SP Case No. SP-16-0158

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 253, LAS PIÑAS CITY
IN THE MATTER OF CHANGE OF

SURNAME OF MIGUEL CARLOS
PACIS MORAN TO MIGUEL PACIS
CELIS and CORRECTION OF
ENTRIES IN HIS CERTIFICATE OF
LIVE BIRTH
MIGUEL CARLOS PACIS MORAN

a.k.a. MIGUEL CARLOS PACIS
CELIS,
Petitioner,
-versus- SP CASE NO. SP-16-0158
OFFICE OF THE CIVIL REGISTRAR

OF LAS PIÑAS CITY, CIVIL
REGISTRAR GENERAL, AND THE
PHILIPPINE STATISTICS
AUTHORITY,
Respondents.
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Re: Order dated February 7, 2020)
Petitioner MIGUEL CARLOS PACIS CELIS, respectfully

moves this Honorable Court for a reconsideration of its Order dated
February 7, 2020, a copy of which was received on
_____________, upon the following consideration and further
states that:
1. On its Order, the Honorable Court held that it should be

the requirements and procedures found under Rule 108, Rules of
Court which must be followed, specifically the mandatory notice of to
the Civil Registrar of Manila should have been made.
2. With all due respect to the Honorable Court, it seriously

erred when it held that the instant case falls within Rule 108 of the
1
Rules of Court.
PETITIONER CORRECTLY
FILED HIS PETITION
UNDER RULE 103 OF THE
RULES OF COURT.
3. The change sought by herein petitioner is the change of his

surname from “Moran” to “Celis” in order to avoid confusion as
petitioner has been using the surname “Celis” all his life but found
later on the erroneous entry in his birth certificate with “Moran” as
his last name. Thus, the proper recourse is to file a Petition under
Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, which the petitioner did. 1
4. In the case of Republic of the Philippines v. Michelle

Soriano Gallo,2 the Honorable Court citing the case of Republic v.
Mercadera3 held -
Rule 103 procedurally governs judicial petitions for

change of given name or surname, or both, pursuant
to Article 376 of the Civil Code. This rule provides
the procedure for an independent special
proceeding in court to establish the status of a
person involving his relations with others, that
is, his legal position in, or with regard to, the rest of the
community. In petitions for change of name, a person
avails of a remedy to alter the "designation by which he
is known and called in the community in which he lives
and is best known." When granted, a person's identity
and interactions are affected as he bears a new "label or
appellation for the convenience of the world at large in
addressing him, or in speaking of, or dealing with him."
Judicial permission for a change of name aims to
prevent fraud and to ensure a record of the change by
virtue of a court decree.
5. The change of surname sought by the Petitioner is

substantive in nature, thus Rule 108 finds no application in the
instant case which can only be resorted to when the name of a person
is patently mispelled or a mere clerical error. The Supreme Court
likewise explained in the case of Republic of the Philippines v.
Michelle Soriano Gallo4 -
Rule 108 applies when the person is seeking to correct

clerical and innocuous mistakes in his or her
documents with the civil register. x x x
1
See Petition dated November 2, 2017.
2
G.R. No. 207074, January 17, 2018.
3
652 Phil. 195, 205 (2010).
4
G.R. No. 207074, January 17, 2018.
2
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.
6. Hence, the requirements set forth under Rule 103 of the

Rules of Court should apply in this case and NOT Rule 108.
PETITIONER CORRECTLY
FILED THE INSTANT
PETITION IN THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
OF LAS PIÑAS CITY.
7. To reiterate, Petitioner availed the correct remedy under

Rule 103 of the Rules of Court considering the substantive change he
is seeking on his surname.
8. Under Section 1 of the said rule, it provides that a person

desiring to change his name shall present the petition to the Regional
Trial Court of the province where he resides x x x. Thus, the instant
petition is clearly within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court.
RULE 103 OF THE RULES OF

COURT IS AN ACTION IN
REM, THUS, THERE IS NO
NEED TO IMPLEAD THE
LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR
OF MANILA WHERE THE
BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF
PETITIONER WAS
REGISTERED.
9. FIRST. A careful examination of Rule 103 will show that it

does not require that the civil registrar where the birth certificate of
the petitioner is registered to be impleaded in the case.
10. SECOND. A petition filed under Rule 103 of the Rules of

Court is considered as an action in rem, thus, there is no need to
implead the Local Civil Registrar of Manila as the Decision is binding
not only to the parties impleaded, but the whole world. Thus, -
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
3
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."5 (Emphasis
supplied.)
11. Considering the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in

the above-mentioned case, it is just and equitable to amend the
dispositive portion of the Decision dated August 3, 2018 ordering the
Local Civil Registrar of Manila City to effect the corresponding
change in the Certificate of Live Birth of the Petitioner’s surname
from “MORAN” to “CELIS”.
THE DECISION DATED

AUGUST 3, 2018 IS A NUNC
PRO TUNC JUDGMENT
WHICH IS AN EXCEPTION
TO THE DOCTRINE OF
IMMUTABILITY OF FINAL
JUDGMENTS.
12. In One Shipping Corp., et al., vs. Penafiel,6 the Supreme

