G.R. No.

118387 October 11, 2001

LEE vs COURT OF APPEALS

DE LEON, JR., J.:

FACTS:

1. The case involves two (2) sets of children sired by one and the same man but begotten of two (2)
different mothers.

2. One set, the private respondents herein, are the children of Lee Tek Sheng and his lawful wife,
Keh Shiok Cheng. The other set, the petitioners herein, are allegedly children of Lee Tek Sheng and
his concubine, Tiu Chuan.

3. Unknown to Keh Shiok Cheng and private respondents, every time Tiu Chuan gave birth to each
of the petitioners, their common father, Lee Tek Sheng, falsified the entries in the records of birth of
petitioners by making it appear that petitioners' mother was Keh Shiok Cheng.

4. After discovering the fraud, private respondents filed the petitions for cancellation and/or
correction of entries in petitioners' records of birth with the lower courts to delete and/or cancel
therein the name of "Keh Shiok Cheng" as their mother, and to substitute the same with the name
"Tiu Chuan", who is allegedly the petitioners' true birth mother.

5. Petitioners contend that resort to Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court is improper since private
respondents seek to have the entry for the name of petitioners' mother changed from "Keh Shiok
Cheng" to "Tiu Chuan" who is a completely different person.

6. They assert that making the proceedings adversarial does not give trial courts the license to go
beyond the ambit of Rule 108 which is limited to those mere clerical errors of a harmless or
innocuous nature.

ISSUES:

1. WON the petitions for cancellation and/or correction of entries in petitioners' records of birth under
Rule 108 is limited to mere clerical errors of a harmless or innocuous nature.

2. WON the petition under Rule 108 is considered a summary proceeding per se.

HELD:

1. NO.

Although recognizing that the changes or corrections sought to be effected are not mere clerical
errors of a harmless or innocuous nature, this Court, sitting en banc, held therein that even
substantial errors in a civil register may be corrected and the true facts established provided the
parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding.

Far from petitioners' theory, this Court's ruling in Labayo-Rowe vs. Republic does not exclude
recourse to Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of Court to effect substantial changes or corrections in
entries of the civil register. The only requisite is that the proceedings under Rule 108 be
an appropriate adversary proceeding as contra-distinguished from a summary proceeding. Thus:

"If the purpose of the petition [for cancellation and/or correction of entries in the civil register]
is merely to correct the clerical errors which are visible to the eye or obvious to the
understanding, the court may, under a summary procedure, issue an order for the correction
of a mistake. However, as repeatedly construed, changes which may affect the civil status
from legitimate to illegitimate, as well as sex, are substantial and controversial alterations
which can only be allowed after appropriate adversary proceedings depending upon the
nature of the issues involved. Changes which affect the civil status or citizenship of a party
are substantial in character and should be threshed out in a proper action depending upon
the nature of the issues in controversy, and wherein all the parties who may be affected by
the entries are notified or represented and evidence is submitted to prove the allegations of
the complaint, and proof to the contrary admitted x x x." (Emphasis supplied.)

2. NO.

It is true that in special proceedings formal pleadings and a hearing may be dispensed with, and the
remedy granted upon mere application or motion. But this is not always the case, as when the
statute expressly provides. Hence, a special proceeding is not always summary. One only has to
take a look at the procedure outlined in Rule 108 to see that what is contemplated therein is not a
summary proceeding per se. Rule 108 requires publication of the petition three (3) times, i.e., once a
week for three (3) consecutive weeks (Sec.4). The Rule also requires inclusion as parties of all
persons who claim any interest which would be affected by the cancellation or correction (Sec. 3).
The civil registrar and any person in interest are also required to file their opposition, if any, within
fifteen (15) days from notice of the petition, or from the last date of publication of such notice (Sec.
5). Last, but not the least, although the court may make orders expediting the proceedings, it is after
hearing that the court shall either dismiss the petition or issue an order granting the same (Sec. 7).

