REPUBLIC VS CA AND WONG

FACTS:

Maximo Wong petitioned for the change of his name to Maximo Alcala, Jr. which was his name prior to his adoption by Hoong Wong and Concepcion Ty Wong. Maximo Wong is the legitimate son of Maximo Alcala, Sr. and Segundina Y.Alcala. Siblings Maximo Alcala, Jr. and Margaret Alcala were adopted by Hoong Wong and Concepcion Ty Wong (naturalized Filipino citizens) with the consent of their parents.

They decided to adopt the children as they remained childless after fifteen years of marriage. Maximo Wong ,22 years old, then married and a junior Engineering student at Notre Dame University, Cotabato City, filed a petition to change his name to Maximo Alcala, Jr. It was averred that his use of the surname Wong embarrassed and isolated him from his relatives and friends, as the same suggests a Chinese ancestry when in truth and in fact he is a Muslim Filipino residing in a Muslim community, he wants to erase any implication whatsoever of alien nationality; that he is being ridiculed for carrying a Chinese surname, thus hampering his business and social life; and that his adoptive mother does not oppose his desire to revert to his former surname.

Lower court ruled in favor of Wong. CA affirmed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Maximo Wong may legally change his name to MaximoAlcala, Jr.

RULING:

YES. Maximo Wong may legally change his name to Maximo Alcala, Jr.

The Court stated that the State has an interest in the names borne by individuals and entities for the purpose of identification and a change of name is not a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion, to be exercised in the light of reasons adduced and the consequences that will likely follow;it is a privilege which may be granted only upon a showing of a proper or reasonable cause or compelling reason therefor.

It bears stressing at this point that to justify a request for change of name, petitioner must show not only some proper or compelling reason therefor but also that he will be prejudiced by the use of his true and official name. Among the grounds for change of name which have been held valid are: (a) When the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (b) When the change results as a legal consequence, as in legitimation; (c) When the change will avoid confusion; (d) Having continuously used and been known since childhood by a Filipino name, unaware of her 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.

From the testimony of petitioner-appellee and of his adopter mother Concepcion Ty-Wong, We discern that said appellee was prompted to file the petition for change of name because of the embarrassment and ridicule his family name "Wong" brings in his dealings with his relatives and friends, he being a Muslim Filipino and living in a Muslim community. Another cause is his desire to improve his social and business life. It has been held that in the absence of prejudice to the state or any individual, a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of a former alien nationality which only hampers social and business life, is a proper and reasonable cause for change of name. Justice dictates that a person should be allowed to improve his social standing as long as in doing so, he does not cause prejudice or injury to the interest of the State or other persons. Nothing whatsoever is shown in the record of this case that such prejudice or injury to the interest of the state or of other persons would result in the change of petitioner's name.

AM No. 06-7-414-RTC

FACTS:

A judicial audit and physical inventory of cases was conducted on June 20-24 2005 at the RTC, Paniqui, Tarlac, Branch 67, then presided by

Judge Cesar M. Sotero who compulsorily retired on Feb 2006. The audit noticed that there were no special proceedings case records presented. Upon inquiry, the Clerk of of Court Paulino Saguyod asserted that most of these cases are for Petitions for Corrections of Entries in the Civil Registry and gave the audit team copies of the decisions. The audit team observed that almost all of the petitions have no hearings conducted and that the date of filing indicated in the docket books and date of the decision was so near that it will be improbable to comply with the publication requirement under the Rules of Court. In view of these observations, Judge Sotero and Clerk of Court Saguyod were made to explain why these pettions for change of name and/or correction of entries in the civil registry were granted without the required hearing. In their answer, they explained that these petitions may be covered by RA 9048 which authorized city or municipal registrar to correct clerical or typographical errors in the civil registry without need for a judicial order.

ISSUE:

Whether trial court still have jurisdiction over petitions on change of name and correction of entries.

Whether the summary procedure prescribed in RA 9048 should be adopted in cases filed before the courts, or should the proceeding under Rule 108 be followed.

