G.R. No.

197174 September 10, 2014

FRANCLER P. ONDE, Petitioner,

RESOLUTION

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Before us is a petition for review on certiorari of the Orders1 dated October 7, 2010 and March 1, 2011
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 201, Las Piñas City, in Special Proceedings Case No. 10-0043.
The RTC dismissed the case filed by petitioner Francler P. Onde for correction of entries in his certificate
of live birth.

The antecedent facts follow:

Petitioner filed a petition2 for correction of entries in his certificate of live birth before the R TC and
named respondent Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Las Pifias City as sole respondent. Petitioner
alleged that he is the illegitimate child of his parents Guillermo A. Onde and Matilde DC Pakingan, but
his birth certificate stated that his parents were married. His birth certificate also stated that his
mother's first name is Tely and that his first name is Franc Ler. He prayed that the following entries on
his birth certificate be corrected as follows:

Entry From To

1) Date and place of marriage of his parents December 23, 1983 - Bicol Not Married

2) First name of his mother Tely Matilde

3) His first name Franc Ler Francler

In its Order dated October 7, 2010, the RTC dismissed the petition for correction of entries on the
ground thatit is insufficient in form and substance. It ruled that the proceedings must be adversarial
since the first correction is substantial in nature and would affect petitioner’s status as a legitimate child.
It was further held that the correction in the first name of petitioner and his mother can be done by the
city civil registrar under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9048, entitled An Act Authorizing the City or Municipal
Civil Registrar or the ConsulGeneral to Correct a Clerical or Typographical Error in an Entry and/or
Change of First Name or Nickname in the Civil Registrar Without Need of a Judicial Order, Amending for
this Purpose Articles 376 and 412 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

In its Order dated March 1, 2011,the RTC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, as it found no
proof that petitioner’s parents were not married on December 23, 1983.
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.

Petitioner argues that Rule 108 ofthe Rules of Court allows a substantial correction of entries in the civil
registry, stating that in Eleosida v. Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City,3 the case cited by the RTC, we
have actually ruled that substantial changes in the civil registry are now allowed under Rule 108 of the
Rules of Court. He likewise adds that proof that his parents were not married will be presented during
the trial, not during the filing of the petition for correction of entries.

In its comment, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) contends that the RTC correctly dismissed the
petition for correction of entries. It points out that the first names of petitioner and his mother can be
corrected thru administrative proceedings under R.A. No. 9048. Such correction of 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 affecting his legitimacy. Hence, it must be dealt with in adversarial
proceedings where all interested parties are impleaded.

We deny the petition.

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. (Emphasis supplied.)

In Silverio v. Republic,6 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,7 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 ofCourt 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,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:10

x x x This is our ruling in Republic vs. Valenciawhere 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 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:
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,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.

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition and AFFIRM the Orders dated October 7, 2010 and March 1, 2011 of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 201, Las Pifias City, in Special Proceedings Case No. 10-0043. The
dismissal ordered by the Regional Trial Court is, however, declared to be without prejudice.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.