Propuesta de servicios al nuevo mercado

 Who may file petition

1. Any person interested in any - act

- event - decree

2. concerning the civil status of persons 3. which has been recorded in the civil registry

 Correction of entry under Rule 108 proceeding in rem – publication binds the whole world

Substantial corrections or cancellations of entries in civil registry records affecting the status or legitimacy of a person may be effected through the institution of a petition under Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court, with the proper Regional Trial Court. Being a proceeding in rem, acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of petitioner is therefore not required in the present case. It is enough that the trial court is vested with jurisdiction over the subject matter.

The service of the order at No. 418 Arquiza St., Ermita, Manila and the publication thereof in a newspaper of general circulation in Manila, sufficiently complied with the requirement of due process, the essence of which is an opportunity to be heard. The publication of the order is a notice to all indispensable parties, including Armi and petitioner minor, which binds the whole world to the judgment that may be rendered in the petition. (Alba vs. CA, G.R. No. 164041, July 29, 2005)

 Indispensable parties must be notified

Under Sec. 3, Rule 108 not only the civil registrar but also all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected by a proceeding concerning the cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register must be made parties thereto.

No party could be more interested in the cancellation of Rosilyn’s birth certificate than Rosilyn herself. Her filiation, legitimacy, and date of birth are at stake.

The lack of summons on Rosilyn was not cured by the publication of the order of the trial court setting the case for hearing for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation. Summons must still be served, not for the purpose of vesting the courts with jurisdiction, but to comply with the requirements of fair play and due process. This is but proper, to afford the person concerned the opportunity to protect her interest if she so chooses. (Ceruila vs. Delantar, G.R. No. 140305, December 9, 2005)

 Administrative correction of clerical or typographical errors

The obvious effect of Republic Act 9048 is merely to make possible the administrative correction of clerical or typographical errors or change of first name or nickname in entries in the civil register, leaving to Rule 108 the correction of substantial changes in the civil registry in appropriate adversarial proceedings. (Republic v. Benemerito G.R. No. 146963, March 15, 2004).

 Change of name under Rule 108

The enactment in March 2001 of Republic Act No. 9048 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 followed, the appropriate adversary proceeding necessary to effect substantial corrections to the entries of the civil register is satisfied.

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: “Entries subject to cancellation or correction. — Upon good and valid grounds, the following entries in the civil register may be cancelled or corrected: x x x (o) changes of name.” 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, Carlito’s 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. (Republic vs. Kho, G.R. No. 170340, June 28, 2007)

 No intent on the part of the lawmakers to remove the authority of the trial courts to make judicial corrections of entries in the civil registry

It can be concluded that the local civil registrar has primary, not exclusive, jurisdiction over such petitions for correction of clerical errors and change of first name or nickname, with R.A.

No. 9048 prescribing the procedure that the petitioner and local civil registrar should follow.

Since R.A. No. 9048 refers specifically to the administrative summary proceeding before the local civil registrar it would be inappropriate to apply the same procedure to petitions for the correction of entries in the civil registry before the courts. ( Re: Final Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted at the Regional Trial Court, Br. 67, Paniqui, Tarlac, A.M. No. 06-7-414-RTC, October 19, 2007).

 Change of first name is within the primary jurisdiction of the local civil registrar

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 (Silverio vs Republic, G.R. No. 174689, October 22, 2007)

 Change of sex or gender allowed where person has both male and female sexual characteristics

The trial court ordered the correction of entries in the birth certificate of respondent to change her sex or gender, from female to male, on the ground of her medical condition known as Congenital Adrenal Hyerplasia (CAH), and her name from “Jennifer” to “Jeff,” under Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court. CAH is one of many conditions that involve intersex anatomy. The term “intersexuality” applies to human beings who cannot be classified as either male or female. We respect respondent’s congenital condition and his mature decision to be a male.

As for respondent’s change of name under Rule 103, this Court has held that a change of name is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion, to be exercised in the light of the reasons adduced and the consequences that will follow. The trial court’s grant of respondent’s change of name from Jennifer to Jeff implies a change of a feminine name to a masculine name.

Considering the consequence that respondent’s change of name merely recognizes his preferred gender, we find merit in respondent’s change of name. Such a change will conform

with the change of the entry in his birth certificate from female to male (Republic vs. Jennifer Cagandahan, G.R. No. 166676, September 12, 2008).