RULING:

During the deliberation, it was clear that the clear that the local civil registrar is given the authority to act on petitions for corrections of entries and change of first name or nicknames, yet there was no mention that such petition can no longer be filed with the regular courts. There was no intent on the part of the lawmakers to remove the authority of the trial courts to make judicial corrections of entries in the civil registry. It can thus be concluded that the local civil registry has primary, not exclusive jurisdiction over such petitons for correction of clerical errors and change of first name or nickname.

There should be recourse to the procedure prescribed for the courts as if RA were not enacted at all. In other words, the procedure provided in

the Revised Rules of Court of such petitions remains binding and should be followed by the courts. The procedural requirements laid down in Rules 103 and 108 still have to be complied with.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. CAPOTE

FACTS:

In 1998, respondent Trinidad R. A. Capote (guardian  ad   litem) filed a petition forchange of name of her ward from Giovanni Nadores Gallamaso to Giovanni Nadores. The petition alleged that: Giovanni is the illegitimate natural child of Corazon P. Nadores and Diosdado Gallamaso; he was born on July 9, 1982, prior to the effectivity of the New Family Code; his mother made him use the surname of the natural father despite the absence of marriage between them;from the time Giovanni was born and up to the present, his father failed to take up his responsibilities [to him] on matters of financial, physical, emotional and spiritual concerns; Giovanni is now fully aware of how he stands with his father and he desires to have his surname changed to that of his mother’s surname; Giovanni’s mother might eventually petition him to join her in the United States and his continued use of the surname Gallamaso, the surname of his natural father, may complicate his status as natural child; and the change of name will be for the benefit of the minor.

Having found respondent’s petition sufficient in form and substance, the trial court gave due course to the petition. Publication of the petition was ordered and the local civil registrar and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) was notified. Since there was no opposition to the petition, respondent moved for leave of court to present her evidence ex parte before a court-appointed commissioner. The OSG, acting through the Provincial Prosecutor, did not object; hence, the lower court granted the motion. After the reception of evidence, the trial court rendered a decision ordering the change of name from Giovanni N. Gallamaso to Giovanni Nadores.

Petitioner Republic of the Philippines, through the OSG, filed an appeal with a lone assignment of error: the court a quo erred in granting the

petition in a summary proceeding. Ruling that the proceedings were sufficiently adversarial in nature as required, the CA affirmed the RTC decision ordering the change of name.

Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court contending that the CA erred in affirming the trial court’s decision which granted the petition for change of name despite the non-joinder of indispensable parties. The purported parents and all other persons who may be adversely affected by the child’s change of name should have been made respondents to make the proceeding adversarial.

ISSUES:

WON the petition for change of name should be granted.

Is a proceeding for change of name adversarial?

WON Capote complied with the requirement for an adversarial proceeding

4. When is a proceeding considered adversarial?

RULING: 

Yes. The law and facts obtaining here favor Giovanni’s petition. Giovanni availed of the proper remedy, a petition for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, and complied with all the procedural requirements. After hearing, the trial court found that the evidence presented during the hearing of Giovanni’s petition sufficiently established that, under Art. 176 of the Civil Code, Giovanni is entitled to change his name as he was never recognized by his father while his mother has always recognized him as her child. A change of name will erase the impression that he was ever recognized by his father. It is also to his best interest as it will facilitate his mother’s intended petition to have him join her in the United States. This Court will not stand in the way of the reunification of mother and son.

The OSG is correct in stating that a petition for change of name must be heard in an adversarial proceeding. Unlike petitions for the cancellation or correction of clerical errors in entries in the civil registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, a petition for change of name under Rule 103 cannot be decided through a summary proceeding. There is no doubt that this petition does not fall under Rule 108 for it is not alleged that the entry in the civil registry suffers from clerical or typographical errors. The relief sought clearly goes beyond correcting erroneous entries in the civil registry, although by granting the petition, the result is the same in that a corresponding change in the entry is also required to reflect the change in name.

