Anda di halaman 1dari 16

April 5, 2016 Wrap Up

Rule 108
Cancellation or Correction of Entries in
the Civil Registry
Like Rule 103, it has also been
modified by REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9048
(March
22,
2001)
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.
Republic vs. Mercadera defines
what correction means. To correct, it
presupposes a certain error. That is
why it is defined as to make or set
right to remove a false or error from. If
there is no error, then there is no basis
to correct it.
Now, aside from the error, what may
be corrected would be under RA 9048
are clerical error, not substantial
errors. The law also allows the change
of first name. If you want to change
your surname, go to Rule 103. It
cannot be done administratively under
Rule 108.
These are some of the amendments
introduced by this law to these rules.
RA9048, 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.
Rule 9048
Clerical or typographical errors and
change of first name or nickname

Summary procedure

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 Court of First
Instance of the province where the
corresponding civil registry is located.
Sec. 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 separations; (e)
judgments of annulments 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.
It is important that you should implead
the required parties to the petition.
Who are these parties? The Civil

Substantia
status, cit
Cancellati
errors
Adversaria
parties, as
applicatio
to contest

Registrar is the indispensable party.


Failure to implead the civil registrar
would be fatal to the action. This was
ruled in Republic vs. Cagandahan.
In this case, although there was failure
to implead the Civil Registrar, the
petitioner nevertheless furnished a
copy to the local registrar. So the SC
relaxed the rule as the purpose of the
law was already served by serving
copy with the local registrar.
Who else? All persons who have claims
or interests which would be affected
by the correction. So for instance, if
you want to correct the name of the
father, you have to implead the
children that would be affected. So
you have to be conscious with that.
Who else? All possible parties that can
be
considered
as
indispensable
parties.
Failure to implead would result to the
dismissal of the petition.
In the case of Labayo-Rowe vs.
Republic, the petition involved the
civil status and filiation of the person.
Very substantial! It is not just mere
typographical error. Failure to implead
would not vest the court with
jurisdiction. The judgment rendered by
the court is considered void. Include
not only the recognized father, but
also the child itself, and all persons
who are deemed affected to make the
petition adversarial.
In Republic vs. Barco, the petitioners
here had a child, the name was sought
to be corrected. The mum filed a
petition with the conformity of the
father to correct the birth record of
their daughter to the dads surname.
The problem is, the father also had
another illegitimate daughter who was

not included as a party. Is the


illegitimate daughter represented by
her mother an indispensable party?
The SC said the illegitimate party is
one of the parties mentioned in Sec. 3
of Rule 108. Her successional rights
would be affected if the other
daughter would be named after the
father.
But the SC ruled that the failure was
not fatal as to the compliance with
Sec. 4 of Rule 108.
Sec. 3. Parties. When cancellation or
correction of an entry in the civil
register is sought, the civil registrar
and all persons who have or claim any
interest which would be affected
thereby shall be made parties to the
proceeding.
Sec. 4. Notice and publication. Upon
the filing of the petition, the court
shall, by an order, fix the time and
place for the hearing of the same, and
cause reasonable notice thereof to be
given to the persons named in the
petition. The court shall also cause the
order to be published once a week for
three (3) consecutive weeks in a
newspaper of general circulation in the
province.
Even though Barco was not impleaded
in the petition, the defect was cured
by compliance with Sec. 4, Rule 108,
which requires notice by publication.
The purpose of this section 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 Sec. 3, Rule 108, but
were inadvertently left out.
A petition for correction is an action in
rem, an action against a thing and not