Thus, we find no reason to depart from our ruling in Republic vs. Valencia, that Rule 108, when all
the procedural requirements thereunder are followed, is the appropriate adversary proceeding to
effect substantial corrections and changes in entries of the civil register.
G.R. No. 189476 February 2, 2011

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESvs.JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON COSETENG-MAGPAYO

(A.K.A. JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON MARQUEZ-LIM COSETENG)

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

1. Born in Makati, respondent Julian Edward Emerson Coseteng-Magpayo is the son of Fulvio M.
Magpayo Jr. and Anna Dominique Marquez-Lim Coseteng.

2. Claiming that his parents were never legally married, respondent filed at the RTC of Quezon
City a Petition to change his name to Julian Edward Emerson Marquez Lim Coseteng.

3. The RTC granted the respondents petition.

4. The Republic contends that the deletion of the entry on the date and place of marriage of
respondents parents from his birth certificate (a) must be effected through an appropriate adversary
proceeding, since it involves a change in civil status of a person; and (b) the trial court exceeded its
jurisdiction, such order not being in accord with respondents prayer of allowing the change of name
of petitioner.

ISSUES:

1. WON Rule 103, not Rule 108, is the applicable remedy.

2. WON the respondent complied with the jurisdictional requirements under Rule 108

HELD:

1. NO. Rule 108 is the applicable remedy.

The change being sought in respondents petition goes so far as to affect his legal status in relation
to his parents. It seeks to change his legitimacy to that of illegitimacy. Rule 103 then would not
suffice to grant respondents supplication.

Labayo-Rowe v. Republic categorically holds that "changes which may affect the civil status from
legitimate to illegitimate . . . are substantial and controversial alterations which can only be allowed
after appropriate adversary proceedings . . ."

Since respondents desired change affects his civil status from legitimate to illegitimate, Rule
108 applies.

2. NO.

Rule 108 clearly directs that a petition which concerns ones civil status should be filed in the civil
registry in which the entry is sought to be cancelled or corrected that of Makati in the present case,
and "all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby" should be made
parties to the proceeding.
On venue and parties to be impleaded

As earlier stated, however, the petition of respondent was filed not in Makati where his birth
certificate was registered but in Quezon City. And as the above-mentioned title of the petition filed by
respondent before the RTC shows, neither the civil registrar of Makati nor his father and mother
were made parties thereto.

Even assuming arguendo that respondent had simultaneously availed of these two statutory
remedies, respondent cannot be said to have sufficiently complied with Rule 108. For, as reflected
above, aside from improper venue, he failed to implead the civil registrar of Makati and all affected
parties as respondents in the case.

Republic v. Labrador mandates that "a petition for a substantial correction or change of entries in the
civil registry should have as respondents the civil registrar, as well as all other persons who have or
claim to have any interest that would be affected thereby." It cannot be gainsaid that change of
status of a child in relation to his parents is a substantial correction or change of entry in the civil
registry.

On the requirement of notice and publication

A reading of these related provisions(Sections 4 and 5) readily shows that Rule 108 clearly
mandates two sets of notices to different "potential oppositors." The first notice is that given to the
"persons named in the petition" and the second (which is through publication) is that given to other
persons who are not named in the petition but nonetheless may be considered interested or affected
parties, such as creditors. That two sets of notices are mandated under the above-quoted Section 4
is validated by the subsequent Section 5, also above-quoted, which provides for two periods (for the
two types of "potential oppositors") within which to file an opposition (15 days from notice or from the
last date of publication).

What is clear then in Barco and Kho is the mandatory directive under Section 3 of Rule 108 to
implead the civil registrar and the parties who would naturally and legally be affected by the grant of
a petition for correction or cancellation of entries. Non-impleading, however, as party-respondent of
one who is inadvertently left out or is not established to be known by the petitioner to be affected by
the grant of the petition or actually participates in the proceeding is notified through publication.
G.R. No. 186027 December 8, 2010

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MERLYN MERCADERA

MENDOZA, J.:

FACTS:

1. Merlyn Mercadera (Mercadera) seeking to correct her given name as it appeared in her
Certificate of Live Birth - from Marilyn L. Mercadera to Merlyn L. Mercadera filed a Petition For
Correction of Some Entries as Appearing in the Certificate of Live Birth under Rule 108 before the
Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City (RTC).

