature, not
judicial. x x x

In Republic v. Cagandahan:

The determination of a person’s sex

appearing in his birth certificate is a legal
issue and the court must look to the
statutes. In

 
 
421

VOL. 916, AUGUST 28, 2019 421

Bartolome vs. Republic

this connection, Article 412 of the Civil Code

provides:

ART. 412. No entry in a

civil register shall be
changed or corrected without
a judicial order.

Together  with  Article  376  of  the  Civil

Code, this provision was amended by Repub-
lic Act No. 9048 in so far as clerical or
typographical errors
are involved. The correction or change of such matters can now be
made through administrative proceedings
and without the need for a judicial order. In
effect, Rep. Act No. 9048  removed  from  the
ambit of Rule 108 of the Rules of  Court  the
correction of such errors. Rule  108  now  ap-
 plies only to substantial changes and correc-
tions in entries in the civil register. x x x

In Republic v. Sali:

The petition for change of first name may

be allowed, among other grounds, if the new
first name has been habitually and
continuously used by the petitioner and he
or she has been publicly known by that first
name in the community. The local city or
municipal civil registrar or consul general
has the primary jurisdiction to entertain
the petition. It is only when such petition is
denied that a petitioner may either appeal to
the civil registrar general or file the
appropriate petition with the proper court. x
xx

Republic Act No. 9048 also dispensed with the need for judicial
proceedings in case of any clerical or typographical mistakes in the
civil register or changes in first names or nicknames.
xxxx
Thus, a person may now change his or her first name or correct
clerical errors in his or her name through

 
 
422

422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bartolome vs. Republic

administrative  proceedings. Rules  103  and  108  only  apply if the

administrative petition has been filed and later denied.
In 2012, Republic Act No. 9048 was amended by Republic Act
No. 10172.
In addition to the change of the first name, the day and month of
birth, and the sex of a person may now be changed without judicial
proceedings. Republic Act No. 10172 clarifies that these changes
may now be administratively corrected where it is patently clear
that there is a clerical or typographical mistake in the entry. It may
be changed by filing a subscribed and sworn affidavit with the local
civil registry office of the city or municipality where the record being
sought to be corrected or changed is kept.29

 
The foregoing rules may be summarized as follows:
1.            A person seeking 1) to change his or her first
name, 2) to correct clerical or typographical errors in the
civil register, 3) to change/correct the day and/or month of
his or her date of birth, and/or 4) to change/correct his or her
sex, where it is patently clear that there was a clerical or
typographical error or mistake, must first file a verified
petition with the local civil registry office of the city or
municipality where the record being sought to be corrected
or changed is kept, in accordance  with  the  administrative
 proceeding  provided  under
R.A. 904830  in relation to R.A. 10172.31  A person may
only avail of the appropriate judicial remedies under Rule
103 or

_______________

29 Republic v. Gallo, supra note 27 at pp. 576-596. Citations and

emphasis in the original were omitted. Underscoring supplied
30 R.A. 9048, Sec. 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or Typographical
Error and Change of First Name or Nickname in Civil Register.
31 R.A. 9048, Sec. 1, as amended by R.A. 10172, Sec. 1.   Authority to
Correct Clerical or Typographical Error and Change of First Name or
Nickname.

 
 

423

VOL. 916, AUGUST 28, 2019 423

Bartolome vs. Republic

Rule 108 in the aforementioned entries after the petition in

the administrative proceedings is filed and later denied.
2.       A person seeking 1) to change his or her surname
or 2) to change both his or her first name and surname may
file a petition for change of name under Rule 103, provided
that the jurisprudential grounds32 discussed  in Republic  v.
Hernandez33  are present.
3. A person seeking
substantial cancellations or corrections  of entries     in the
34

civil registry may file a petition for

_______________

32 Republic v. Hernandez, 323 Phil. 606, 637-638;  253 SCRA 509, 535
(1996):

x x x Jurisprudence has recognized, inter alia, the following grounds as being

sufficient to warrant a change of name: (a) when the name is ridiculous,
dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (b) when the change
results as a legal consequence of legitimation or adoption; (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) when the
change is based on a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of
former alienage, all in good faith and without prejudice to 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.