 A person’s first name cannot be changed on the ground of sex reassignment Petitioner sought to have his name in his birth certificate changed from “Rommel Jacinto” to

“Mely,” and his sex from “male” to “female.” Petitioner’s basis in praying for the change of his first name was his sex reassignment. He intended to make his first name compatible with the sex he thought he transformed himself into through surgery. However, a change of name does not alter one’s legal capacity or civil status. RA 9048 does not sanction a change of first name on the ground of sex reassignment. To correct simply means “to make or set aright; to remove the faults or error from” while to change means “to replace something with something else of the same kind or with something that serves as a substitute.” The birth certificate of petitioner contained no error. All entries therein, including those corresponding to his first name and sex, were all correct. No correction is necessary. Rather than avoiding confusion, changing petitioner’s first name for his declared purpose may only create grave complications in the civil registry and the public interest. Before a person can legally change his given name, he must present proper or reasonable cause or any compelling reason justifying such change. In addition, he must show that he will be prejudiced by the use of his true and official name. In this case, he failed to show, or even allege, any prejudice that he might suffer as a result of using his true and official name. (Silverio vs Republic, G.R. No. 174689, October 22, 2007)

 Registered name of illegitimate child

An illegitimate child whose filiation is not recognized by the father bears only a given name and his mother’s surname, and does not have a middle name. The name of the unrecognized illegitimate child therefore identifies him as such. It is only when the illegitimate child is legitimated by the subsequent marriage of his parents or acknowledged by the father in a public document or private handwritten instrument that he bears both his mother’s surname as his middle name and his father’s surname as his surname, reflecting his status as a legitimated child or an acknowledged illegitimate child. Accordingly, the registration in the civil registry of the birth of such individuals requires that the middle name be indicated in the certificate. The registered name of a legitimate, legitimated and recognized illegitimate child thus contains a given or proper name, a middle name, and a surname. (In Re: Petition for Change of Name and/or Correction/Cancellation of Entry in Civil Registry of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang, G.R. No.

159966, March 30, 2005).

 Earlier Jurisprudence

Ty Kong Tin (1954): followed by Chua Wee vs. Rep., Wong vs. Rep., Rep. vs. Medina – Rule 108 should be limited solely to implementation of Art. 412, the substantive law on the matter of correcting errors in the civil register.

Art. 412 contemplates a summary procedure, involving correction of clerical errors, or a harmless, innocuous nature, not changes involving civil status, nationality or citizenship, which are substantial and/or controversial

Rep. vs. Macli-ing ( SCRA )– proceedings, although filed under Rule 108, not summary because published for 3 consecutive weeks; SolGen notified and filed opposition, etc.

Rep. vs. Valencia (141 SCRA 462 [1986]) – turning point, paradigm shift:

Rule 108 embodies two kinds of proceedings:

1. procedure summary in nature for correcting clerical or unsubstantial matters to make it less tedious and expensive

2. procedure adversary in nature to govern proceedings involving substantial changes If all procedural requirements have been followed, petition for correction/or cancellation even if filed under Rule 108 no longer summary.

Even substantial errors may be corrected and true facts established prov. parties aggrieved by the error avail of the appropriate adversary proceeding.

 Appropriate proceeding:

a. where all relevant facts have been fully weighed and considered

b. where opposing counsel have been given opportunity to demolish the opposing party’s case

c. where evidence has been thoroughly weighed and considered

 Procedure becomes ADVERSARY proceedings when opposition to petition is filed by LCR or any person having or claiming interest in entries sought to be cancelled and/ or corrected and opposition is actively prosecuted.

 Substantial corrections allowed: citizenship from Chinese to Filipino; status from legitimate to illegitimate’ status of mother from married to single

 Valencia ruling (en banc) reiterated in Chia Ben Lim vs. Zosa (en banc), Rep. vs.

Bautista and Zapanta vs. LCR of Davao

 Attempts to revert to Ty Kong Tin – Labayo Rowe vs. Rep., Leonor vs. CA and Rep. vs.

Labrador

However, all doubts resolved in Lee vs. CA (367 SCRA 110 [2001]):

1. Substantial corrections – Rule 108

2. Clerical or typographical errors (including change of first name) – RA 9048 (administrative correction)

 Recent Jurisprudence

“Appropriate adversary proceeding” is “one having opposing parties; contested, as distinguished from an ex parte application, one of which the party seeking relief has given legal warning to the other party, and afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it.”

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.

No substantial change or correction in an entry in a civil register can be made without a judicial order, and, under the law, a change in citizenship status is a substantial change.

(Republic vs. Kho, G.R. No. 170340, June 29, 2007)

Republic Act No. 9048 provides in Section 2 (3) that a summary administrative proceeding to correct clerical or typographical errors in a birth certificate cannot apply to a change in nationality. Substantial corrections to the nationality or citizenship of persons recorded in the civil registry should, therefore, be effected through a petition filed in court under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. (Kilosbayan Foundation vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 177721, July 3, 2007)

The local civil registrar has primary, not exclusive, jurisdiction over such petitions for correction of clerical errors and change of first name or nickname, with R.A. No. 9048 prescribing the procedure that the petitioner and local civil registrar should follow. (Re: Final Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted at the RTC, BR. 67, Paniqui, Tarlac, A.M. No. 06-7-414-RTC, October 19, 2007)

Where the person is biologically or naturally intersex the determining factor in his gender classification would be what the individual, like respondent, having reached the age of majority, with good reason thinks of his/her sex. Respondent here thinks of himself as a male and considering that his body produces high levels of male hormones (androgen) there is preponderant biological support for considering him as being male. Sexual development in cases of intersex persons makes the gender classification at birth inconclusive. It is at maturity that the gender of such persons, like respondent, is fixed. (Republic vs. Cagandahan, G.R. No.

166676, September 12, 2008)

Rule 109