Capote complied with the requirement for an adversarial proceeding by posting in a newspaper of general circulation notice of the filing of the petition. The lower court also furnished the OSG a copy thereof. Despite the notice, no one came forward to oppose the petition including the OSG. The fact that no one opposed the petition did not deprive the court of its jurisdiction to hear the same nor does it make the proceeding less adversarial in nature. The lower court is still expected to exercise its judgment to determine whether the petition is meritorious or not and not merely accept as true the arguments propounded. Considering that the OSG neither opposed the petition nor the motion to present its evidence ex parte when it had the opportunity to do so, it cannot now complain that the proceedings in the lower court were not adversarial enough.

A proceeding is adversarial where the party seeking relief has given legal warning to the other party and afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it. Respondent gave notice of the petition through publication as required by the rules. With this, all interested parties were deemed notified and the whole world considered bound by the judgment therein. In addition, the trial court gave due notice to the OSG by serving a copy of the petition on it. Thus, all the requirements to make a proceeding adversarial were satisfied when all interested parties, including petitioner as represented by the OSG, were afforded the opportunity to contest the petition.

IN RE: PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME AND/OR CORRECTION/CANCELLATION OF ENTRY IN CIVIL REGISTRY OF JULIAN LIN CARULASAN WANG

FACTS:

Petitioner, a minor, represented by his mother Anna Lisa Wang, filed a petition dated Sept 19 2002 for change of name and/or correction/cancellation of entry in the Civil Registry of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang. Petitioner sought to drop his middle name and have his registered name changed from Julian Carulasan Wang to Juan Lin Wang. Petitioner theorizes that it would be for his best interest to drop his middle name as this would name as this would help him to adjust more easily to and integrate himself into Singaporean society.

ISSUE:

WON the law allows one to drop the middle name from his registered name on the cause mentioned.

RULING:

The touchstone for the grant of a change of name is that there be proper and reasonable cause for which the change is sought. To justify a request for change of name, petitioner must show not only some proper or compelling reason therefor but also that he will be prejudiced by the use of his true and official name. Among the grounds for change of name which have been held valid are: (a) When the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (b) When the change results as a legal consequence, as in legitimation; (c) When the change will avoid confusion; (d) Having continuously used and been known since childhood by a Filipino name, unaware of her 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.

In the case at bar, the only reason advanced by petitioner for the dropping his middle name is convenience. However, how such change

of name would make his integration into Singaporean society easier and convenient is not clearly established. That the continued use of his middle name would cause confusion and difficulty does not constitute proper and reasonable cause to drop it from his registered complete name.

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

REPUBLIC VS CA and VICENCIO FACTS:

The petitioner was born at Capitol Medical Center in Quezon City on January 19, 1971 to parents Pablo Castro Vicencio and Fe Esperanza de Vega Leabres. On January 10, 1927,aftermarital disagreement, Vicencio left their Meycauayan Bulacan conjugal property and never returned nor gave support to his family. Leabres found an ally in Ernesto Yu who would later end up as her husband. On June 29, 1976, Leabres filed a petition , known as Civil case number E-02009 with the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court for the dissolution of her conjugal partnership with Vicencio. In a decision given by Hon Regina C. Ordoñez Benitez dated July11, 1977, the petition was granted. The petitioner’s mother filed another petition in 1983 to drop the surname of her husband therefrom and this, known as Special Proclamation 8316346 was again approved in a decision rendered by Hon. Emeterio C. Cui of Branch XXV. Yet again,under Special Proclamation number 84-22605, Leabres filed a petition to declare Pablo Vicencioan absentee. Hon. Corona Ibay- Somera decided in favour of the petitioner’s mother on April 26,1984. The positive results of these petitions paved the way for the marriage of the petitioner’s mother and Ernesto Yu on April 15, 1986.Evidence was established that the petitioner had not remembered much her real father, PabloVicencio, and that in his absence, it was Ernesto Yu