See also Republic v. Coseteng-Magpayo, 656 Phil. 550, 555-556; 641

SCRA 533, 538 (2011).
 33 Id.
34 Rules of Court, Rule 108, Sec. 2 provides:

Entries subject to cancellation or correction.—Upon good and valid grounds,

the following entries in the civil register may be cancelled or corrected: (a)
births: (b) marriage; (c) deaths; (d) legal separations; (e) judgments of
annulments of marriage; (f) judgments declaring marriages void from the
beginning; (g) legitimations; (h) adoptions; (i) acknowledgments of natural
children; (j) naturalization; (k) election, loss or recovery of citizen-

 
 

424

424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bartolome vs. Republic

cancellation or correction of entries under Rule 108. As

discussed in Lee v. Court of Appeals35 and more recently, in
Republic v. Cagandahan,36  R.A. 9048 “removed from the
ambit of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court the correction of
such errors. Rule 108 now applies only to substantial
changes and corrections in entries in the civil register.”
In the instant case, petitioner seeks to change his first
name, to include his middle, and to correct the spelling of his
surname,37 i.e., from “Feliciano Bartholome” as stated in his
birth certificate to “Ruben Cruz Bartolome.”
The Court agrees with the CA and the OSG that the
aforementioned changes and corrections are covered by
Section 1 of R.A. 9048 as amended by R.A. 10172, which
provides:

Section 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or Typographical Error

and Change of First Name or Nickname.—No entry in a civil
register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order,
except for clerical  or typographical  errors  and
change of first name or nickname, the day and month in the date of
birth or sex of a person where it is patently clear that there was a
clerical or typographical error or mistake in the entry, which can be
corrected or changed by the concerned city or municipal civil
registrar or consul general in accordance with the provisions of this
Act and its implementing rules and regulations. (Underscoring
supplied)

 
The change of petitioner’s
first name is covered by
R.A. 9048, as amended
 

_______________
ship; (1) civil interdiction; (m) judicial determination of filiation; (n) voluntary
emancipation of a minor; and (o) changes of name.

35 419 Phil. 392; 367 SCRA 110 (2001).

36 586 Phil. 637, 647-648; 565 SCRA 72, 83-84 (2008).
37 Rollo, p. 7.

 
 

425

VOL. 916, AUGUST 28, 2019 425

Bartolome vs. Republic

While the grounds for change of name under Rule 103

are found in jurisprudence, the grounds for change of first
name or nickname are expressly provided in R.A. 9048,
Section 4, viz.:

SECTION 4. Grounds for Change of First Name or Nickname.—

The petition for change of first name or nickname may be allowed in
any of the following cases:
(1)          The petitioner  finds the first name or nickname to be
ridiculous, tainted with dishonor or extremely difficult to write or
pronounce;
(2)      The new first name or nickname has been habitually and
continuously used by the petitioner and he has been publicly known
by that first name or nickname in the community; or
(3)      The change will avoid confusion.

 
In Republic v. Sali,38  the Court held that a change of
therein respondent Lorena Omapas Sali’s first name from
“Dorothy” to “Lorena” was primarily administrative in
nature and should be filed under the procedure provided in
R.A. 9048.39
In the instant case, petitioner seeks to change his first
name from “Feliciano” to “Ruben,” on the ground that he has
been using the latter since childhood.40  Contrary to
petitioner’s claims therefore, the change sought is covered
by R.A. 9048 and should have been filed with the local civil
registry of the city or municipality where the record being
sought to be corrected or changed is kept.41
 