against a person. The decision on the


petition binds not only the parties
thereto but the whole world. It is
validated
essentially
through
publication which serves as a notice to
the whole world that the proceeding
has for its object to bar indefinitely all
who might be minded to make an
objection of any sort against the right
sought to be established.
In the case of Ceruila vs. Delantar,
what happened here is that Maria
Roslyn Telin Delantar was the child
victim in the rape case involving
Romeo Jalosjos.
After
she
was
involuntarily committed to the care
and custody of the DSWD, a petition
for the cancellation of her simulated
birth certificate was filed by spouses
Platon and Librada Ceruila, without
impleading her or DSWD. Publication
was made and summons was sent to
the Civil Registrar but not to Rosilyn.
The published petition may interpose
his/her comment or opposition thereto
on or before the scheduled hearing.
Valid?
Did the publication cure the failure to
implead and serve notice on Rosilyn?
NO
It is 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. As enunciated in
Republic v. Benemerito, unless all
possible indispensable parties were
duly notified of the proceedings, the
same shall be considered as falling
much too short of the requirements of
the rules. Here, it is clear that 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.
It cannot be said that this is just mere
inadvertence since the the birth
certificate was already attached and
the very child named therein was not
impleaded.
Now, in Republic vs. Kho, what
happened?
The birth certificates of minor children
were sought to be corrected to, among
others, correct the mothers name
from Maribel to Marivel and the date
of marriage. Likewise, birth records of
Kho siblings were also sought to be
corrected to change the citizenship of
their mother (Epifania) from Chinese
to Filipino and to delete the word
married. Epifania as well as Marivel
were not impleaded nor served notice.
Held: Publication of the order of
hearing under Section 4 of Rule 108
cured the failure to implead an
indispensable party citing Barco vs.
CA.
Bakit pa-iba iba ang Supreme Court?
There are several circumstances that
the Court considered.
There is no dispute that the trial
court's 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
Carlito and Epifania.

cross-examining

It may not be amiss to mention,


however, that during the hearing on
January 31, 2002, the city prosecutor
who was acting as representative of
the OSG did not raise any objection to
the non-inclusion of Marivel and
Carlito's parents as parties to the
proceeding.
Parenthetically,
it
seems
highly
improbable that Marivel was unaware
of the proceedings to correct the
entries
in
her
children's
birth
certificates,
especially
since
the
notices, orders and decision of the trial
courtwere all sent to the residence she
shared with Carlito and the children.
Date of marriage of Carlito and
Marivel, their certificate of marriage25
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.
We also have the case of Republic
vs. Lusagnay-Uy. We have here the
Republic questioning the decision
rendered in favor of Anita Sy. She is a
Chinese citizen and a legitimate child
of Sy Ton and Sotera Lusagnay. She
filed a petition for correction of her
first name and surname, her status
from legitimate to illegitimate and her

citizenship from Chinese to Filipino.


She, however, only impleaded and
notified the Local Civil Registrar and
failed to implead and notify her
parents and siblings.
The Supreme Court held that 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 oppositor --- 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.
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.
Cases where the failure to implead
and notify the affected or interested
parties may be cured by the
publication of the notice of hearing:
1. earnest efforts were made by
petitioners in bringing to court all
possible interested parties; (Case of
Barco)
2. where the interested parties
themselves
initiated
corrections
proceedings;
3. when there is no actual or
presumptive
awareness
of
the
existence of the interested parties; or
(Case of Barco)
4.when a party is inadvertently left
out.
Only in these instances you can say
that the failure to implead the parties
would be excusable.
So what is the form of the petition? It
must be verified and therein attached
is the certificate of non-forum
shopping.
So where do you file it? It should be
filed in the RTC of the province where
the local civil registry is located.
So if youre in Davao and your record
is registered in Cebu, you file it in the
RTC of Cebu because you need to
implead the LCR.
Going through the cases, youll see
that Rule 108 has a lengthy history.
For correction of clerical or innocuous
errors as early as 1954, the SC
decided in the case of Ty Kong Tin vs.
Republic that the nature of the
correction of clerical or innocuous