who had taken Vicencio’s place. Although petitioner uses the surname Vicencio in her school and other related activities, she contends that in such situations, confusion arose as to her parentage leading to inquiries as to why she is using Vicencio as surname ; causing much embarrassment on her part. In two occasions when she ranas a beauty contestant for Lion’s Club Affair and Manila Red Cross, her name was registered asCynthia L. Yu. His stepfather had given his consent thereto upon prior consultation with him. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) , having participated in the cross examination of Cynthia Vicencio and her witnesses, manifested opposition over the petition. The court argued that there was no valid cause for the denial of the petition and that taking into account the fact that the court cannot compel the stepfather of the petitioner to consider adoption , failure to observe the process should not be a cause for disallowing petitioner to legally change her name, in addition to the opportunity of the respondent to improve her personality and welfare under asocially recognized surname, that of her stepfather. On August 31, 1987, the Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 52 granted private respondent Cynthia Vicencio’s petition for change of surname from Vicencio to Yu. The same was affirmed by the decision of the Court of Appeals dated April 28, 1989.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the appellate court made a mistake or violated standards in affirming the decision of the trial court to allow the change in private respondent’s surname to that of her stepfather’s surname.

RULING:

Among the grounds for change of name which have been held valid are: (a) When the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (b) When the change results as a legal consequence, as in legitimation; (c) When the change will avoid confusion;  (d) Having continuously used and been known since childhood by a Filipino name, unaware of her 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.

Private respondent asserts that she falls under one of justifiable grounds, specifically under avoidance of confusion since she has been recognized by society as the daughter of Ernesto Yu although she admits to having used Vicencio in beauty pageants and in her debut.

In the argument of the SG, I argues that change in surname might give rise to legal complications since her stepfather has two other children with her mother and such complications may affect even the issue of inheritance should the stepfather die. The OSG further argues that change of name would be easy through adoption which Ernesto YU did not opt for.

The SC found that there is no legally justifiable cause for allowing such change.

In the matter of the Adoption of Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia

FACTS:

Honorato B. Catindig, filed a petition to adopt his minor illegitimate child Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia. He alleged that Stephanie's middle name be changed to "Garcia," her mother's surname, and that her surname be changed to "Catindig." the trial court granted the petition for adoption. Petitioner then filed for clarification and/or reconsideration praying that Stephanie should be allowed to use the surname of her biological mother as her middle name. The trial court denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration as there is no law or jurisprudence allowing an adopted child to use the surname of his biological mother as his middle name.

ISSUE:

Whether an illegitimate child may use the surname of her mother as her middle name when she is subsequently adopted by her natural father.

RULING:

There is no law prohibiting an illegitimate child adopted by her natural father, like Stephanie, to use, as middle name her mother's surname. The court finds no reason why she should not be allowed to do so.

Republic vs. Coseteng- Magpayo

Facts:

Julian Edward Emerson Coseteng Magpayo claimed that his parents were never married andfiled a petition in QC to change his name to Julian Edward Emerson Marquez Lim Coseteng(using the maiden name of his mother). Records which show that he has been using the surname of Coseteng since childhood (academic records)

Trial Court granted petition and ordered Civil Registrar to: a. Delete the entry “date and place of marriage”(of parents) in respondent’s live birth certificate

b. Change entry of “Last name” from Magpayo to Coseteng c. Delete entry of Coseting from “Middle name” d. Delete entry of Fulvio Miranda Magpayo Jr in the entry for “Father” Republic filed a motion against the order of the court stating that the change of name of respondent also calls for a change of civil status from legitimateto illegitimate and that the Court exceeded jurisdiction when it ordered deletion of name of the father

Issue:

WON respondents change of name was affected through an appropriate adversary proceeding.

RULING:

Respondents reason for changing his name cannot be considered as anyone of the recognized grounds in rule 103 (respondent denies his legitimacy by affecting his legal status in relation to his parents)

Since respondents desired change affects his legitimacy, rule 108 should apply

Rule 108 clearly directs that a petition which concerns one’s civil status should be filed in the civilregistry in which the entry is sought to be cancelled or corrected (Makati, not QC) and "all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby" should be made parties to the proceeding 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

Decision of Trial Court was nullified.

REPUBLIC VS CAGANDAHAN

FACTS:

Jennifer Cagandahan was registered as a female in her Certificate of Live Birth. During her childhood years, she suffered from clitoral hypertrophy and was later on diagnosed that her ovarian structures had minimized. She likewise has no breast nor menstruation. Subsequently, she was diagnosed of having Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH), a condition where those afflicted possess secondary male characteristics because of too much secretion of male hormones, androgen. According to her, for all interests and appearances as well as in mind and emotion, she has become a male person. She filed a petition at RTC Laguna for Correction of Entries in her Birth Certificate such that her gender or sex be changed to male and her first name be changed to Jeff.