2. The RTC granted Mercaderas petition.

3. On appeal, the OSG argued that the lower court erred in granting the prayer for change of name
in a petition for correction of entries. The OSG contends that what the lower court actually allowed
was a change of Mercaderas given name, which would have been proper had she filed a petition
under Rule 103 and proved any of the grounds therefor.

ISSUE: WON the court erred in granting a change of name in a petition for correction of entries
under Rule 108, when the remedy for the change of name is provided under Rule 103

HELD: NO.

The "change of name" contemplated under Article 376 and Rule 103 must not be confused with
Article 412 and Rule 108. A change of ones name under Rule 103 can be granted, only on
grounds provided by law. In order to justify a request for change of name, there must be a proper
and compelling reason for the change and proof that the person requesting will be prejudiced by the
use of his official name. To assess the sufficiency of the grounds invoked therefor, there must be
adversarial proceedings.

In petitions for correction, only clerical, spelling, typographical and other innocuous errors in the civil
registry may be raised. Considering that the enumeration in Section 2, Rule 108 also includes
"changes of name," the correction of a patently misspelled name is covered by Rule 108. Suffice it to
say, not all alterations allowed in ones name are confined under Rule 103. Corrections for clerical
errors may be set right under Rule 108.

This rule in "names," however, does not operate to entirely limit Rule 108 to the correction of clerical
errors in civil registry entries by way of a summary proceeding. As explained above, Republic v.
Valencia is the authority for allowing substantial errors in other entries like citizenship, civil status,
and paternity, to be corrected using Rule 108 provided there is an adversary proceeding. "After all,
the role of the Court under Rule 108 is to ascertain the truths about the facts recorded therein."

The petition filed by Mercadera before the RTC correctly falls under Rule 108 as it simply sought a
correction of a misspelled given name. 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." From the allegations in her petition, Mercadera clearly
prayed for the lower court "to remove the faults or error" from her registered given name "MARILYN,"
and "to make or set aright" the same to conform to the one she grew up to, "MERLYN."
The CA did not allow Mercadera the change of her name. What it did allow was the correction of her
misspelled given name which she had been using ever since she could remember.

NOTE: Distinction between Rule 103 and Rule 108 as discussed in this case

Rule 103 procedurally governs judicial petitions for change of given name or surname, or both,
pursuant to Article 376 of the Civil Code. This rule provides the procedure for an independent special
proceeding in court to establish the status of a person involving his relations with others, that is, his
legal position in, or with regard to, the rest of the community. In petitions for change of name, a
person avails of a remedy to alter the "designation by which he is known and called in the
community in which he lives and is best known." When granted, a persons identity and interactions
are affected as he bears a new "label or appellation for the convenience of the world at large in
addressing him, or in speaking of, or dealing with him." Judicial permission for a change of name
aims to prevent fraud and to ensure a record of the change by virtue of a court decree.

Rule 108, on the other hand, implements judicial proceedings for the correction or cancellation of
entries in the civil registry pursuant to Article 412 of the Civil Code. Entries in the civil register refer to
"acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons," also as enumerated in
Article 408 of the same law.

Finally in Republic v. Valencia, the above stated views were adopted by this Court insofar as even
substantial errors or matters in a civil registry may be corrected and the true facts established,
provided the parties aggrieved avail themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding. Where
such a change is ordered, the Court will not be establishing a substantive right but only correcting or
rectifying an erroneous entry in the civil registry as authorized by law. In short, Rule 108 of the Rules
of Court provides only the procedure or mechanism for the proper enforcement of the substantive
law embodied in Article 412 of the Civil Code and so does not violate the Constitution.
G.R. No. 196049 June 26, 2013

MINORU FUJIKI vs. MARIA PAZ GALELA MARINAY, et. al.