The inclusion of petitioner’s
middle name is covered by
R.A. 9048, as amended
 

_______________

38 Republic v. Sali, 808 Phil. 343; 822 SCRA 239 (2017).

39 Id., at p. 350; p. 246.
 40 Rollo, pp. 20-21.
41 R.A. 9048, Sec. 3.

 
 

426

426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bartolome vs. Republic

While substantial corrections of entries in the civil

register are still covered by Rule 108, typographical or
clerical corrections must now be filed under R.A. 9048 as
amended. Section 2 of the said law defines clerical or
typographical errors as follows:

(3) ‘Clerical or typographical error’ refers to a mistake committed in

the performance of clerical work in writing, copying, transcribing or
typing an entry in the civil register that is harmless and innocuous,
such as misspelled name or misspelled place of birth, mistake in the
entry of day and month in the date of birth or the sex of the person
or the like, which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the
understanding, and can be corrected or changed only by reference
to other existing record or records: Provided, however, That no
correction must involve the change of nationality, age, or status of
the petitioner.42 (Underscoring supplied)

 
Evidently the test for whether a correction is clerical or
substantial is found in the provision itself. Misspelled names
or missing entries are clerical corrections if they are visible
to the eyes or obvious to the understanding and if they may
be readily verified by referring to the existing records in the
civil register. They must not, however, involve any change
in nationality, age or status.
In Republic v. Gallo,43 the Court unequivocally held that
a prayer to enter a person’s middle name is a mere clerical
error, which may be corrected by referring to existing
records. Thus, it is primarily administrative in nature and
should be filed pursuant to R.A. 9048 as amended.
Applying the aforementioned ruling to the instant case
therefore, petitioner’s prayer that his middle name, “Cruz”
be entered, is a mere clerical correction, and must therefore
be

_______________

42 R.A. 9048, Sec. 2(3), as amended by R.A. 10172, Sec. 2.

43 Republic v. Gallo, supra note 27.

 
 
 427

VOL. 916, AUGUST 28, 2019 427

Bartolome vs. Republic

likewise undertaken through the administrative proceeding

provided under R.A. 9048.
 
The correction in the spell-
ing of petitioner’s surname
is likewise covered by R.A.
9048, as amended
 
As regards petitioner’s misspelled surname, it bears
noting that in 1988 and prior to the enactment of R.A. 9048
as amended, the Court, in Labayo-Rowe v.
Republic,44  (Labayo-Rowe) held that a correction in the
spelling of therein petitioner’s surname from
“Labayo/Labayu” to “Labayo” was a mere clerical error that
could be corrected through a summary proceeding under
Rule 108.
In Labayo-Rowe, the Court defined clerical errors as
“those harmless and innocuous changes such as the
correction of names clearly misspelled, occupation of
parents, errors that are visible to the eye or obvious to the
understanding, errors made by a clerk or transcriber, or a
mistake in copying or writing.”45 It can be readily seen that
this jurisprudential definition was expressly incorporated
into R.A. 9048, which, as already discussed, expressly
removed the correction of clerical or typographical errors
from the ambit of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.46  To
obviate any further confusion on the
matter, the Court categorically holds that typographical or
clerical  errors  in  a  person’s  surname
must likewise be corrected through the administrative proceeding under R.A.
9048.
As herein petitioner’s allegedly misspelled surname,
“Bartholome,” may be readily corrected by merely referring
to the existing records of the civil registrar, such as the
surnames of

_______________

44 250 Phil. 300, 307; 168 SCRA 294, 300-301 (1988).