errors under Rule 108 proceedings is


summary in nature for correction of
clerical, typographical errors lang. If
the proceeding is for correction of
substantial errors affecting civil status,
citizenship or nationality of a party,
then it is adversarial. That was ruled in
the landmark case of Republic vs.
Valencia, it is no longer summary but
adversarial if the correction sought is
substantial errors.
However, with the advent of RA 9048
as well as RA 10172, Congress had
taken out the Summary Proceeding
from R108 because typographical or
clerical error is now removed from
judicial proceedings under R108 and is
now vested in the LCR under the
administrative correction of clerical
errors.
What may be changed or corrected?
Article 407 Civil Code: Acts, events
and judicial decrees concerning the
civil status of persons shall be
recorded in the civil register.
Act 408 Civil Code: (1) Births; (2)
marriages; (3) deaths; (4) legal
separations;
(5)
annulments
of
marriage; (6) judgments declaring
marriages void from the beginning; (7)
legitimations;
(8)
adoptions;
(9)
acknowledgments of natural children;
(10) naturalization; (11) loss, or (12)
recovery of citizenship; (13) civil
interdiction;
(14)
judicial
determination
of
filiation;
(15)
voluntary emancipation of a minor;
and (16) changes of name.
Another interesting case is Tan Co vs.
Civil Register of Manila.
What happened here is that the
children were born to a Chinese father.
Obviously, their birth records would

show that their father is a Chinese.


However, after they were born, their
father became a naturalized Filipino
citizen. So it is an after-birth event. Is
that subject to correction?
The SC said yes. The petitioners
recourse to Rule 108 of the Rules of
Court, as amended, is appropriate.
Under Article 412 of the New Civil
Code, no entry in a civil register shall
be changed or corrected without a
judicial order. The law does not
provide for a specific procedure of law
to be followed. But the Court approved
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court to
provide for a procedure to implement
the law. The entries envisaged in
Article 412 of the New Civil Code are
those provided in Articles 407 and 408
of the New Civil Code.
Specific matters covered by the said
provision include not only status but
also nationality. The acts, events or
factual errors envisaged in Article 407
of the New Civil Code include even
those that occur after the birth of
the petitioner. However, in such
cases, the entries in the certificates of
birth will not be corrected or changed.
The decision of the court granting the
petition shall be annotated in the
certificates of birth and shall form part
of the civil register in the Office of the
Local Civil Registrar.
To correct simply means to make or
set aright; to remove the faults or
error from. To change means to
replace something with something
else of the same kind or with
something that serves as a substitute.
Article 412 of the New Civil Code does
not qualify as to the kind of entry to be
changed or corrected or distinguished
on the basis of the effect that the
correction or change may be. Such

entries include not only those clerical


in nature but also substantial errors.
After all, the role of the Court under
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is to
ascertain the truths about the facts
recorded therein.
So it actually falls under the
enumeration
of
Art.
408(10)
Naturalization.
SPOTLIGHT MOMENT ABOUT CLIENTS
GAINED FROM AVID VIEWERS OF HER
SUNDAY MORNING SHOW.
Now, we will discuss if Rule 108 shall
apply on change of gender. The
Supreme Court, in the case of Republic
vs. Cagandahan, ruled on the question
on whether or not Rule 108 allow
change of sex or gender in the birth
certificate by reason of Congenital
Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) which is a
condition where persons thus afflicted
possess both male and female
characteristics.
Yes. Under Rep. Act No. 9048, a
correction in the civil registry involving
the change of sex is not a mere
clerical or typographical error. It is a
substantial change for which the
applicable procedure is Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court.
Ultimately, we are of the view that
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.
This was before RA 10172 that took
effect last January 2013 which now
allows changing the sex provided
there is no sex reassignment. In this
case,
the
petitioner
is
a
hermaphrodite. It just so happens that
as he grew up, yung nag manifest na
dominant sex niya iba doon sa naregister sa kanyang birth record. SC
said that is allowed for correction
because there was no reassignment.
But had Cagandahan petition for his
birth record after the enactment of RA
10172, then that would have been
entertained kasi wala namang sex
reassignment.
Now eto ngayon, in the recent case of
Republic vs. Olaivar decided in
2014, here Olaivar wanted to cancel
all entries in the white portion of the
alleged contract entered into during a
civil wedding. The reason is that di
naman talaga siya nagpakasal.

in the case of Braza vs. City Civil


Register.
The issue here is WON the petition for
correction of entry may include a
prayer for declaration of nullity of
marriage and whether it DNA testing
to determine paternity and filiation is
allowed.
SC said NO. Petition for Correction of
Entries prays as follows: (1) 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";
2) a directive to Leon, Cecilia and
Lucille, all surnamed Titular, as
guardians of the minor Patrick, to
submit Parick to DNA testing to
determine his paternity and filiation;
and
3) the declaration of nullity of the
legitimation of Patrick as stated in his
birth certificate and, for this purpose,
the declaration of the marriage of
Lucille and Pablo as bigamous.

