[REPUBLIC ACT NO.

9048]
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 A
JUDICIAL ORDER, AMENDING FOR THIS PURPOSE ARTICLES 376 AND
412 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES.
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the
Philippines in Congress  assembled:
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 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.
SECTION 2. Definition of Terms - As used in this Act, the following terms
shall mean:

1. "City or Municipal civil registrar" refers to the head of the local

civil registry office of the city or municipality, as the case may be,
who is appointed as such by the city or municipal mayor in
accordance with the provisions of existing laws.
2. "Petitioner" refers to a natural person filing the petition and who
has direct and personal interest in the correction of a clerical or
typographical error in an entry or change of first name or nickname
in the civil register.
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 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, status or sex of the petitioner.
4. "Civil Register" refers to the various registry books and related
certificates and documents kept in the archives of the local civil
registry offices, Philippine Consulates and of the Office of the Civil
Registrar General.
5. "Civil registrar general" refers to the Administrator of the National
Statistics Office which is the agency mandated to carry out and
administer the provision of laws on civil registration.
6. "First name" refers to a name or nickname given to a person which
may consist of one or more names in addition to the middle and last
names.

SECTION 3. Who May File the Petition and Where. -  Any person having
direct and personal interest in the correction of a clerical or typographical error
in an entry and/or change of first name or nickname in the civil register may
file, in person, 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 case the petitioner has already migrated to another place in the
country and it would not be practical for such party, in terms of transportation
expenses, time and effort to appear in person before the local civil registrar
keeping the documents to be corrected or changed, the petition may be filed,
in person, with the local civil registrar of the place where the interested party is
presently residing or domiciled. The two (2) local civil registrars concerned will
then communicate to facilitate the processing of the petition.
           Citizens of the Philippines who are presently residing or domiciled in
foreign countries may file their petition, in person, with the nearest Philippine
Consulates.
          The petitions filed with the city or municipal civil registrar or the consul
general shall be processed in accordance with this Act and its implementing
rules and regulations.
          All petitions for the clerical or typographical errors and/or change of first
names or nicknames may be availed of only once.
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 by that first name or nickname in the community: or
3. The change will avoid confusion.

SECTION 5. Form and Contents of the Petition. -  The petition shall be in

the form of an affidavit, subscribed and sworn to before any person authorized
by the law to administer oaths. The affidavit shall set forth facts necessary to
establish the merits of the petition and shall show affirmatively that the
petitioner is competent to testify to the matters stated. The petitioner shall
state the particular erroneous entry or entries, which are sought to be
corrected and/or the change sought to be made.
          The petition shall be supported with the following documents:

1. A certified true machine copy of the certificate or of the page of the

registry book containing the entry or entries sought to be corrected
or changed.
2. At least two (2) public or private documents showing the correct
entry or entries upon which the correction or change shall be based;
and
3. Other documents which the petitioner or the city or municipal civil
registrar or the consul general may consider relevant and necessary
for the approval of the petition.

          In case of change of first name or nickname, the petition shall likewise
be supported with the documents mentioned in the immediately preceding
paragraph. In addition, the petition shall be published at least once a week for
two (2) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation. Furthermore,
the petitioner shall submit a certification from the appropriate law enforcement
agencies that he has no pending case or no criminal record.
          The petition and its supporting papers shall be filed in three (3) copies
to be distributed as follows: first copy to the concerned city or municipal civil
registrar, or the consul general; second copy to the Office of the Civil
Registrar General; and third copy to the petitioner.
SECTION 6. Duties of the City or Municipal Civil Registrar or the Consul
General. - The city or municipal civil registrar or the consul general to whom
the petition is presented shall examine the petition and its supporting
documents. He shall post the petition in a conspicuous place provided for that
purpose for ten (10) consecutive days after he finds the petition and its
supporting documents sufficient in form and substance.
          The city or municipal civil registrar or the consul general shall act on the
petition and shall render a decision not later than five (5) working days after
the completion of the posting and/or publication requirement. He shall transmit
a copy of his decision together with the records of the proceedings to the
Office of the Civil Registrar General within five (5) working days from the date
of the decision.
SECTION 7. Duties and Powers of the Civil Registrar General. -  The civil
registrar general shall, within ten (10) working days from receipt of the
decision granting a petition, exercise the power to impugn such decision by
way of an objection based on the following grounds:

1. The error is not clerical or typographical;

2. The correction of an entry or entries in the civil register is substantial
or controversial as it affects the civil status of a person; or
3. The basis used in changing the first name or nickname of a person
does not fall under SECTION 4.