ISSUE:

WON correction of entries in her birth certificate should be granted.

RULING:

The Court considered the compassionate calls for recognition of the various degrees of intersex as variations which should not be subject to outright denial. SC is of the view that where the person is biologically or naturally intersex the determining factor in his gender classification would be what the individual, having reached the age of majority, with good reason thinks of his/her sex. As in this case, respondent, thinks of himself as a male and considering that his body produces high levels of male hormones, there is preponderant biological support for considering him as being a male. Sexual development in cases of intersex persons makes the gender classification at birth inconclusive. It is at maturity that the gender of such persons, like respondent, is fixed.

Remo vs. Secretary of Foreign Affairs

G.R. 169202; 5 March 2010

FACTS:

Maria Virginia V. Remo (Remo) is a Filipino citizen, married to Francisco R. Rallonza. Her Philippine passport, which was to expire on 27 October 2000, showed “Rallonza” as her surname, “Maria Virginia” as her given name, and “Remo” as her middle name. While her marriage was still subsisting, she applied for the renewal of her passport with the Department of Foreign Affairs office in Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A., with a request to revert to her maiden name and surname in the replacement passport. When her request was denied, she made a similar request to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. The Secretary of Foreign Affairs denied the request, holding that while it is not obligatory for a married woman to use her husband’s name, she could use her maiden name in her passport application only if she had not used her married name in her previous application. The Secretary explained that under the implementing rules of Republic Act No. 8239 or the Philippine Passport

Act of 1996, a woman applicant may revert to her maiden name only in cases of annulment of marriage, divorce, and death of the husband. Remo brought the case to the Office of the President which affirmed the Secretary’s ruling. Remo filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals which denied the petition. When her motion for reconsideration was denied, Remo filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court. Remo argued that RA 8239 conflicted with and was an implied repeal of Article 370 of the Civil Code which allows the wife to continue using her maiden name upon marriage, as settled in the case of Yasin vs. Honorable Judge Shari’a District Court [311 Phil. 696, 707 (1995)].

ISSUE:

Whether or not Remo, who originally used her husband’s surname in her expired passport, can revert to the use of her maiden name in the replacement passport, despite the subsistence of her marriage.

RULING:

The petition was denied. Remo cannot use her maiden name in the replacement passport while her marriage subsists.No conflict between Civil Code and RA 8239. Indeed, under Article 370 of the Civil Code and as settled in the case of Yasin vs. Honorable Judge Shari’a District Court (supra), a married woman has an option, but not an obligation, to use her husband’s surname upon marriage. She is not prohibited from continuously using her maiden name because when a woman marries, she does not change her name but only her civil status. RA 8239 does not conflict with this principle.RA 8239, including its implementing rules and regulations, does not prohibit a married woman from using her maiden name in her passport. In fact, in recognition of this right, the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) allows a married woman who applies for a passport for the first time to use her maiden name. Such an applicant is not required to adopt her husband’s surname.In the case of renewal of passport, a married woman may either adopt her husband’s surname or continuously use her maiden name. If she chooses to adopt her husband’s surname in her new passport, the DFA additionally requires the submission of an authenticated copy of the marriage certificate. Otherwise, if she prefers to continue using her maiden name, she may still do so. The DFA will not prohibit her from continuously using her maiden name.

REPUBLIC VS VALENCIA

FACTS:

Respondent Leonor Valencia, for and in behalf of her minor children, Bernardo Go and Jessica Go filed with the Court of First Instance of Cebu a petition for the cancellation and/or correction of entries of birth of Bernardo Go and Jessica Go in the Civil Registry of the City of Cebu. The case was docketed as Special Proceedings No. 3043-R.

The Solicitor General filed an opposition to the petition alleging that the petition for correction of entry in the Civil Registry pursuant to Article 412 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines in relation to Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court, contemplates a summary proceeding and correction of mere clerical errors, those harmless and innocuous changes such as the correction of a name that is merely mispelled, occupation of parents, etc., and not changes or corrections involving civil status, nationality, or citizenship which are substantial and controversial.

