Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 327 views

    Republic vs. Coseteng Magpayo

    Uploaded by

    Antonio Bartolome
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Republic in a case involving a petition to change one's name and correct entries in their birth certificate. The Court found that: 1) The respondent's petition substantially affects his civil status from legitimate to illegitimate, which can only be allowed through adversarial proceedings under Rule 108, not Rule 103 on name changes. 2) The petition was filed in the wrong venue and failed to implead necessary parties like the local civil registrar and the respondent's parents, as required by Rule 108.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Republic vs. Coseteng Magpayo

    Uploaded by

    Antonio Bartolome
    327 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Republic in a case involving a petition to change one's name and correct entries in their birth certificate. The Court found that: 1) The respondent's petition substantially affects his civil status from legitimate to illegitimate, which can only be allowed through adversarial proceedings under Rule 108, not Rule 103 on name changes. 2) The petition was filed in the wrong venue and failed to implead necessary parties like the local civil registrar and the respondent's parents, as required by Rule 108.

    Original Description:

    spec pro case digest

    Original Title

    Republic-vs.-Coseteng-Magpayo

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Republic in a case involving a petition to change one's name and correct entries in their birth certificate. The Court found that: 1) The respondent's petition substantially affects his civil status from legitimate to illegitimate, which can only be allowed through adversarial proceedings under Rule 108, not Rule 103 on name changes. 2) The petition was filed in the wrong venue and failed to implead necessary parties like the local civil registrar and the respondent's parents, as required by Rule 108.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    327 views3 pages

    Republic vs. Coseteng Magpayo

    Uploaded by

    Antonio Bartolome
    The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Republic in a case involving a petition to change one's name and correct entries in their birth certificate. The Court found that: 1) The respondent's petition substantially affects his civil status from legitimate to illegitimate, which can only be allowed through adversarial proceedings under Rule 108, not Rule 103 on name changes. 2) The petition was filed in the wrong venue and failed to implead necessary parties like the local civil registrar and the respondent's parents, as required by Rule 108.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

    JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON COSETENG-MAGPAYO


    (A.K.A. JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON MARQUEZ-LIM COSETENG) 
    G.R. No. 189476, February 2, 2011 

    FACTS: Born in Makati on September 9, 1972, Julian Edward Emerson Coseteng Magpayo


    (respondent) is the son of Fulvio M. Magpayo Jr. and Anna Dominique Marquez-Lim Coseteng who,
    as respondent’s certificate of live birth shows, contracted marriage on March 26, 1972. 

    Claiming, however, that his parents were never legally married, respondent filed on July 22, 2008 at
    the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City a Petition to change his name to Julian Edward
    Emerson Marquez Lim Coseteng. The petition, docketed as SPP No. Q-0863058, was entitled "IN
    RE PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAMEOF JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON COSETENG MAGPAYO
    TO JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON MARQUEZ-LIM COSETENG." 

    In support of his petition, respondent submitted a certification from the National Statistics Office
    stating that his mother Anna Dominique "does not appear in [its] National Indices of Marriage.”
    Respondent also submitted his academic records from elementary up to college showing that he
    carried the surname "Coseteng," and the birth certificate of his child where "Coseteng" appears as
    his surname. In the 1998, 2001 and 2004 Elections, respondent ran and was elected as Councilor of
    Quezon City’s 3rd District using the name "JULIAN M.L. COSETENG." 

    On order of Branch 77 of the Quezon City RTC, respondent amended his petition by alleging therein
    compliance with the 3-year residency requirement under Section 2, Rule 103] of the Rules of Court. 

    The notice setting the petition for hearing on November 20, 2008 was published in the newspaper
    Broadside in its issues of October 31-November 6, 2008, November 7-13, 2008, and November 14-
    20, 2008. And a copy of the notice was furnished the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG). 