          The civil registrar general shall immediately notify the city or municipal
civil registrar or the consul general of the action taken on the decision. Upon
receipt of the notice thereof, the city or municipal civil registrar or the consul
general shall notify the petitioner of such action.
          The petitioner may seek reconsideration with the civil registrar general
or file the appropriate petition with the proper court.
          If the civil registrar general fails to exercise his power to impugn the
decision of the city or municipal civil registrar or of the consul general within
the period prescribed herein, such decision shall become final and executory.
         Where the petition is denied by the city or municipal civil registrar or the
consul general, the petitioner may either appeal the decision to the civil
registrar general or file the appropriate petition with the proper court.
SECTION 8. Payment of Fees. - The city or municipal civil registrar or the
consul general shall be authorized to collect reasonable fees as a condition
for accepting the petition. An indigent petitioner shall be exempt from the
payment of the said fee.
SECTION 9. Penalty Clause. - A person who violates any of the provisions of
this Act shall, upon conviction, be penalized by imprisonment of not less than
six (6) years but not more than twelve (12) years, or a fine of not less than
Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) but not more than One Hundred Thousand
pesos (P100,000.00), or both, at the discretion of the court.
          In addition, if the offender is a government official or employee he shall
suffer the penalties provided under civil service laws, rules and regulations.
SECTION 10. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - The civil registrar
general shall, in consultation with the Department of Justice, the Department
of Foreign Affairs, the Office of the Supreme Court Administrator, the
University of the Philippines Law Center and the Philippine Association of Civil
Registrars, issue the necessary rules and regulations for the effective
implementation of this Act not later than three (3) months from the effectivity
of this law.
SECTION 11. Retroactivity Clause. - This Act shall have retroactive effect
insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in
accordance with the Civil Code and other laws.
SECTION 12. Separability Clause. - If any portion or provision of this Act is
declared void or unconstitutional, the remaining portions or provisions thereof
shall not be affected by such declaration.
SECTION 13. Repealing Clause. - All laws, decrees, orders, rules and
regulations, other issuances, or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions
of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
SECTION 14. Effectivity Clause. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days
after its complete publication in at least two (2) national newspapers of
general circulation.
 
Bartolome vs. Republic August 28, 2019

FACTS: Dr. Ruben C. Bartolome, a resident of Paranaque City, filed a petition for change of name under
Rule 103, to correct the name registered in his Certificate of Live Birth, Feliciano Bartholome, to Ruben
Cruz Bartolome, which he had been using since childhood. In support of his petition, Ruben attached to
the petition various school and public records showing that he had been using the name Ruben Cruz
Bartolome since childhood.

After trial, the RTC denied his petition. It held that he 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,which vested the power and authority to entertain petitions for change of first name with the city or
municipal registrar or consul general concerned. As to his surname, the RTC held that Ruben should
have filed the petition in the RTC of Manila, as the certificate of live birth was registered thereat, in
accordance with Rule 103. Also, he was not able to show proof that he had been using Bartolome since
birth.

Ruben appealed to the CA, insisting that Rule 103 is the correct remedy. The CA, however, affirmed the
RTC.

In his appeal to the Supreme Court, Ruben insists that Rule 103 is the correct remedy to change his first
name and surname in one proceeding. To hold otherwise would be to abet “splitting [his] cause of action”
if he were compelled to file separate petitions for change of name and correction of entries.

ISSUE: What is the correct remedy for the correction of both first name, insertion of middle name, and
correction of surname? WON Rule 103 should follow.--- NO

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, 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,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.
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 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:

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.

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 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. 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 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 Republic 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 applies only to substantial changes and corrections 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 x x

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
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.

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. 9048 in relation to R.A. 10172. A person may only avail of the appropriate
judicial remedies under Rule 103 or 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 grounds
discussed in Republic v. Hernandez are present.

3. A person seeking substantial cancellations or corrections of entries in the civil registry may file a
petition for cancellation or correction of entries under Rule 108. As discussed in Lee v. Court of Appeals
and more recently, in Republic v. Cagandahan 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, 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

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, 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 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.

The inclusion of petitioner’s middle

name is covered by R.A. 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. (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, 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 likewise undertaken through the
administrative proceeding provided under R.A. 9048.

