1. ELEOSIDA vs.

CIVIL REGISTRAR OF QC 5/9/02

Facts: This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of the RTC of Quezon City dismissing
motu propio the petition for Ma. Lourdes Eleosida to correct some entries in the birth certificate of her
son, Charles Christian.
Petitioner seeks to correct in the birth cert. of her son the following:

1. The surname “Borbon” should be changed to Eleosida (since the parents were never married; the
child is illegitimate and, therefore, should follow the mother’s surname;
2. The date of the wedding should be blank;
3. Petitioner’s name should be Ma. Lourdes Eleosida (instead of Borbon).
No opposition was made to this petition.

RTC, however, dismissed it on the basis that only clerical errors (CLERICAL ERRORS) of a harmless and
innocuous nature like misspelled name, occupation of the parents, etc. may be subject of judicial order
authorizing changes or corrections and not as may affect the civil status, nationality or citizenship of the
person (substantial/material change/error) involved.

Hence this petition.

Issue: Whether changes or corrections which are substantial may be subject of a judicial proceeding.
Decision: Yes, Court find merit in the petition.
Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court provides the procedure for cancellation or correction of entries in
the civil registry. The proceedings under said rule may either be summary or adversary in nature. If the
correction sought to be made in the civil register is clerical, then the procedure to be adopted is
summary. If the rectification affects the civil status, citizenship or nationality of a party, it is deemed
substantial, and the procedure to be adopted is adversary. (Note: CLERICAL -SUMMARY;
SUBSTANTIAL- ADVERSARIAL)

If all the procedural requirements under Rule 108 (Notice and publication [especially]) (Note: Adversarial)
have been followed, it was therefore error for the trial court to dismiss the petition motu propio without
allowing the petitioner to present evidence to support her petition (and all the other persons who have an
interest over the matter to oppose the same).

[Link] vs. CIVIL REGISTRAR OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL 607 SCRA (2009)

Facts: Petitioner Ma. Cristina Torres Braza is the wife of Pablo Sicad Braza Jr., the latter died in a
vehicular accident in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia.
During the wake following the repatriation of his (Pablo’s) remains in the Philippines, Respondent Lucille
Titular and her son, Patrick Alvin Titutar showed up and introduced themselves as the wife and son
respectively, of the deceased. Petitioner Cristina thereupon made inquiries and in the course of which she
obtained Patrick Alvin’s birth certificate from the Local Civil Registrar of Negros Occidental which had
states that:

1. Pablo S. Braza as the father of Patrick Alvin; the latter was acknowledged by the father on January
13, 1997;
2. Patrick Alvin was legitimated by virtue of the subsequent marriage of his parents. Therefore, his name
is changed to Patrick Alvin Titular Braza.
Cristina likewise obtained a copy of a marriage contract showing Pablo and Lucille were married.

Cristina and her co-petitioner filed before the RTC of Negros a petition to correct the entries in the birth
certificate record of Patrick in the Local Civil Registry. They contended that Patrick could not have been
legitimated by the supposed subsequent marriage between Lucille and Pablo because said marriage is
bigamous on account of a valid and subsisting marriage between her (Cristina) and Pablo. Petitioner
prayed for the:

 Correction of the entries in Patrick’s birth record with respect to his legitimation, the name of the
father and his acknowledgment and the use of the last name “BRAZA”;
 A directive to Leon, Cecilia and Lucille, all surnamed Titular, as guardians of the minor Patrick, to
submit Patrick to DNA testing to determine his paternity and filiation;
 The declaration of nullity of the legitimation of Patrick as stated in his birth certificate and, for this
purpose, the declaration of the marriage between Lucille and Pablo as bigamous.
Respondent filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

RTC: Trial Court dismissed the petition without prejudice, holding that in a special proceeding for
correction of entry, the court, which is not acting as a family court, has no jurisdiction over an action to
annul the marriage of Lucille and Pablo, impugn the legitimacy of Patrick, and order Patrick to be
subjected to a DNA test, hence, the controversy should be ventilated in an ordinary adversarial action.
MR: denied.
Hence, this petition for review.

Issue: Whether the RTC has jurisdiction over the subject case?
Decision: Petition is dismissed. Petition to correct the entries (Rule 108) is a wrong remedy in this case
because the trial court herein has no jurisdiction to nullify marriages and rule on legitimacy and filiation.
The allegations of the petition filed before the TC clearly show that petitioners’ seek to nullify the marriage
between Pablo and Lucille on the ground that it is bigamous and impugn Patrick’s filiation in connection
with which they ask the court to order Patrick to be subjected to a DNA test.
It is well settled doctrine that validity of marriages as well as legitimacy and filiation can be questioned in
a direct action seasonably filed by the proper party, and not through a collateral attack such as the
petition filed before the court a quo.

