Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 39 views

    Republic of The Philippines V. Lorena Omapas Sali G.R. NO. 206023 April 3, 2017 Peralta

    Uploaded by

    Bion Henrik Priolo
    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) While the petitioner sought to correct clerical errors in her name and birthdate, the trial court did not have primary jurisdiction over the request to change her first name, which should have been filed administratively first. 2) The trial court correctly had jurisdiction over correcting only the birthdate, as the law at the time did not include date of birth changes under the authority of local registrars. 3) The petition was dismissed to the extent it sought to change the first name, but the correction of the birthdate from June to April was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Republic of The Philippines V. Lorena Omapas Sali G.R. NO. 206023 April 3, 2017 Peralta

    Uploaded by

    Bion Henrik Priolo
    39 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) While the petitioner sought to correct clerical errors in her name and birthdate, the trial court did not have primary jurisdiction over the request to change her first name, which should have been filed administratively first. 2) The trial court correctly had jurisdiction over correcting only the birthdate, as the law at the time did not include date of birth changes under the authority of local registrars. 3) The petition was dismissed to the extent it sought to change the first name, but the correction of the birthdate from June to April was affirmed.

    Original Title

    81. Republic v. Omapas-Sali - Special Proceedings

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) While the petitioner sought to correct clerical errors in her name and birthdate, the trial court did not have primary jurisdiction over the request to change her first name, which should have been filed administratively first. 2) The trial court correctly had jurisdiction over correcting only the birthdate, as the law at the time did not include date of birth changes under the authority of local registrars. 3) The petition was dismissed to the extent it sought to change the first name, but the correction of the birthdate from June to April was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    39 views2 pages

    Republic of The Philippines V. Lorena Omapas Sali G.R. NO. 206023 April 3, 2017 Peralta

    Uploaded by

    Bion Henrik Priolo
    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) While the petitioner sought to correct clerical errors in her name and birthdate, the trial court did not have primary jurisdiction over the request to change her first name, which should have been filed administratively first. 2) The trial court correctly had jurisdiction over correcting only the birthdate, as the law at the time did not include date of birth changes under the authority of local registrars. 3) The petition was dismissed to the extent it sought to change the first name, but the correction of the birthdate from June to April was affirmed.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

    LORENA OMAPAS SALI


    G.R. NO. 206023 April 3, 2017 Peralta, J.

    FACTS:

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

    1. Petitioner is a Filipino, of legal age, single and a resident of 941 D. Veloso St. Baybay,
    Leyte;
    2. The respondent is located in Baybay City, Leyte and within the jurisdiction of this
    Honorable Court where it can be served with summons and other processes of this
    Honorable Court;
    3. All parties herein have the capacity to sue and be sued;
    4. Petitioner is the daughter of Spouses Vedasto A. Omapas and Almarina A. Albay who
    was born on April 24, 1968 in Baybay, Leyte.
    5. Unfortunately, in recording the facts of her birth, the personnel of the Local Civil
    Registrar of Baybay, Leyte thru inadvertence and mistake erroneously entered in the
    records the following: the first name of the petitioner as “DOROTHY” instead of
    “LORENA” and, the date of birth of the petitioner as “June 24, 1968” instead of “April
    24, 1968.”
    6. The petitioner has been using the name “Lorena A. Omapas and her date of birth as
    “April 24, 1968” for as long as she since she could remember and is known to the
    community in general as such;
    7. To sustain petitioner’s claim that the entries in her Certificate of Live Birth pertaining to
    her first name and date of birth should be corrected so that it will now read as “LORENA
    A. OMAPAS” and “April 24, 1968” respectively; and
    8. This petition is intended neither for the petitioner to escape criminal and/or civil liability,
    nor affect the hereditary succession of any person whomsoever but solely for the
    purpose of setting the records of herein petitioner straight.

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

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

    ISSUES: 
    1. Whether or not the Petition of Lorena Omapas Sali is for a change of name as
    contemplated under Rule 103 of the Rules and not for correction of entries under Rule
    108.
    2. Whether or not the Regional Trial Ciurt has jurisdiction over the petition.

    RULING:

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

    However, at the time Sali’s petition was filed, R.A. No. 9048 was already in effect. Section 1 of
    the law states: SECTION 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or Typographical Error and Change of
    First Name or Nickname. – No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a
    judicial order, except for clerical or typographical errors and change of first name or nickname
    which can be corrected or changed by the concerned city or municipal civil registrar or consul
    general in accordance with the provisions of this Act and its implementing rules and regulations.

    The petition for change of first name may be allowed, among other grounds, if the new first
    name has been habitually and continuously used by the petitioner and he or she has been
    publicly known by that first name in the community. The local city or municipal civil registrar or
    consul general has the primary jurisdiction to entertain the petition. It is only when such
    petition is denied that a petitioner may either appeal to the civil registrar general or file the
    appropriate petition with the proper court.

    2. NO. In this case, the petition, insofar as it prayed for the change of Sali’s first name, was not
    within the RTC’s primary jurisdiction. It was improper because the remedy should have been
    administrative, i.e., filing of the petition with the local civil registrar concerned. For failure to
    exhaust administrative remedies, the RTC should have dismissed the petition to correct Sali’s
    first name.

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

    You might also like