The correction in the spelling 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, (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.” 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.

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 old 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.”

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 Cruz Bartolome ” since childhood. 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. ” 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.While the Court recognizes several
exceptions, none of these exceptions applies.

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 of Appeals in CA-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.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LORENA OMAPAS SALI
G.R. No. 206023
April 3, 2017

Facts: Lorena Omapas Sali filed a Verified Petition, dated November 26, 2008, for Correction of Entry under Rule
108 of the Rules of Court before the RTC with the following material averments:

Petitioner is a Filipino, of legal age, single and a resident [of] 941 D. Veloso St.[,] Baybay, Leyte;
The respondent is located in Baybay City, Leyte and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court where it can be
served with summons and other processes of this Honorable Court;
All parties herein have the capacity to sue and be sued;
Petitioner is the daughter of Spouses Vedasto A. Omapas and Almarina A. Albay who was born on April 24, 1968 in
Baybay, Leyte.
Unfortunately, in recording the facts of her birth, the personnel of the Local Civil Registrar of Baybay, Leyte thru
inadvertence and mistake erroneously entered in the records the following: the first name of the petitioner as
“DOROTHY” instead of “LORENA” and, the date of birth of the petitioner as “June 24, 1968” instead of “April 24,
1968.”

The petitioner has been using the name “Lorena A. Omapas[“] and her date of birth as “April 24, 1968” for as long as
she since she could remember and is known to the community in general as such;

To sustain petitioner’s claim that the entries in her Certificate of Live Birth pertaining to her first name and date of birth
should be corrected so that it will now read as “LORENA A. OMAPAS” and “April 24, 1968” respectively,; and

This petition is intended neither for the petitioner to escape criminal and/or civil liability, nor affect the hereditary
succession of any person whomsoever but solely for the purpose of setting the records of herein petitioner straight.

On February 23, 2010, the trial court issued the assailed Decision in favor of Sali. On March 24, 2010, the Republic,
through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed the RTC Decision for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the
court a quo because the title of the petition and the order setting the petition for hearing did not contain Sali’s aliases.

The CA denied the appeal, ruling that: (1) the records are bereft of any indication that Sali is known by a name other
than “Lorena,” hence, it would be absurd to compel her to indicate any other alias that she does not have; (2) Sali not
only complied with the mandatory requirements for an appropriate adversarial proceeding under Rule 108 of the
Rules but also gave the Republic an opportunity to timely contest the purported defective petition; and (3) the change
in the first name of Sali will certainly avoid further confusion as to her identity and there is no showing that it was
sought for a fraudulent purpose or that it would prejudice public interest.

Issues: Whether or not the Petition of Lorena Omapas Sali is for a change of name as contemplated under Rule 103
of the Rules and not for correction of entries under Rule 108.--- NO

Whether or not the Regional Trial Court has jurisdiction over the petition.

Ruling: No, the Petition of Lorena Omapas Sali is not for a change of name as contemplated under Rule 103 of the
Rules but for correction of entries under Rule 108. What she seeks is the correction of clerical errors which were
committed in the recording of her name and birth date. The Court has held that not all alterations allowed in one’s
name are confined under Rule 103 and that corrections for clerical errors may be set right under Rule 108. The
evidence presented by Sali shows that, since birth, she has been using the name “Lorena.” Thus, it is apparent that
she never had any intention to change her name.

However, at the time Sali’s petition was filed, R.A. No. 9048 was already in effect. Section 1 of the law states:
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 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.

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.

In this case, the petition, insofar as it prayed for the change of Sali’s first name, was not within the RTC’s primary
jurisdiction. It was improper because the remedy should have been administrative, i.e., filing of the petition with the
local civil registrar concerned. For failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the RTC should have dismissed the
petition to correct Sali’s first name.

On the other hand, anent Sali’s petition to correct her birth date from “June 24, 1968” to “April 24, 1968,” R.A. No.
9048 is inapplicable. It was only on August 15, 2012 that R.A. No. 10172 was signed into law amending R.A. No.
9048. As modified, Section 1 now includes the day and month in the date of birth and sex of a person.

Hence, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The February 11, 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals, which
affirmed in toto the February 23, 2010 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Baybay City, Leyte, is
AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. The Petition for Correction of entry in the certificate of live birth of dorothy a.
omapas with respect to her first name is dismissed without prejudice to its filing with the local civil registrar
concerned.