She just found out that meron nap ala


marriage contract at kasal na pala siya
sa isang Taiwanese or Korea. So pinacancel niya. So effect of that petition if
the nullification of marriage. Is that
allowed?

In a special proceeding for correction


of entry under Rule 108 (Cancellation
or Correction of Entries in the Original
Registry), the trial court has no
jurisdiction to nullify marriages and
rule on legitimacy and filiation.

Yes, that is allowed since wala naman


talagang kasal. But as to the
nullification, to be effected, must be
supported by proof or evidence.

Rule 108 of the Rules of Court vis a vis


Article 412 of the Civil Code 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. A
clerical error is one which is visible to
the
eyes
or
obvious
to
the

So is this now an exception to the rule


that Rule 108 may not be used to
determine the nullity of marriage?
The Supreme Court said no. Rule 108
cannot be availed of to nullify the
marriage. That is the rule enunciated

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.
However,
the
exact
opposite
happened in the case of Concepcion
vs. CA.
Can judicial recognition of foreign
divorce extend to the cancellation
entry (of marriage) in the Local Civil
Registry? No. A petition for recognition
of a foreign judgment is not the proper
proceeding, contemplated under the
Rules of Court, for the cancellation of
entries in the civil registry.
Must
separate
proceedings
be
instituted for recognition of foreign of
foreign divorce decree and for
cancellation of entry under Rule 108?
No. We hasten to point out, however,
that this ruling should not be
construed as requiring two separate
proceedings for the registration of a
foreign divorce decree in the civil
registry - one for recognition of the
foreign decree and another specifically
for cancellation of the entry under
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
Foreign divorce decree may be
judicially recognized under Rule 108.
Provided
the
basic
jurisdictional
requirements under Rue 108 of the
Rules of Court are complied with, i. e,
verified petition filed with the RTC of
the province where the corresponding
civil registry is located, the civil
registrar and all persons who have or

claim any interest are made parties to


the proceeding, and publication of the
time and place for hearing in a
newspaper of general circulation.
The 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.
Moreover, Rule 108 of the Rules of
Court can serve as the appropriate
adversarial proceeding by which the
applicability of the foreign judgment
can be measured and tested in terms
of jurisdictional infirmities, want of
notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or
clear mistake of law or fact.
If your ultimate goal is to cancel the
marriage certificate by virtue of the
foreign divorce decree, you file a
petition under Rule 108 with a prayer
for the court to recognize the foreign
judgment. The foreign decree of
divorce. You simply comply with the
basic
jurisdictional
requirements:
Publication, proof of foreign law, proof
of foreign decree, proof of jurisdiction
of foreign court that granted the
divorce, etc. Same as reprobate
proceedings in foreign country.
So when the court receives the
petition under Rule 108, what will
happen?
Upon filing of the petition, court shall:

Issue an order fixing the time


and place of hearing
Cause service of notice on the
persons named in the petition
Direct publication of the notice
once a week for 3 consecutive
weeks in a newspaper of

general
circulation
in
the
province (Section 4, Rule 108)
So in the case of Alba vs. CA, here
Rogelio Alba had all entries cancelled
that the parents appearing in the birth
certificate are not married, that the
records are false. He impleaded the
RoD and the mothers child.
Rosendo
Herrera
petitioned
for
cancellation of entries in the birth
record of Rosendo Alba Herrera, Jr. i.e,
(1) surname Herrera; (2) name of
Rosendo as father, (3) date of
marriage of parents, for being false.
He impleaded the LCR, Armi (the
mother) and all persons who have a
claim or any interest in the petition.
Petition, not being opposed by the
OSG, was granted. Three years later,
Armi petitioned for the annulment of
judgment on the ground that she was
not notified of Rosendos petition as it
indicated her wrong address.
Here you have a situation where a
person who was named the father of
the child in the birth record was the
one who filed a petition for the
cancellation of entries in that birth
record.
He claimed that his name indicating to
be the father was falsely made and
the date of marriage with the mother
was also false and that he was not the
father. He was impugning the validity
of the birth record where his name
appears as the father.
Because it was unopposed, the
petition was granted. The mother
came to know about it later and
petitioned for the annulment of
judgment on the ground that she was
not notified of the petition because the
petition indicated her old address.