Court ruled -
The only exceptions to the rule on the immutability

of final judgments are (1) the correction of clerical
errors, (2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries
which cause no prejudice to any party, and
(3) void judgments.7 Nunc pro tunc judgments have
been defined and characterized by the Court in the
following manner:
The object of a judgment nunc pro tunc is not the

rendering of a new judgment and the ascertainment
and determination of new rights, but is one
placing in proper form on the record, the
judgment that had been previously rendered, to
make it speak the truth, so as to make it show what
the judicial action really was, not to correct judicial
errors, such as to render a judgment which the
court ought to have rendered, in place of the one it
did erroneously render, nor to supply non-action by
the court, however erroneous the judgment may
have been.8
5
Id.
6
G.R. No. 192406, January 21, 2015.
7
Emphasis supplied.
8
Emphasis supplied.
4
13. In this case, Petitioner merely seeks for the amendment of
the dispositive portion of the Decision to order the Local Civil
Registrar of Manila City to effect the change in Petitioner’s surname.
The motion did not seek for the determination of new rights of
Petitioner and the relief sought will not likewise prejudice to any
other party. Thus, the general rule on immutability of final judgment
finds no application in this case.
14. Considering the foregoing, Petitioner respectfully prays the

reconsideration of this Honorable Court and to order the amendment
of the dispositive portion of the Decision dated August 3, 2018 in
order to make it speak the truth so as the Honorable Court render the
judgment which it ought to have rendered.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

prayed to the Honorable Court (1) that Order dated February 7, 2020
be reconsidered, and (2) ISSUE A NEW ORDER directing the
amendment of the dispositive portion of the Decision dated August 3,
2018 and instead ordering the Local Civil Registrar of Manila to
effect the corresponding change in the Certificate of Live Birth of the
Petitioner from MIGUEL CARLOS PACIS MORAN to MIGUEL
CARLOS PACIS CELIS. and thereafter issue an amended or new
Certificate of Live Birth upon payment of the corresponding fees.
Other reliefs and remedies just and equitable under the

premises are likewise prayed for.
Las Piñas City, _______________.
MALACAD LAW OFFICE

No. 6 G/F TSVJ Building,Crispina Avenue
Las Piñas Village, Las Piñas City
[email protected]
Tel. No. 874-62-19
By:
VITTO DUART C. LOTERTE

IBP OR No. 063049/PPLM/01-03-2019
PTR No. 11657998-J/Las Piñas/01-03-2-19
MCLE No. V-0019658/15 April 2016
Roll No. 59362
5
NOTICE OF HEARING AND COPY FURNISHED
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR

GENERAL
134 Amorsolo St., Legazpi Village
Makati City
THE PHILIPPINE STATISTICS
AUTHORITY
PSA Complex, East Ave., Diliman
Quezon City 1101 Metro Manila
OFFICE OF THE LOCAL CIVIL
REGISTRAR OF LAS PIÑAS CITY
Las Pinas City Hall, Alabang-Zapote Road,
Las Pinas City
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Please take notice that this motion will be submitted for the
consideration and approval of the Honorable Court on _________
at ______.
EXPLANATION ON MODE OF SERVICE
This motion will be served by registered mail because of

constraints in time, distance, and manpower, making personal
service impracticable.
ATTY. VITTO DUART C. LOTERTE

SP Case No. SP-16-0158

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SP Case No. SP-16-0158

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SP Case No. SP-16-0158

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

IN THE MATTER OF CHANGE OF

MIGUEL CARLOS PACIS MORAN

-versus- SP CASE NO. SP-16-0158

OFFICE OF THE CIVIL REGISTRAR

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Petitioner MIGUEL CARLOS PACIS CELIS, respectfully

1. On its Order, the Honorable Court held that it should be

2. With all due respect to the Honorable Court, it seriously

3. The change sought by herein petitioner is the change of his

4. In the case of Republic of the Philippines v. Michelle

Rule 103 procedurally governs judicial petitions for

5. The change of surname sought by the Petitioner is

Rule 108 applies when the person is seeking to correct

6. Hence, the requirements set forth under Rule 103 of the

7. To reiterate, Petitioner availed the correct remedy under

8. Under Section 1 of the said rule, it provides that a person

RULE 103 OF THE RULES OF

9. FIRST. A careful examination of Rule 103 will show that it

10. SECOND. A petition filed under Rule 103 of the Rules of

The proceeding under Rule 103 is also an action in

11. Considering the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in

THE DECISION DATED

12. In One Shipping Corp., et al., vs. Penafiel,6 the Supreme

The only exceptions to the rule on the immutability

The object of a judgment nunc pro tunc is not the

14. Considering the foregoing, Petitioner respectfully prays the

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully

Other reliefs and remedies just and equitable under the

Las Piñas City, _______________.

MALACAD LAW OFFICE

VITTO DUART C. LOTERTE

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR

Ladies and Gentlemen:

EXPLANATION ON MODE OF SERVICE

This motion will be served by registered mail because of

ATTY. VITTO DUART C. LOTERTE

You might also like