RULE 108 OF THE RULES OF COURT (vis a vis Art. 412 of the Civil Code)
 It charts the procedure by which an entry in the civil registry may be cancelled or corrected. The
proceeding contemplated therein may generally be used ONLY TO CORRECT CLERICAL,
SPELLING, TYPOGRAPHICAL AND OTHER INNOCUOUS ERRORS IN THE CIVIL REGISTRY.
CLERICAL ERROR/SUBSTANTIAL ERROR
 A clerical error is one which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding; an error made by
a clerk or a transcriber; a mistake in copying or writing; or a harmless change such as a correction of
name that is clearly misspelled or of a misstatement of the occupation of the parent.
 Substantial or contentious alterations may be allowed only in adversarial proceedings, in which all
interested parties are impleaded and due process is properly observed.

[Link] Re: Petition for Change of Name of Julian Lim Carulasan Wang GR No 159966

Facts: A petition was filed by Anna Lisa Wang for the change of name and/or correction/cancellation of
entry in the Civil Registry of her son, a minor, Julian Lin Carulasan Wang before the RTC of Cebu City.
Julian was the son of Anna Lisa Wang and Sing-Foe Wang. They were not yet married to each other
when Julian was born. Subsequently, when Julian’s parents got married, the latter executed a deed of
legitimation of their son so that the child’s name was changed from Julian Lin Carulasan to Julian Lin
Carulasan Wang.

Reason: Since the family plans to stay in Singapore and, since in Singapore middle names or the maiden
surname of the mother are not carried in a persons name, they anticipated that Julian will be
discriminated against because of his current registered name which carries a middle name. Also, the
spouses’ daughter and Julian might get confused if they are really brothers and sisters because they
have different surnames. Lastly, Carulasan sounds funny in Singapore’s Mandarin language since they
do not have the letter “R” but if there is, they pronounce it as “L”. It is for these reasons why the name of
Julian Lin Carulasan Wang is requested to be changed to Julian Lin Wang.
RTC: denied the petition. It found that the reasons abovementioned does not fall within the grounds
recognized by law. It further ruled that the real reason behind is only convenience.
MR: Denied. The Singaporean practice of not carrying a middle name does not justify the dropping of the
middle name of a legitimate Filipino child who intends to study there. The dropping of the middle name
would be tantamount to giving due recognition to or application of the laws of Singapore instead of
Philippine law which is controlling.
Hence, this Appeal. SC required the OGS to comment on the petition.
OSG: Trial Court is correct. legitimate children have the right to bear the surnames of both their mother
and father, and such right cannot be denied by the mere expedient of dropping the same (Family Code).
Mere convenience is not sufficient to support a petition for change of name and/or cancellation of entry.
Issue: Whether the name mother’s surname should be dropped in the instant case because it is a
common practice in Singapore to omit said surname?
Decision: No. Petition is denied.
The State has an interest in the names borne by individuals and entities for purposes of identification, and
that A CHANGE OF NAME IS A PRIVILEGE AND NOT A RIGHT, so that before a person can be
authorized to change his name given him either in his certificate of birth or civil registry, he must show
PROPER AND REASONABLE CAUSE, or ANY COMPELLING REASON which may justify such change.
Otherwise, the request should be denied.

VALID GROUNDS FOR CHANGE OF NAME:

1. When the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or pronounce;
2. When the change results as a legal consequence, as in legitimation;
3. When the change will avoid confusion;
4. When one has continuously used and been known since childhood by a Filipino name, and was
unaware of alien parentage;
5. A sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of former alienage, all in good faith and
without prejudicing anybody; and
6. 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 GRANTING/DENYING:
The question of proper and reasonable cause is left to the sound discretion of the court. The evidence
presented need only be satisfactory to the court and not all the best evidence available.

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 in support thereof, mindful of the
consequent results in the event of its grant and with the sole prerogative for making such determination
being lodged in the courts.

DROPPING OF THE MIDDLE NAME FROM HIS REGISTERED NAME? – No law supports such.
MIDDLE NAME PURPOSE
1. Middle names serve to identify the maternal lineage or filiation of a person as well as further
distinguish him from others who may have the same given name and surname as he has.
IN THE CASE AT BAR
1. The only reason advanced by petitioner for the dropping of 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
name.
2. 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.