CARPIO, J.:

FACTS:

1. On 2004, respondent Maria Paz Galela Marinay (Marinay) married petitioner Minoru Fujiki (Fujiki),
a Japanese national.

2. Without the first marriage being dissolved, Marinay and married another Japanese, Shinichi
Maekara (Maekara) on 2008.

3. Due to the alleged physical abuse suffered by Marinay from Maekara, the former left the latter and
started to contact Fujiki.

3. Fujiki and Marinay met in Japan and they were able to reestablish their relationship.

4. 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.

5. On 2011, Fujiki filed a petition in the RTC entitled: "Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment (or
Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage).

6. RTC dismissed the petition based on improper venue and the lack of personality of petitioner.

7. Fujiki argued that Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is applicable. Section 2 of Rule 108 provides that
entries in the civil registry relating to "marriages," "judgments of annulments of marriage" and
"judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning" are subject to cancellation or correction.

8. In his manifestation, the Solicitor General contended that the petition to recognize the Japanese
Family Court judgment may be made in a Rule 108 proceeding.

ISSUE:

1. WON the RTC can recognize the foreign judgment in a proceeding for cancellation or correction of
entries in the Civil Registry under Rule 108.

2. WON the prior spouse has the personality to file the petition for the recognition of a foreign
judgment and petition for cancellation or correction of entries under Rule 108.

HELD:

1. YES.

Since the recognition of a foreign judgment only requires proof of fact of the judgment, it may be
made in a special proceeding for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry under Rule
108 of the Rules of Court. Rule 1, Section 3 of the Rules of Court provides that "[a] special
proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact."
Rule 108 creates a remedy to rectify facts of a persons life which are recorded by the State pursuant
to the Civil Register Law or Act No. 3753. These are facts of public consequence such as birth,
death or marriage which the State has an interest in recording. As noted by the Solicitor General,
in Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas this Court declared that "[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."

2. YES.

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)

Fujiki has the personality to file a petition to recognize the Japanese Family Court judgment nullifying
the marriage between Marinay and Maekara on the ground of bigamy because the judgment
concerns his civil status as married to Marinay. For the same reason he has the personality to file a
petition under Rule 108 to cancel the entry of marriage between Marinay and Maekara in the civil
registry on the basis of the decree of the Japanese Family Court.

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. There is also no
doubt that he is interested in the cancellation of an entry of a bigamous marriage in the civil registry,
which compromises the public record of his marriage. The interest derives from the substantive right
of the spouse not only to preserve (or dissolve, in limited instances) his most intimate human
relation, but also to protect his property interests that arise by operation of law the moment he
contracts marriage. These property interests in marriage include the right to be supported "in
keeping with the financial capacity of the family" and preserving the property regime of the marriage.

Property rights are already substantive rights protected by the Constitution, but a spouses right in a
marriage extends further to relational rights recognized under Title III ("Rights and Obligations
between Husband and Wife") of the Family Code. A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC cannot "diminish, increase,
or modify" the substantive right of the spouse to maintain the integrity of his marriage. In any case,
Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC preserves this substantive right by limiting the personality to
sue to the husband or the wife of the union recognized by law.

Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not preclude a spouse of a subsisting marriage to
question the validity of a subsequent marriage on the ground of bigamy. On the contrary, when
Section 2(a) states that "[a] petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be
filed solely by the husband or the wife"it refers to the husband or the wife of the subsisting
marriage. Under Article 35(4) of the Family Code, bigamous marriages are void from the beginning.
Thus, the parties in a bigamous marriage are neither the husband nor the wife under the law. The
husband or the wife of the prior subsisting marriage is the one who has the personality to file a
petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage under Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-
SC.