Finding the petition to be sufficient in form and substance, the trial court issued an order directing the publication of the petition and the date of hearing thereof in the Cebu Advocate, a newspaper of general circulation in the city and province of Cebu, once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks, and notice thereof, duly served on the Solicitor General, the Local Civil Registrar of Cebu City and Go Eng.

Subsequently, the Local Civil Registrar of Cebu City filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that since the petition seeks to change the nationality or citizenship of Bernardo Go and Jessica Go from "Chinese" to "Filipino" and their status from "Legitimate" to Illegitimate", and changing also the status of the mother from "married" to "single" the corrections sought are not merely clerical but substantial, involving as they do the citizenship and status of the petitioning minors and the status of their mother.

The lower court denied the motion to dismiss.

ISSUE:

WON the lower court erred in ordering the correction of the petitioner’s citizenship and civil status and the citizenship and civil status of her minor children.

RULING:

It is undoubtedly true that if the subject matter of a petition is not for the correction of clerical errors of a harmless and innocuous nature, but one involving nationality or citizenship, which is indisputably substantial as well as controverted, affirmative relief cannot be granted in a proceeding summary in nature. However, it is also true that a right in law may be enforced and a wrong may be remedied as long as the appropriate remedy is used. This Court adheres to the principle that even substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected and the true facts established provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding. The court's role in hearing the petition to correct certain entries in the civil registry is to ascertain the truth about the facts recorded therein. Under our system of administering justice, truth is best ascertained or approximated by trial conducted under the adversary system. Apart from Bernardo Go and Jessica Go, there are four (4) other sisters and one (1) other brother born of the same father and mother. Not only are all five registered as Filipino citizens but they have pursued careers which require Philippine citizenship as a mandatory pre-requisite. To emphasize the strict policy of the government regarding professional examinations, it was the law until recently that to take the board exams for pharmacist, the applicant should possess natural born citizenship. There are other facts on the record. Leonor Valencia is a registered voter and had always exercised her right of suffrage from the time she reached voting age until the national elections immediately preceding the filing of her petition. The five other sisters and brother are also registered voters and likewise exercised the right of suffrage.

An uncle of the mother's side had held positions in the government having been elected twice as councilor and twice as vice-mayor of Victorias, Negros Occidental. Respondent Leonor Valencia has purchased and registered two (2) parcels of land as per Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-46104 and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-37275. These

allegations are well documented and were never contradicted by the Republic. As correctly observed by the lower court.

The right of suffrage is one of the important rights of a citizen. This is also true with respect to the acquisition of a real property. The evidence further shows that her children had been allowed to take the Board Examinations given by the Government for Filipino citizens only.

It would be a denial of substantive justice if two children proved by the facts to be Philippine citizens, and whose five sisters and brother born of the same mother and father enjoy all the rights of citizens, are denied the same rights on the simple argument that the "correct procedure" not specified or even intimated has not been followed.

BARCO VS CA

FACTS:

This case stemmed from a petition for correction of entries in the birth certificate of a minor, June Salvacion Maravilla, to reflect the name of her real father (Armando Gustilo) and to correspondingly change her surname. The petition was granted by the trial court.

Barco, whose minor daughter was allegedly fathered also by Gustilo, however, sought to annul the trial court’s decision, claiming that she should have been made a party to the petition for correction. Failure to implead her deprived the RTC of jurisdiction, she contended.

ISSUE:

WON the trial court erred in its decision.

RULING:

In dismissing Barco’s petition, this Court held that the publication of the order of hearing under Section 4 of Rule 108 cured the failure to implead an indispensable party.

The essential requisite for allowing substantial corrections of entries in the civil registry is that the true facts be established in an appropriate adversarial proceeding. This is embodied in Section 3, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, which states:

Section 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.

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.

Yet, even though Barco was not impleaded in the petition, the Court of Appeals correctly pointed out that the defect was cured by compliance with Section 4, Rule 108, which requires notice by publication.

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.

