SpecPro

January 26, 2019 Session

CHANGE of NAME and CORRECTION of ENTRIES

LAW R.A. 9048 Rule 103 Rule 108

What is it about Change of first name, Change of name Cancellation, correction of
correcting clerical errors entries in the civil registry
Procedure Civil registrar must post There must be publication
the application in a
conspicuous place in 10
days
Where to file Local Civil registrar RTC of residence RTC where records are
found
Scope Change of first name plus Change of full name or Correction of substantial
correction of clerical surname (substantial errors plus cancellation of
errors corrections) entries
What is the
ultimate relief
sought for
If Civil Registrar Appeal to the consulate-
denies general
Grounds for If the requested name is
Denial ridiculous, will cause
confusion
How many Only once
times?
Who is entitled
to file a petition

 Rule 103 vs. RA 9048

o In 9048, it covers those of clear clerical/typographical errors
o In Rule 103, it means that the name of a person; change of full name or surname
o Correction of substantial errors-Rule 108
 Correction vs. Change
o Are you changing something or correcting?
o First name or surname?
o Substantial or clerical?
o
 In adversarial proceedings, Republic is named as a party
o Because of the interest of the public
o Republic has interest in noting the civil status of its persons
o Oppositions are done by the OSG, but will only deputize the city prosecutor
In re: Alfon
  The lower court should have fully granted the petition. The only reason why the lower court
denied the petitioner’s prayer to change her surname is that as legitimate child of Filomeno
Duterte and Estrella Alfon she should principally use the surname of her father invoking Art. 364
of the Civil Code. But the word "principally" as used in the codal-provision is not equivalent to
"exclusively" so that there is no legal obstacle if a legitimate or legitimated child should choose
to use the surname of its mother to which it is equally entitled. Moreover, this Court in Haw
Liong v. Republic, G.R. No. L-21194, April 29, 1966, 16 SCRA 677, 679,

"The following may be considered, among others, as proper or reasonable causes that may
warrant the grant of a petitioner for change of name; (1) when the name is ridiculous, tainted
with dishonor, or is extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (2) when the request for change is
a consequence of a change of status, such as when a natural child is acknowledged or
legitimated; and (3) when the change is necessary to avoid confusion (Tolentino, Civil Code of
the Philippines, 1953 ed., Vol. 1, p. 660)."cralaw virtua1aw library

In the case at bar, it has been shown that petitioner has, since childhood, borne the name
Estrella S. Alfon although her birth records and baptismal certificate show otherwise; she was
enrolled in the schools from the grades up to college under the name Estrella S. Alfon; all her
friends call her by this name; she finished her course in Nursing in college and was graduated
and given a diploma under this name; and she exercised the right of suffrage likewise under this
name. There is therefore ample justification to grant fully her petition which is not whimsical
but on the contrary is based on a solid and reasonable ground, i.e. to avoid confusion.
Republic vs. Coseteng-Magpayo
 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
 Respondents 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. 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 mothers surname, adding
that the avoidance of confusion was justification enough to allow her to do so. In the present case,
however, respondent denies his legitimacy.

 Rule 108 clearly directs that a petition which concerns ones civil status should be filed in the civil
registry in which 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.
 No reason not to comply with the requirements
 Rule 103 vs. Rule 108, separate and distinct
 The publication of the notice of hearing cures the failure to implead an indispensable party

Republic vs. Mercadera

 The proceeding under Rule 103 is also an action in rem which requires publication of the order
issued by the court to afford the State and all other interested parties to oppose the petition.
When complied with, the decision binds not only the parties impleaded but the whole world. As
notice to all, publication serves to indefinitely bar all who might make an objection. 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.
 Essentially, a change of name does not define or effect a change of ones existing family relations
or in the rights and duties flowing therefrom. It does not alter ones legal capacity or civil status.
would thereby acquire certain family ties with them but because the existence of such ties
might be erroneously impressed on the public mind
 Hence, in requests for a change of name, what is involved is not a mere matter of allowance or
disallowance of the request, but a judicious evaluation of the sufficiency and propriety of the
justifications advanced x x x mindful of the consequent results in the event of its grant x x x
 Rule 108 is an adversary proceeding, thus proper parties should be joined as indispensable
parties

Silverio vs. Republic

 Silverio had sex transplant to be able to become a woman, from
 Petitioner essentially claims that the change of his name and sex in his birth certificate is
allowed under Articles 407 to 413 of the Civil Code, Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court and
RA 9048. The petition lacks merit.
 A persons’ first name CANNOT be changed on the ground of sex reassignment
o 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.
o 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 consul
general concerned. Under the law, therefore, 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.
 No law allows the change of entry in the birth certificate as to sex on the ground of sex
reassignment
 o Correct vs. change, how it relates to Art. 408 and Rule 108
o To correct simply means to make or set aright; to remove the faults or error from while
to change means to replace something with something else of the same kind or with
something that serves as a substitute
o The birth certificate of petitioner contained no error. All entries therein, including those
corresponding to his first name and sex, were all correct. No correction is necessary.
o What he wanted was a CHANGE
o Person’s sex is an essential factor in marriage and family relations. It is a part of a person’s
legal capacity and civil status. In this connection, Article 413 of the Civil Code provides:
ART. 413. All other matters pertaining to the registration of civil status shall be governed
by special laws.