[Link] v. CARLITO I. KHO et al. 526 SCRA 177 (2007)

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 the word
“married” opposite the date of marriage of his parents because his parents, Juan Kho and Epifania
Inchoso were allegedly not legally married; and (3) Carlito’s second name “John” be deleted from his
record of birth; and (4) that the name and citizenship of his father in his marriage certificate be corrected
from John Kho to Juan Kho and Filipino to Chinese, respectively.

The same request to delete the married status of their parents from their respective birth certificates was
made by Carlito’s siblings Michael, Mercy Nona, and Heddy Moira. With respect to the birth certificates of
Carlitos children, he prayed that the date of his and his wife’s marriage be corrected from April 27,
1989 to January 21, 2000, the date appearing in their marriage certificate.
By Decision of September 4, 2002, the trial court directed the local civil registrar of Butuan City to
correct the entries in the record of birth of Carlito, as follows: (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.

Additionally, the trial court ordered the correction of the birth certificates of the minor children of
Carlito to reflect the date of marriage of Carlito and Marivel Dogmoc (Marivel) as January 21, 2000, instead
of April 27, 1989, and the name Maribel as Marivel.

With respect to the marriage certificate of Carlito and Marivel, the corrections ordered pertained to
the alteration of the name of Carlitos father from John Kho to Juan Kho and the latters citizenship from
Filipino to Chinese.

The petition from a non-adversarial nature of the change is premised on Republic 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:

1. Whether or not Kho‘s request for change in the details of their birth certificate requires an
adversarial proceeding
2. Whether the failure to implead Marivel and Carlito’s parents rendered the trial short of the required
adversary proceeding and the trial courts judgment void.

HELD:

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 Carlitoand Marivel involves the
correction of not just clerical errors of a harmless and innocuous nature. Rather, the changes entail
substantial and 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. However, SC ruled, and has since
repeatedly ruled, that even substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected through a petition filed
under Rule 108.

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.

There is no dispute that the trial courts Order setting the petition for hearing and directing any
person or entity having interest in the petition to oppose it was posted as well as published for the required
period; that notices of hearings were duly served on the Solicitor General, the city prosecutor of Butuan and
the local civil registrar; and that trial was conducted on January 31, 2002 during which the public prosecutor,
acting in behalf of the OSG, actively participated by cross-examining Carlito and Epifania.

The 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.

xxxx
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. x x x

xxxx
Parenthetically, it seems highly improbable that Marivel was unaware of the proceedings to correct
the entries in her childrens birth certificates, especially since the notices, orders and decision of the trial
court were all sent to the residence she shared with Carlito and the children. It is also well to remember
that the role of the court in hearing a petition to correct certain entries in the civil registry is to ascertain the
truth about the facts recorded therein.
 With respect to the date of marriage of Carlito and Marivel, their certificate of marriage shows that
indeed they were married on January 21, 2000, not on April 27, 1989. Explaining the error, Carlito declared
that the date April 27, 1989 was supplied by his helper, adding that he was not married to Marivel at the
time his sons were born because his previous marriage was annulled only in 1999. Given the evidence
presented by respondents, the CA observed that the minors were illegitimate at birth, hence, the correction
would bring about no change at all in the nature of their filiation.

With respect to Carlito’s mother, it bears noting that she declared at the witness stand that she was
not married to Juan Kho who died in 1959. Again, that testimony was not challenged by the city prosecutor.
The documentary evidence supporting the deletion from Carlitos and his siblings birth certificates of the
entry Married opposite the date of marriage of their parents, moreover, consisted of a certification issued
on November 24, 1973 by St. Joseph (Butuan City) Parish priest Eugene van Vught stating that Juan Kho
and Epifania had been living together as common law couple since 1935 but have never contracted
marriage legally. A certification from the office of the city registrar, which was appended to respondents
Amended Petition, likewise stated that it has no record of marriage between Juan Kho and Epifania. Under
the circumstances, the deletion of the word Married opposite the date of marriage of parents is warranted.