    No opposition to the petition having been filed, an order of general default was entered by the trial
    court which then allowed respondent to present evidence ex parte 

    By Decision of January 8, 2009, the trial court granted respondent’s petition and directed the Civil
    Registrar ofMakati City to: 

    1. Delete the entry "March 26, 1972" in Item 24 for "DATE AND PLACE OF MARRIAGE OF
    PARTIES" [in herein respondent’s Certificate of live Birth]; 
    2. Correct the entry "MAGPAYO" in the space for the Last Name of the [respondent] to
    "COSETENG"; 
    3. Delete the entry "COSETENG" in the space for Middle Name of the [respondent]; and 
    4. Delete the entry "Fulvio Miranda Magpayo, Jr." in the space for FATHER of the [respondent]…
    (emphasis and underscoring supplied; capitalization in the original) 

    The Republic of the Philippines (Republic) filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied by the
    trial court by Order of July 2, 2009, hence, it, thru the OSG, lodged the present petition for review to
    the Court on pure question of law. 

    ISSUE: 
    1. Whether or not the petition for change of name involving change of civil status should be
    made through appropriate adversarial proceedings. 
    2. Whether or not the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction when it directed the deletion of the
    name of respondent’s father from his birth certificate. 
    HELD: 
    The petition is impressed with merit. (in favor of the Republic) 

    1. 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. 

    *** Respondent’s reason for changing his name cannot be considered as one of, or analogous to,
    recognized grounds, however. 

    The present petition must be differentiated from Alfon v. Republic of the Philippines. In Alfon, the
    Court allowed the therein petitioner, Estrella Alfon, to use the name that she had been known since
    childhood in order to avoid confusion. Alfon did not deny her legitimacy, however. She merely sought
    to use the surname of her mother which she had been using since childhood. Ruling in her favor, the
    Court held that she was lawfully entitled to use her mother’s surname, adding that the avoidance of
    confusion was justification enough to allow her to do so. In the present case, however, respondent
    denies his legitimacy. 

    The change being sought in respondent’s petition goes so far as to affect his legal status in relation
    to his parents. It seeks to change his legitimacy to that of illegitimacy. Rule 103 then would not
    suffice to grant respondent’s supplication. 

    Labayo-Rowe v. Republic categorically holds that "changes which may affect the civil status from
    legitimate to illegitimate . . . are substantial and controversial alterations which can only be allowed
    after appropriate adversary proceedings . . ." 

    ******** Since respondent’s desired change affects his civil status from legitimate to illegitimate, Rule
    108 applies. It reads: 

    SECTION 1. Who may file petition.—Any person interested in any act, event, order or decree
    concerning the civil status of persons which has been recorded in the civil register, may file a verified
    petition for the cancellation or correction of any entry relating thereto, with the [RTC] of the province
    where the corresponding civil registry is located. 

    SEC. 3. Parties.—When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register is sought, the civil
    registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby shall be
    made parties to the proceeding. 

    SEC. 4. Notice and publication. –Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall, by an order, fix the
    time and place for the hearing of the same, and cause reasonable notice thereof to be given to the
    persons named in the petition. The court shall also cause the order to be published once a week for
    three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province. (emphasis, italics
    and underscoring supplied) 

    2. Rule 108 clearly directs that a petition which concerns one’s 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. 

    Rule 103 regarding change of name and in Rule 108 concerning the cancellation or correction of
    entries in the civil registry are separate and distinct. 

    Aside from improper venue, he failed to implead the civil registrar of Makati and all affected parties
    as respondents in the case."A petition for a substantial correction or change of entries in the civil
    registry should have as respondents the civil registrar, as well as all other persons who have or
    claim to have any interest that would be affected thereby." 

    Rule 108 clearly mandates two sets of notices to different "potential oppositors." The first notice is
    that given to the "persons named in the petition" and the second (which is through publication) is that
    given to other persons who are not named in the petition but nonetheless may be considered
    interested or affected parties, such as creditors. That two sets of notices are mandated under the
    above-quoted Section 4 is validated by the subsequent Section 5, also above-quoted, which
    provides for two periods (for the two types of "potential oppositors") within which to file an opposition
    (15 days from notice or from the last date of publication). 

    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

    You might also like