Held: In a proceeding in rem or quasi


in rem, jurisdiction over the person of
the defendant is not a prerequisite to
confer jurisdiction on the court,
provided that the latter has jurisdiction
over the res. Jurisdiction over the res
is acquired either (a) by the seizure of
the property under legal process,
whereby it is brought into actual
custody of the law; or (b) as a result of
the institution of legal proceedings, in
which the power of the court is
recognized and made effective.
The service of summons or notice to
the defendant is not for the purpose of
vesting the court with jurisdiction but
merely for satisfying the due process
requirements.
How was jurisdiction vested?
The filing with the trial court of the
petition for cancellation vested the
latter jurisdiction over the res.
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.
Sec. 5. Opposition. The civil registrar
and any person having or claiming any
interest under the entry whose
cancellation or correction is sought
may, within fifteen (15) days from
notice of the petition, or from the last

date of publication of such notice, file


his opposition thereto.
Who may oppose?

Civil Registrar
Any person having or claiming
any interest in the entry sought
to be cancelled or corrected

When to oppose?

Within 15 days from notice of


petition or from the last date of
publication

Even if what was sought was the


correction of the nationality and civil
status of petitioners minor children as
stated in the records, i.e. Chinese to
Filipino, legitimate to illegitimate
which are not mere clerical errors,
such may be corrected as long as
R108, Secs. 3-5 are complied with, and
the aggrieved parties have availed
themselves
of
the
appropriate
adversary proceedings

Petition for correction is an


action in rem
Entries in Birth certificates
relating to citizenship of the
father
from
Chinese
to
Filipino allowed under CA 473,
Sec. 15 (extending Philippine
citizenship to minor children of
those naturalized under LOI
270)

Sec. 6. Expediting proceedings. The


court in which the proceeding is
brought may make orders expediting
the proceedings, and may also grant
preliminary
injunction
for
the
preservation of the rights of the
parties pending such proceedings.
Sec. 7. Order. After hearing, the court
may either dismiss the petition or

issue
an
order
granting
the
cancellation or correction prayed for.
In either case, a certified copy of the
judgment shall be served upon the
civil registrar concerned who shall
annotate the same in his record.
Now lets go to correction clerical
errors provided under RA 9048 and RA
10172.
RA 9048 amended Articles 376 and
412 of the Civil Code. RA 10172, on
the other hand, amended Sections 1,
2, 5 and 8 of RA 9048 to include
administrative correction of clerical
errors in the day and month of birth
and in the gender, provided that there
is no sex change involved.
Both of these laws provide for
administrative correction of clerical
errors.
Who may correct clerical errors?
1. Concerned
city/municipal
registrar or (Sec 1, RA 9048)
2. Consul general (Sec 1, RA 9048)
3. Clerk of the Sharia Court in his
capacity as District or Circuit
Registrar of Muslim Marriages,
Divorces,
Revocation
of
Divorces and Conversions (Rule
1, IRR of Rule 9048 A.O. No. 1,
Series of 2001)
Scope of Administrative
under RA 9048

Correction

1. First Name
o A name or nickname
given to a person which
may consist of one or
more names in addition
to middle and last names
(Sec 2(6))
2. Clerical or typographical errors
o 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. (Sec 2 (3))
Scope
of
Administrative
Correction under RA 10172
1. Clerical
or
typographical
error/mistake in the entry
Only the day and month
of the date of birth. If it
involves the year itself, it
will affect your age. It is
no longer allowed for
administrative correction.
You have to go to court.
That is not covered by RA
10172.
Sex or gender of person
2. Clerical error that is patently
clear
Can you consider an error
pertaining to nationality,
age, status, or sex as
merely clerical/typo? Not
under RA 9048. But under
RA 10172, sex of persons
are now included.