Republic vs. Cagandahan

 the issue is whether the trial court erred in ordering the correction of entries in the birth
certificate of respondent to change her sex or gender, from female to male, on the ground of
her medical condition known as CAH, and her name from Jennifer to Jeff, under Rules 103 and
108 of the Rules of Court.
 In deciding this case, we consider the compassionate calls for recognition of the various degrees
of intersex as variations which should not be subject to outright denial. It has been suggested
that there is some middle ground between the sexes, a no-mans land for those individuals who
are neither truly male nor truly female
 In the instant case, if we determine respondent to be a female, then there is no basis for a change
in the birth certificate entry for gender. But if we determine, based on medical testimony and
scientific development showing the respondent to be other than female, then a change in the
subjects birth certificate entry is in order.

 Ultimately, we are of the view that where the person is biologically or naturally intersex the
determining factor in his gender classification would be what the individual, like respondent,
having reached the age of majority, with good reason thinks of his/her sex. Respondent here
thinks of himself as a male and considering that his body produces high levels of male hormones
(androgen) there is preponderant biological support for considering him as being 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.
 Respondent here has simply let nature take its course and has not taken unnatural steps to
arrest or interfere with what he was born with. And accordingly, he has already ordered his life
to that of a male. Respondent could have undergone treatment and taken steps, like taking
lifelong medication to force his body into the categorical mold of a female but he did not. He
chose not to do so. Nature has instead taken its due course in respondents development to
reveal more fully his male characteristics.
 The current state of Philippine statutes apparently compels that a person be classified either as
a male or as a female, but this Court is not controlled by mere appearances when nature itself
fundamentally negates such rigid classification.
 There was a discussion on self-identification by respondent
 Rule 103 is NOT a matter of right but of judicial discretion
Lee vs. Court of Appeals
 Petitioners contend that resort to Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court is improper since
private respondents seek to have the entry for the name of petitioners mother changed from
Keh Shiok Cheng to Tiu Chuan who is a completely different person. What private respondents
therefore seek is not merely a correction in name but a declaration that petitioners were not
born of Lee Tek Shengs legitimate wife, Keh Shiok Cheng, but of his mistress, Tiu Chuan, in effect
a bastardization of petitioners. Petitioners thus label private respondents suits before the lower
courts as a collateral attack against their legitimacy in the guise of a Rule 108 proceeding.
 Provided the trial court has conducted proceedings where all relevant facts have been fully and
properly developed, where opposing counsel have been given opportunity to demolish the
opposite partys case, and where the evidence has been thoroughly weighed and considered, the
suit or proceeding is appropriate.
 The pertinent sections of rule 108 provide:
 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 in 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 from notice
of the petition, or from the last date of publication of such notice, file his opposition thereto.
 Thus, the persons who must be made parties to a proceeding concerning the cancellation or
correction of an entry in the civil register are - (1) the civil registrar, and (2) all persons who have
or claim any interest which would be affected thereby. Upon the filing of the petition, it becomes
the duty of the court to - (1) issue an order fixing the time and place for the hearing of the petition,
and (2) cause the order for hearing to be published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks
in a newspaper of general circulation in the province. The following are likewise entitled to oppose
the petition: - (1) the civil registrar, and (2) any person having or claiming any interest under the
entry whose cancellation or correction is sought.
 If all these procedural requirements have been followed, a petition for correction and/or
cancellation of entries in the record of birth even if filed and conducted under Rule 108 of the
Revised Rules of Court can no longer be described as summary. There can be no doubt that
when an opposition to the petition is filed either by the Civil Registrar or any person having or
claiming any interest in the entries sought to be cancelled and/or corrected and the opposition
is actively prosecuted, the proceedings thereon become adversary proceedings.
 Rule 108 is an appropriate adversarial procedure
 Art. 412 neither qualifies, nor does it distinguish.
 RA 9048 is a summary in nature
 It may be very well said that Republic Act No. 9048 is Congress response to the confusion wrought
by the failure to delineate as to what exactly is that so-called summary procedure for changes or
corrections of a harmless or innocuous nature as distinguished from that appropriate adversary
 proceeding for changes or corrections of a substantial kind. For we must admit that though we
have constantly referred to an appropriate adversary proceeding, we have failed to categorically
state just what that procedure is. Republic Act No. 9048 now embodies that summary procedure
while Rule 108 is that appropriate adversary proceeding. Be that as it may, the case at bar cannot
be decided on the basis of Republic Act No. 9048 which has prospective application. Hence, the
necessity for the preceding treatise.
 Determining who the mother was went to the extent of going through the NBI, etc.