With respect to the correction in Carlito’s birth certificate of his name from Carlito John to Carlito,
the same was properly granted under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. As correctly pointed out by the CA,
the cancellation or correction of entries involving changes of name falls under letter o of the following
provision of Section 2 of Rule 108:

Section 2. Entries subject to cancellation or correction. Upon good and valid

grounds, the following entries in the civil register may be cancelled or corrected: (a) births;
(b) marriages; (c) deaths; (d) legal separation; (e) judgments of annulment of marriage; (f)
judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning; (g) legitimations; (h) adoptions; (i)
acknowledgments of natural children; (j) naturalization; (k) election, loss or recovery of
citizenship; (l) civil interdiction; (m) judicial determination of filiation; (n) voluntary
emancipation of a minor; and (o) changes of name. (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)

Hence, while the jurisdictional requirements of Rule 103 (which governs petitions for change of
name) were not complied with, observance of the provisions of Rule 108 suffices to effect the correction
sought for. More importantly, Carlitos official transcript of record from
the Urious College in Butuan City, certificate of eligibility from the Civil Service Commission, and voter
registration record[ satisfactorily show that he has been known by his first name only. No prejudice is thus
likely to arise from the dropping of the second name.

The correction of the mother’s citizenship from Chinese to Filipino as appearing in Carlito’s birth
record was also proper. Of note is the fact that during the cross examination by the city prosecutor of
Epifania, he did not deem fit to question her citizenship. Such failure to oppose the correction prayed for,
which certainly was not respondents fault, does not in any way change the adversarial nature of the
proceedings.

Also significant to note is that the birth certificates of Carlitos siblings uniformly stated the
citizenship of Epifania as Filipino. To disallow the correction in Carlito’s birth record of his mother’s
citizenship would perpetuate an inconsistency in the natal circumstances of the siblings who are
unquestionably born of the same mother and father.

Outside the ambit of substantial corrections, of course, is the correction of the name of Carlito’s
wife from Maribel to Marivel. The mistake is clearly clerical or typographical, which is not only visible to the
eyes, but is also obvious to the understanding considering that the name reflected in the marriage certificate
of Carlito and his wife is Marivel.

Apropos is Yu v. Republic which held that changing the appellants Christian name of Sincio to
Sencio amounts merely to the righting of a clerical error. The change of name from Beatriz Labayo/Beatriz
Labayu to Emperatriz Labayo was also held to be a mere innocuous alteration, which can be granted
through a summary proceeding. The same ruling holds true with respect to the correction in Carlito’s
marriage certificate of his father’s name from John Kho to Juan Kho. Except in said marriage certificate,
the name Juan Kho was uniformly entered in the birth certificates of Carlito and of his siblings.
5. REPUBLIC VS. SILVERIO 537 SCRA

FACTS:
Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio having undergone a sex reassignment surgery, sought to have his first
name changed from Rommel to Mely, and his sex from male to female. Trial court granted his petition.
CA, however, upon appeal filed by the Republic of the Philippines thru the OSG, reversed the trial court
decision, holding that there is no law allowing the change of entries of either name or sex in the birth
certificate by reason of sex alteration.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Rommel's first name and sex be changed on the ground of sex reassignment.

RULING: No. There is no law authorizes the change of entry as of sex and first name through the
intervention of sex reassignment surgery. Article 376 of the Civil Code as amended by RA 9048 (Clerical
Error Law), together with Article 412 of the same Code, change of name or sex in the birth certificate is
allowed by the courts so long as clerical or typographical errors are involved.

Changes sought by Silverio will have serious legal and public policy consequences. To grant this petition
filed by Silverio will greatly alter the laws on marriage and family relations. Second, there will be major
changes in statutes that underscore the public policy in relation to women.

[Link] vs. Cagandahan

GR. No. 166676, September 12, 2008

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.

HELD:

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.

[Link] OF THE PHILIPPINES v. DR. NORMA S. LUGSANAY UY, G.R. No. 198010, August
12, 2013

Remedial Law; Cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry. It is clear from the foregoing
discussion that 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. If the entries in the civil register could be corrected or changed through mere
summary proceedings and not through appropriate action wherein all parties who may be affected by the
entries are notified or represented, the door to fraud or other mischief would be set open, the
consequence of which might be detrimental and far reaching.

Service of summons as a requisite of due process. The fact that the notice of hearing was published in a
newspaper of general circulation and notice thereof was served upon the State will not change the nature
of the proceedings taken. A reading of Sections 4 and 5, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court shows that the
Rules mandate two sets of notices to different potential oppositors: one given to the persons named in the
petition and another given to other persons who are not named in the petition but nonetheless may be
considered interested or affected parties. Summons must, therefore, be served not for the purpose of
vesting the courts with jurisdiction but to comply with the requirements of fair play and due process to
afford the person concerned the opportunity to protect his interest if he so chooses.