45 Id., at pp. 305-306; p. 299.
46 Republic v. Cagandahan, supra note 36.

 
 

438

438 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

 Bartolome vs. Republic

petitioner’s parents and immediate family members, the

petition should have been filed under R.A. 9048 and not
under Rule 103 of the Rules. It likewise follows that the
petition should have been filed with the local civil registry
office of the city or municipality where the record being
sought to be corrected or changed is kept, in accordance with
Section 3 of R.A. 9048 and not in accordance with the venue
provided in Rule 103.
In sum, all changes sought by the petitioner fall within
the ambit of R.A. 9048. Petitioner may only avail of the
appropriate judicial remedies when the changes/corrections
sought through the administrative proceeding are denied.
By “appropriate,” the Court holds that if the prayer to
administratively change petitioner’s first name is denied,
the same may be brought under Rule 103 of the Rules of
Court. If the prayers to administratively correct petitioner’s
middle name and surname are denied, the same may be
brought under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
 
A final note
 
Petitioner alleges that he is now 76 years old47 and prays
that his petition be granted, given that the “government
messed up his birth certificate when he was an infant and is
now giving him a hard time. He just wants to fix this legally
murky but relatively simple problem before he dies for the
sake of and love for his children and grandchildren.”48
In this regard, even if the Court were inclined to give due
course to petitioner’s Rule 103 petition in the interest of
substantial justice, it should be emphasized that both the
RTC and the CA identically found that the evidence
adduced by petitioner was insufficient to support his claim
that he has been  habitually  and  continuously  using  the
 name  “Ruben

_______________

47 Rollo, p. 13.
48 Id., at p. 12.

 
 
429

VOL. 916, AUGUST 28, 2019 429

Bartolome vs. Republic

Cruz Bartolome” since childhood.49 As well, the Court notes

that petitioner did not also adduce evidence to show that his
father or his siblings’ surnames were actually spelled as
“Bartolome.”50 It is a threshold doctrine that the resolution
of factual issues is the function of lower courts, whose
findings are generally binding on the Court.51  While the
Court recognizes several exceptions, none of these
exceptions applies.52
In view of the foregoing, the instant petition is denied,
without prejudice to the filing of the appropriate
administrative action under R.A. 9048, as amended by R.A.
10172.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The April 26,
2018 Decision and November 26, 2018 Resolution of the
Court

_______________

49 Id., at p. 22.
50 Id., at p. 28.
51 Angeles v. Pascual, 673 Phil. 499, 504-505; 658 SCRA 23, 29 (2011).
52 Id., at p. 506; pp. 29-30:

Nonetheless, the Court has recognized several exceptions to the rule,

including: (a) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises
or conjectures; (b) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible; (c) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (d) when the judgment is
based on a misapprehension of facts; (e) when the findings of facts are
conflicting; (f) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went beyond
the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the
appellant and the appellee; (g) when the findings are contrary to those of the
trial court; (h) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific
evidence on which they are based; (i) when the facts set forth in the petition as
well as in the petitioner’s main and reply briefs are not disputed by the
respondent; (j) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence
of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (k) when the Court of
Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the
parties, which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.

 
 

430

430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Bartolome vs. Republic

of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 106384 are hereby

AFFIRMED, without prejudice to the filing of the
appropriate administrative proceeding under R.A. 9048, as
amended by R.A. 10172.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio (Chairperson), J. Reyes, Jr., Lazaro-Javier and

Zalameda, JJ., concur.
 Petition denied, judgment affirmed without prejudice to
filing of appropriate administrative proceeding under R.A.
9048, as amended by R.A. 10172.

Notes.—A change of name is a privilege and not a

matter of right; a proper and reasonable cause must exist
before a person may be authorized to change his name. (Gan
vs. Republic, 803 SCRA 204 [2016])
The petition for change of first name may be allowed,
among other grounds, if the new first name has been
habitually and continuously used by the petitioner and he
or she has been publicly known by that first name in the
community. The local city or municipal civil registrar or
consul general has the primary jurisdiction to entertain the
petition. It is only when such petition is denied that a
petitioner may either appeal to the civil registrar general or
file the appropriate petition with the proper court. (Republic
vs. Sali, 822 SCRA 239 [2017])

 
——o0o——
 
 

© Copyright 2022 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.