Verily, a petition for correction is an action in rem, an action against a thing and not against a person. The decision on the petition binds not only the parties thereto but the whole world. An in-rem proceeding is validated essentially through publication. Publication is notice to the whole world that the proceeding has for its object to bar indefinitely all who might be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established. It is the publication of such notice that brings in the whole world as a party in the case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it.

CERUILA VS. DELANTAR

FACTS:

Spouses Platon and Librada Ceruila filed an action for annulment and cancellation of the birth certificate of Maria Rosilyn Telin Delantar, the child-victim in the rape case involving Romeo Jalosjos for the reasons that said birth certificate was made an instrument of the crime of simulation of birth and therefore invalid and spurious, and it falsified all material entries therein. On April 11, 1997 the RTC rendered its decision granting the petition. On July 15, 1997 Rosilyn represented by her legal guardian filed with the CA a petition for annulment of judgment in the petition for cancellation of entry of her birth certificate claiming that she and her guardian were not notified of the petition and the subsequent judgment and learned about the same only from the news on May 16, 1997. On June 10, 1999 the CA granted the petition and declared null andv oid the decision of the RTC. The motion for reconsideration filed by spouses Ceruila was denied. Hence this petition.

ISSUE:

WON the requirements of Rule 108 were complied with.

RULING:

In the case at bar only the Civil Registrar of Manila was served summons, who, however, did not participate in the proceedings. This alone is clearly not sufficient to comply with the requirements laid down by the rules. The claim that lack of summons on Rosilyn was cured by publication of the order setting the case for hearing is not correct. Summons must still be served, not for the purpose of vesting the courts with jurisdiction, but to comply with the requirements of fair play on due process. This is but proper to afford the person concerned the opportunity to protect her interest if she so chooses. Rosilyn was never made a party at all to the proceedings seeking the cancellation of her birth certificate. Neither did petitioners make any effort to summon the Solicitor General.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CARLITO I. KHO et al.

FACTS:

Carlito Kho (Kho) and his family applied for the correction of various details in their birth certificate. Kho petitioned for (1) change the citizenship of his mother from “Chinese” to “Filipino”; (2) delete “John” from his name; and (3) delete the word “married” opposite the date of marriage of his parents. The last correction was ordered to be effected likewise in the birth certificates of respondents Michael, Mercy Nona, and Heddy Moira.

The petition from a non-adversarial nature of the change is premised onRepublic Act No. 9048, which allows first name and nickname in birth certificates without judicial order. The Municipal officer approved of the change. The Solicitor General objected to the correction on the ground that the correction not merely clerical but requires an adversarial proceeding. The Court of Appeals found in favor of Kho.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Kho‘s request for change in the details of their birth certificate requires an adversarial proceeding

RULING:

It can not be gainsaid that the petition, insofar as it sought to change the citizenship of Carlito‘s mother as it appeared in his birth certificate and delete the “married” status of Carlito‘s parents in his and his siblings‘ respective birth certificates, as well as change the date of marriage of Carlito and Marivel involves the correction of not just clerical errors of a harmless and innocuous nature. Rather, the changes entail substantialand controversial amendments.

For the change involving the nationality of Carlito‘s mother as reflected in his birth certificate is a grave and important matter that has a bearing and effect on the citizenship and nationality not only of the parents, but also of the offspring.

Further, the deletion of the entry that Carlito‘s and his siblings‘ parents were “married” alters their filiation from “legitimate” to “illegitimate,” with significant implications on their successional and other rights. Clearly, the changes sought can only be granted in an adversary proceeding.

The enactment in March 2001 of Republic Act No. 9048, otherwise known as “An Act Authorizing the City or Municipal Civil Registrar or the Consul General to Correct A Clerical or Typographical Error In An Entry and/or Change of First Name or Nickname in the Civil Register Without Need of Judicial Order,” has been considered to lend legislative affirmation to the judicial precedence that substantial corrections to the civil status of persons recorded in the civil registry may be effected through the filing of a petition under Rule 108.

When all the procedural requirements under Rule 108 are thus followed, the appropriate adversary proceeding necessary to effect substantial corrections to the entries of the civil register is satisfied.