In this case, respondent sought the correction of entries in her birth certificate, particularly those
pertaining to her first name, surname and citizenship. She sought the correction allegedly to reflect the
name which she has been known for since childhood, including her legal documents such as passport
and school and professional records. She likewise relied on the birth certificates of her full blood siblings
who bear the surname “Lugsanay” instead of “Sy” and citizenship of “Filipino” instead of “Chinese.” The
changes, however, are obviously not mere clerical as they touch on respondent’s filiation and citizenship.
In changing her surname from “Sy” (which is the surname of her father) to “Lugsanay” (which is the
surname of her mother), she, in effect, changes her status from legitimate to illegitimate; and in changing
her citizenship from Chinese to Filipino, the same affects her rights and obligations in this country.
Clearly, the changes are substantial.

It is clear from the foregoing discussion that 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 1 08 of the Rules of Court is mandated. 44 If the entries in the civil register could be corrected or
changed through mere summary proceedings and not through appropriate action wherein all parties who
may be affected by the entries are notified or represented, the door to fraud or other mischief would be
set open, the consequence of which might be detrimental and far reaching.

8. MINORU FUJIKI VS. MARINAY, SHINICHI MAEKARA, LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF QUEZON
CITY, and THE ADMINISTRATOR AND CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL OF THE NATIONAL
STATISTICS OFFICE,

FACTS:
Petitioner Minoru Fujiki (Fujiki) is a Japanese national who married respondent Maria Paz Galela Marinay
(Marinay) in the Philippines on 23 January 2004. The marriage did not sit well with petitioner’s parents.
Thus, Fujiki could not bring his wife to Japan where he resides. Eventually, they lost contact with each
other.

In 2008, Marinay met another Japanese, Shinichi Maekara (Maekara). Without the first marriage being
dissolved, Marinay and Maekara were married on 15 May 2008 in Quezon City, Philippines. Maekara
brought Marinay to Japan. However, Marinay allegedly suffered physical abuse from Maekara. She left
Maekara and started to contact Fujiki.

Fujiki and Marinay met in Japan and they were able to reestablish their relationship. In 2010, Fujiki helped
Marinay obtain a judgment from a family court in Japan which declared the marriage between Marinay
and Maekara void on the ground of bigamy. On 14 January 2011, Fujiki filed a petition in the RTC
entitled: “Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment (or Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage).”

DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:

(1) RTC: dismissed the petition for "Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment ·(or Decree of Absolute
Nullity of Marriage)" based on improper venue and the lack of personality of petitioner, Minoru Fujiki, to
file the petition.
ISSUES & RULING:
(1) Whether the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable
Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) is applicable.

No. Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M.
No. 02-11-10-SC) does not apply in a petition to recognize a foreign judgment relating to the status of a
marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign country. Moreover, in Juliano-Llave v.
Republic, this Court held that the rule in A.M. No. 02- 11-10-SC that only the husband or wife can file a
declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage “does not apply if the reason behind the petition is
bigamy.” While the Philippines has no divorce law, the Japanese Family Court judgment is fully consistent
with Philippine public policy, as bigamous marriages are declared void from the beginning under Article
35(4) of the Family Code. Bigamy is a crime under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, Fujiki
can prove the existence of the Japanese Family Court judgment in accordance with Rule 132, Sections
24 and 25, in relation to Rule 39, Section 48(b) of the Rules of Court.

(2) Whether a husband or wife of a prior marriage can file a petition to recognize a foreign judgment
nullifying the subsequent marriage between his or her spouse and a foreign citizen on the ground of
bigamy.

Yes. “[t]he recognition of the foreign divorce decree may be made in a Rule 108 proceeding itself, as the
object of special proceedings (such as that in Rule 108 of the Rules of Court) is precisely to establish the
status or right of a party or a particular fact.”
Rule 108, Section 1 of the Rules of Court states:

Sec. 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 Regional Trial Court of the province
where the corresponding civil registry is located. (Emphasis supplied)

There is no doubt that the prior spouse has a personal and material interest in maintaining the integrity of
the marriage he contracted and the property relations arising from it.

(3) Whether the Regional Trial Court can recognize the foreign judgment in a proceeding for cancellation
or correction of entries in the Civil Registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

Yes. There is neither circumvention of the substantive and procedural safeguards of marriage under
Philippine law, nor of the jurisdiction of Family Courts under R.A. No. 8369. A recognition of a foreign
judgment is not an action to nullify a marriage. It is an action for Philippine courts to recognize the
effectivity of a foreign judgment, which presupposes a case which was already tried and decided
under foreign law.