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)
In Lee vs. CA, the Supreme Court
explained that RA 9048 is Congress'
response to the confusion wrought by
the failure to delineate as to what
exactly is that so-called summary
procedure for changes or corrections
of a harmless or innocuous nature as
distinguished from that appropriate
adversary proceeding for changes or
corrections of a substantial kind. For
we must admit that though we have
constantly referred to an appropriate
adversary proceeding, we have failed
to categorically state just what that
procedure is.
Republic Act No. 9048 now embodies
that summary procedure while Rule

108 is that appropriate adversary


proceeding. Be that as it may, the
case at bar cannot be decided on the
basis of Republic Act No. 9048 which
has prospective application. Hence,
the necessity for the preceding
treatise.

For change of name, clerical error in


day and month of birth, and other
clerical errors:

What are the grounds for the


change of first name?
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.
Nota Bene: Sex reassignment is an
invalid ground.
In Silverio vs. Republic, petitioners
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 ones legal capacity or
civil status. RA 9048 does not sanction
a change of first name on the ground
of sex reassignment. Rather than
avoiding
confusion,
changing
petitioners first name for his declared
purpose may only create grave
complications in the civil registry and
the public interest.
Who may file the petition?

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 the petition (Sec 3, RA
9048, Rule 3 IRR)
When a person is a minor or
physically
and
mentally
incapacitated, the petition may
be filed on his behalf by his
spouse, or any of his children,
parents,
brothers,
sisters,
grandparents,
guardians
or
persons duly authorized by law.
Person
having
direct
and
personal interest
o Owner of the record; or Owners spouse, children,
parents, brothers, sisters,
grandparents, guardians
or
persons
duly
authorized by law; or Owner of the document
sought to be corrected.
(Sec 3, RA 9048; Rule 3,
IRR)
o Person affected by the
error (Rule 3.2 IRR) Hindi
pwede ang spouse, anak,
relative,
grandparents,
etc.

What is the form of the petition?


1. In the form of an affidavit:
subscribed and sworn to before
any person authorized by the
law to administer oaths. - 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.
2. State the particular erroneous
entry or entries, which are
sought to be corrected and/or
the change sought to be made.
(Sec 5, RA 9048; Rule 8, IRR)
What is the manner of filing?

It is Personal filing as provided


under Sec 3, RA 9048; Rule 8
IRR

Where should petition be filed?


1. Change of first name, error in
day and month of birth
Resident petitioner With
the LCRO of the city or
municipality or with the
Office of the Clerk of the
Sharia Court, as the case
may be, where the record
is registered (Sec 3, RA
9048; Rule 4, IRR)
Migrant
petitioner
(transferred
residence)
with
the
petition
receiving civil registrar of
the place where the
migrant
petitioner
is
residing or domiciled.
Non-resident
petitioner
(residing abroad) With
the nearest Philippine
Consulate for persons
whose
civil
registry
record was registered in
the Philippines, or in any
Philippine Embassy
2. Error in sex
With the C/MCR of the
city or municipality or the
Philippine Consulate, as
the case may be, where
the record is registered
(Rule 4.2 IRR)

What are the attachments to the


petition?
1. Certified machine copy of the
certificate
containing
the
alleged erroneous entry or
entries
2. Not less than 2 public or private
documents upon which the
correction shall be based
3. Notice and Certificate of Posting
- Certified machine copy of
Official Receipt of the filing fee Other documents as may be
required by the City/Municipal
Civil Registrar (C/MCR) (Sec 5,
RA 9048, Rule 8, IRR)
What
are
the
additional
attachments for the change of
name (RA 9048, Rule 8, 8.2 IRR)?
1. Clearance or certification that
owner of document has no
pending administrative, civil or
criminal case, or no criminal
record, by the following:
a. Employer, if employed
b. National
Bureau
of
Investigation
c. Philippine National Police
2. Affidavit of publication from the
publisher and a copy of the
newspaper clipping. In petition
for change of First Name,
publication in newspaper of
general circulation is required.
In other cases, posting in
conspicuous public places is
required.
What
are
the
attachments for the
name (RA 10172)?

additional
change of

1. Medical records
2. Baptismal certificate or other
documents
issued
by
religious authorities

3. For correction of sex


Certification
by
a
government
physician
attesting to the fact of nonsex transplant or non-sex
change
What
are
the
posting
publication requirements?

and

For Posting Requirement


i.

ii.

iii.