In the recognition of foreign judgments, Philippine courts are incompetent to substitute their judgment on
how a case was decided under foreign law. They cannot decide on the “family rights and duties, or on the
status, condition and legal capacity” of the foreign citizen who is a party to the foreign judgment. Thus,
Philippine courts are limited to the question of whether to extend the effect of a foreign judgment in the
Philippines. In a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage involving a citizen of a foreign
country, Philippine courts only decide whether to extend its effect to the Filipino party, under the rule
of lex nationalii expressed in Article 15 of the Civil Code.

For this purpose, Philippine courts will only determine (1) whether the foreign judgment is inconsistent
with an overriding public policy in the Philippines; and (2) whether any alleging party is able to prove an
extrinsic ground to repel the foreign judgment, i.e. want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party,
collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. If there is neither inconsistency with public policy nor
adequate proof to repel the judgment, Philippine courts should, by default, recognize the foreign judgment
as part of the comity of nations.

his purpose, Philippine courts will only determine (1) whether the foreign judgment is inconsistent with an
overriding public policy in the Philippines; and (2) whether any alleging party is able to prove an extrinsic
ground to repel the foreign judgment, i.e. want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud,
or clear mistake of law or fact. If there is neither inconsistency with public policy nor adequate proof to
repel the judgment, Philippine courts should, by default, recognize the foreign judgment as part of the
comity of nations. Section 48(b), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court states that the foreign judgment is already
“presumptive evidence of a right between the parties.” Upon recognition of the foreign judgment, this right
becomes conclusive and the judgment serves as the basis for the correction or cancellation of entry in the
civil registry. The recognition of the foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous marriage is a subsequent
event that establishes a new status, right and fact that needs to be reflected in the civil registry.
Otherwise, there will be an inconsistency between the recognition of the effectivity of the foreign judgment
and the public records in the Philippines.”

[Link] vs. MERLINDA OLAYBAR

Merlinda wants to marry her boyfriend of five years, so she secured a Certificate of No Marriage from the
NSO. To her dismay, she discovered that she was married to Korean national Ye Son Sune on June 24,
2002 at the MTCC of Cebu. Thus she filed a petition for cancellation of entries in the marriage certificate
especially the entries in the wife portion thereof. In support of her petition, she presented herself and
Eufrocina, an employee of the MTCC. Merlina testified that she could not have entered into a valid
marriage with Yo because at the time of the solemnisation of the marriage, she was then in Makati
working as a medical distributor. She did not know her supposed husband, but knew the witnesses
named therein because she worked in a pension house. She believed that her name was used by a
certain Johnny, who owned a travel agency, when she gave her personal circumstances to him when she
applied for a passport. Eufrocina attested that the marriage was indeed celebrated inside their office at
the MTCC, but claimed that the wife who appeared was definitely not Merlinda. A document examiner
also appeared and testified that the signature appearing in the marriage contract was forged.
The Regional Trial Court granted Merlinda’s petition. The Office of the Solicitor General moved to
reconsider the order, but the same was denied by the RTC, hence, the OSG elevated the case to the
Supreme Court on pure question of law. According to the OSG, the grant of the petition by the OSG is
tantamount to a declaration of nullity of marriage of Merlinda, which should be done in an adversarial
proceeding, not a Rule 108 petition. The petition filed by Merlinda was therefore an action for declaration
of nullity of marriage, in the guise of a Rule 108 petition.

Essentially, the petition raises fourissues: (1) whether the RTC erred in ruling that the correction on the
first name of petitioner and his mother can be done by the city civil registrar under R.A. No. 9048; (2)
whether the RTC erred in ruling that correcting the entry on petitioner’s birth certificate that his parents
were married on December 23, 1983 in Bicol to "not married" is substantial in nature requiring adversarial
proceedings; (3) whether the RTC erred in dismissing the petition for correction of entries; and (4)
whether the RTC erred in ruling that there is no proof that petitioner’s parents were not married on
December 23, 1983.

On the first issue, we agree with the RTC that the first name of petitioner and his mother as appearing in
his birth certificate can be corrected by the city civil registrar under R.A. No. 9048. We note that petitioner
no longer contested the RTC’s ruling on this point.4 Indeed, under Section 15 of R.A. No. 9048, clerical or
typographical errors on entries in a civil register can be corrected and changes of first name can be done
by the concerned city civil registrar without need of a judicial order. Aforesaid Section 1, as amended by
R.A. No. 10172, now reads: 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 correctedwithout a judicial
order, except for clerical or typographical errors and change of first name or nickname, the day and
month in the dateof 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
municipalcivil registraror consul general in accordance with the provisions of this Act and its implementing
rules and regulations.