Resident Petitioner
a. In a conspicuous place
provided for that purpose
b. For 10 consecutive days
after
favorable
assessment
Migrant Petitioner
a. Office of the PRCR for 10
consecutive days
b. Office of the RKCR for
another 10 days
Non-resident Petitioner
a. Where petition is filed
and where record is kept

For Publication Requirement


i.

ii.
iii.

Resident petitioner
a. Once a week for 2
successive
newspaper
circulation weeks in of
general
Migrant Petitioner
a. Publication is made in a
national newspaper
Non-resident Petitioner
a. File
it
abroad,
2
publications
where
petition is filed and where
record is kept

What are the duties of the Civil


Registrar?
1. Examine
the
petition
and
conduct investigation
2. Post petition in a conspicuous
place for 10 consecutive days

after
finding
it
and
its
supporting documents sufficient
in form and substance
3. Act on the petition and render
decision not later than 5
working days after completion
of posting and/or publication
requirement
4. Transmit
copy
of
decision
together
with
records
the
proceedings to the Office of
Civil Registrar General within 5
working days after the date of
decision
5. Perform such other duties and
functions as may be necessary
to carry out the provisions of RA
9048 (Sec 6, RA 9048; Rule 10,
IRR)
The Decision shall become final and
executory if not impugned by the Civil
Registry General. Changes shall be
reflected in the birth certificate by way
of marginal annotation.
Final decision approving change of
first name sufficient basis in changing
the first name of the same person in
his other affected records without
need for filing a similar petition.
Petitioner needs only to file a request
with the concerned civil registrar to
make
such
marginal
annotation
attaching thereto a copy of the
decision (Rule 12 IRR).
What are the grounds for the
denial of the petition?
1. The supporting documents are
not authentic and genuine.
2. The
C/MCR
has
personal
knowledge
that
a
similar
petition is filed or pending in
court or in any other
3. LCRO.

4. The petition involves the same


entry in the same document,
which was previously corrected
or changed under this Order.
5. The
petition
involves
the
change of the status, sex, age
or nationality of the petitioner
or of any person named in the
document.
6. Such other grounds as the
C/MCR may deem not proper for
correction.
7. In the case of petition for
change of first name or
nickname, any of the grounds
provided in Sec 4 of RA 9048
are not present in addition to
the abovementioned (Rule 5,
5.8 IRR).
What are the remedies
denial of the petition?

upon

1. Appeal the decision to the CRG


within ten (10) working days
from the receipt of the decision
on the following grounds:
Newly
discovered
evidence
which
shall
materially affect, alter,
modify or reverse the
decision of the C/MCR
Denial of the C/MCR is
erroneous
or
not
supported with evidence
Denial of the C/MCR is
done with grave abuse of
authority or discretion
CRG
shall
render
a
decision
within
30
calendar
days
after
receipt of the appeal and
shall furnish the C/MCR,
CG or D/CR a copy of the
decision not later than 10
working date after date of
decision

2. File the appropriate petition


with the proper court
May be filed even beyond
period to appeal (Rule 13
and 14 IRR)
When can decision be impugned?

Within 10 working days from


receipt of decision granting
decision

Who may impugn the decision?

The Civil
(CRG)

Registrar

General

What is the effect of failure to


impugn the decision?
1. File MR within 15 working days
from receipt of decision on the
ground of newly discovered
evidence
CRG shall resolve the MR
within 30 working days,
thereafter the decision
becomes
final
and
executory
2. File separate petition in court
In Re: Judicial Audit RTC 67 AM No 067-414-RTC, October 19, 2007
May the court apply RA 9048 for
petitions
for
name
change
or
correction of entries, without hearing
and publication requirements?
No. 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.
In other words, you do not apply the
procedure
under
RA
9048
for
proceedings under Rule 108 since it is
judicial.

The procedures are different. You


cannot use RA 9048 procedure under a
petition for correction under Rule 108.
The promulgation of rules of procedure

for courts of justice is the exclusive


domain of the Supreme Court.