On the second issue, we also agree with the RTC in ruling that correcting the entry on petitioner’s birth
certificate that his parents were married on December 23, 1983 in Bicol to "not married" is a substantial
correction requiring adversarial proceedings. Said correction is substantial as it will affect his legitimacy
and convert him from a legitimate child to an illegitimate one. In Republic v. Uy, 8 we held that corrections
of entries in the civil register including those on citizenship, legitimacyof paternity or filiation, or legitimacy
of marriage,involve substantial alterations. 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
adversaryproceedings.9
On the third issue, we likewise affirm the RTC in dismissing the petition for correction of entries. As
mentioned, petitioner no longer contested the RTC ruling that the correction he sought on his and his
mother’s first name can be done by the city civil registrar. Under the circumstances, we are constrained to
deny his prayer that the petition for correction of entries before the RTC bereinstated since the same
petition includes the correction he sought on his and his mother’s first name.

We clarify, however, that the RTC’s dismissal is without prejudice. As we said, petitioner can avail ofthe
administrative remedy for the correction of his and his mother’s first name.1âwphi1 He can also file a new
petition before the RTC to correct the alleged erroneous entry on his birth certificate that his parents were
married on December 23, 1983 in Bicol. This substantial correction is allowed under Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court. As we reiterated in Eleosida v. Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City:

It is true in the case at bar that the changes sought to be made by petitioner are not merely clerical or
harmless errors but substantial ones as they would affect the status of the marriage between petitioner
and Carlos Borbon, as well as the legitimacy of their son, Charles Christian. Changes of such nature,
however, are now allowed under Rule 108in accordance with our ruling in Republic vs. Valenciaprovided
that the appropriate procedural requirements are complied with. x x x (Emphasis supplied.)

We also stress that a petition seeking a substantial correction of an entry in a civil register must implead
as parties to the proceedings not only the local civil registrar, as petitioner did in the dismissed petition for
correction of entries, but also all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the
correction. This is required by Section 3, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court:

In Eleosida,11 we cited Section 3, and Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, as the
procedural requirements laid down by the Court to make the proceedings under Rule 108 adversary. In
Republic v. Uy,12 we have similarly ruled that 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
the Rules of Court is mandated. Thus, in his new petition, petitioner should at least implead his father and
mother as parties since the substantial correction he is seeking will also affect them.

In view of the foregoing discussion, it is no longer necessary to dwell on the last issue as petitioner will
have his opportunity to prove his claim that his parents were not married on December 23, 1983 when he
files the new petition for the purpose.

[Link] VS. CR OF LAS PINAS 734 SCRA (Sept 2014)

Francler filed a petition for correction of entries in his Certificate of Live Birth, under Rule 108, to correct the
following entries: 1) on the Entry pertaining to the Date and Place of Marriage of Parents, from “December
23, 1983, Bicol” to “Not Married”; 2) First Name Of Mother, from “Tely” to “Matilde”; and, 3) First Name,
from “Franc Ler” to “Francler).
His petition, however, only impleaded the Office of the Civil Registrar of Las Pinas as sole respondent. The
Regional Trial Court dismissed his petition, noting that the first correction (the date and place of marriage
of parents) are substantial corrections, while the other corrections maybe made before the City Civil
Registry under Republic Act 9048. Francler moved to reconsider, but the RTC denied it, hence he filed a
petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 to assail the ruling of the RTC.

The Supreme Court:

“On the first issue, we agree with the RTC that the first name of petitioner and his mother as appearing in
his birth certificate can be corrected by the city civil registrar under R.A. No. 9048. We note that petitioner
no longer contested the RTC’s ruling on this point.[4] Indeed, under Section 1 of R.A. No. 9048, clerical or
typographical errors on entries in a civil register can be corrected and changes of first name can be done
by the concerned city civil registrar without need of a judicial order. Aforesaid Section 1, as amended by
R.A. No. 10172, now reads:

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. (Emphasis supplied.)

In Silverio v. Republic, we held that under R.A. No. 9048, jurisdiction over applications for change of first
name is now primarily lodged with administrative officers. The intent and effect of said 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. The remedy and the proceedings regulating
change of first name are primarily administrative in nature, not judicial. In Republic v. Cagandahan, we
said that under R.A. No. 9048, the correction of clerical or typographical errors can now be made through
administrative proceedings and without the need for a judicial order. The law removed from the ambit of
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court the correction of clerical or typographical errors. Thus petitioner can avail
of this administrative remedy for the correction of his and his mother’s first name.

On the second issue, we also agree with the RTC in ruling that correcting the entry on petitioner’s birth
certificate that his parents were married on December 23, 1983 in Bicol to “not married” is a substantial
correction requiring adversarial proceedings. Said correction is substantial as it will affect his legitimacy
and convert him from a legitimate child to an illegitimate one. In Republic v. Uy, we held that corrections
of entries in the civil register including those on citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy
of marriage, involve substantial alterations. 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 proceedings.

On the third issue, we likewise affirm the RTC in dismissing the petition for correction of entries. As
mentioned, petitioner no longer contested the RTC ruling that the correction he sought on his and his
mother’s first name can be done by the city civil registrar. Under the circumstances, we are constrained to
deny his prayer that the petition for correction of entries before the RTC be reinstated since the same
petition includes the correction he sought on his and his mother’s first name.

We clarify, however, that the RTC’s dismissal is without prejudice. As we said, petitioner can avail of the
administrative remedy for the correction of his and his mother’s first name. He can also file a new petition
before the RTC to correct the alleged erroneous entry on his birth certificate that his parents were married
on December 23, 1983 in Bicol. This substantial correction is allowed under Rule 108 of the Rules of
Court. As we reiterated in Eleosida v. Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City:
x x x This is our ruling in Republic vs. Valencia where we held that even substantial errors in a civil registry
may be corrected and the true facts established under Rule 108 [of the Rules of Court] provided the parties
aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding. x x x
xxxx
It is true in the case at bar that the changes sought to be made by petitioner are not merely clerical or
harmless errors but substantial ones as they would affect the status of the marriage between petitioner and
Carlos Borbon, as well as the legitimacy of their son, Charles Christian. Changes of such nature, however,
are now allowed under Rule 108 in accordance with our ruling in Republic vs. Valencia provided that the
appropriate procedural requirements are complied with. x x x (Emphasis supplied.)

We also stress that a petition seeking a substantial correction of an entry in a civil register must implead as
parties to the proceedings not only the local civil registrar, as petitioner did in the dismissed petition for
correction of entries, but also all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the
correction. This is required by Section 3, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court:
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. (Emphasis supplied.)
In Eleosida, we cited Section 3, and Sections 4 and 5 of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, as the procedural
requirements laid down by the Court to make the proceedings under Rule 108 adversary. In Republic v.
Uy, we have similarly ruled that 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 the Rules of Court is
mandated. Thus, in his new petition, petitioner should at least implead his father and mother as parties
since the substantial correction he is seeking will also affect them.”
Under RA 9048, clerical or typographical error or change of first name in the birth certificate of a person
can now be done administratively by the local Civil Registrar or by the Consul General without the need of
a judicial order. This is explained in this case of Francis.

Francis is the son of Jaime and Teresita. In his birth certificate, his name is listed as Franc while his
mother’s name is Tess and that his parents were married on the date and placed specified therein.

Since there are errors in his first name and that of his mother and since he is really an illegitimate child,
he filed a Petition for Correction of Entries before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) pursuant to Rule 108 of
the Rules of Court praying that his name be corrected from Franc to Francis and his mother’s name from
Tess to Teresita. He also asked the court to delete the date and place of marriage of his parents and
instead enter therein the words “not married.”

The RTC however dismissed his petition. It ruled that the correction in the first name of Francis and his
mother can be administratively done by the civil registrar pursuant to RA 9048 while the other correction
deleting the date and place of marriage of his parents and entering instead the words “not married” can
be done only in an adversarial proceedings since the correction is substantial in nature and would affect
Francis’ status as a legitimate child.

Francis however insisted that Rule 108 of the Rules of Court allows substantial corrections so he should
be allowed to present proof that his parents were not married, during the trial, not during the filing of the
petition. Was Francis correct?

No. RA 9048 removed from the ambit of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court the correction of clerical or
typographical errors which may consist of errors in the first name of the child or his parents. The intent
and effect of the law is to exclude the change of the first name from the coverage of the Rules of Court
until and unless an administrative petition is first filed and subsequently denied.

On the other hand correcting the entries on the birth certificate of Francis on the date and place of
marriage of his parents and changing it to “not married” is a substantial correction requiring adversarial
proceedings. Substantial or controversial alterations include those on the citizenship, legitimacy of
paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage. So, strict compliance with the requirements of the Rules of
Court is mandated by impleading as parties to the proceedings not only the local civil registrar but also all
persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the correction.

In this case therefore, Francis should at least implead his father and mother since the substantial
correction he is seeking will also affect them.