G.R. No. 181174 | December 4, 2009 | Carpio-MoralesFacts: Petitioner Ma. Cristinas husband,Pablo died on April 15, 2002 in a vehicular accident inIndonesia. During the wake following the repatriation of his remains to the Philippines, respondent Lucille Titular began introducing her co-respondent minor Patrick Alvin Titular Braza (Patrick) as her and Pablo's son.Petitioner thereupon made inquiries with the Local Civil Registrar of Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental. Onthe annotation of Patricks birth certificate reflects Patrick as having been acknowleged by Pablo (or Pablito)as son on January 13, 1997, that he was legitimated by virtue of subsequent marriage of parents on April 22,1998 at Manila, and that he shall be known as Patrick Titular Braza.Ma. Cristina likewise obtained a copy of a marriage contract showing that Pablo and Lucille were married onApril 22, 1998, drawing her and her co-petitioners (her three legitimate children with Pablo) to file onDecember 23, 2005 before the Regional Trial Court of Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental apetition tocorrect the entries in the birth record of Patrick in the Local Civil Register.Contending that Patrick could not have been legitimated by the supposed marriage between Lucille andPablo, said marriage being bigamous on account of the valid and subsisting marriage between Ma. Cristinaand Pablo, petitioners prayed for (1) thecorrection of the entriesin Patrick's birth record with respect to hislegitimation, the name of the father and his acknowledgment, and the use of the last name "Braza"; 2) adirective to Leon, Cecilia and Lucille, all surnamed Titular, as guardians of the minor Patrick, tosubmit Parick to DNA testingto 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, thedeclaration of the marriage of Lucille andPablo as bigamous. TC dismissed the petition, holding that in a special proceeding for correction of entry, the court, which is notacting as a family court under the Family Code, has no jurisdiction over an action to annul the marriage of Lucille and Pablo, impugn the legitimacy of Patrick, and order Patrick to be subjected to a DNA test, hence,the controversy should be ventilated in an ordinary adversarial action.MR was denied. Hence, this petition for review.Issue:WON the courta quomay pass upon the validity of marriage and questions on legitimacy even in anaction to correct entries in the civil registrar. (WON substantial errors, such as those sought to be correctedin the present case, can be the subject of a petition under Rule 108)Held:NO. 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 legitimacyand filiation.Ratio:Rule 108 of the Rules of Courtvis a visArticle 412 of the Civil Code charts the procedure by which anentry in the civil registry may be cancelled or corrected. The proceeding contemplated therein may generallybe used only to correct clerical, spelling, typographical and other innocuous errors in the civil registry. Aclerical error is one which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding; an error made by a clerk ora transcriber; a mistake in copying or writing, or a harmless change such as a correction of name that isclearly misspelled or of a misstatement of the occupation of the parent. Substantial or contentiousalterations may be allowed only in adversarial proceedings, in which all interested parties are impleaded anddue process is properly observed. The petitioners cause of action is actually to seek the declaration of Pablo and Lucilles marriage as void forbeing bigamous and impugn Patricks legitimacy, which causes of action are governed not by Rule 108 butby A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC which took effect on March 15, 2003, and Art. 171 of the Family Code, respectively,hence, the petition should be filed in a Family Court as expressly provided in said Code.It is well to emphasize that, doctrinally, validity of marriages as well as legitimacy and filiation can bequestioned only in a direct action seasonably filed by the proper party, and not through collateral attacksuch as the petition filed before the courta quo.Petition Denied.

You're reading a free preview. Page 2 is not shown in this preview.Haw Liong vs RPHaw Liong seeks to change his name to Alfonso Lantin. He wants to change his name because he is called by his Pinoy friend, Alfonso; his fathers name is Placido Lantin; he wants to have a Filipino name upon being a Filipino citizen; there is no pending case against him and if there be, he would answer for it. ALLOWED. Government appeals. The State has an interest in the names. Changing is a privilege not a right. There should be proper or reasonable cause or any compelling reason to justify the change. Like, 1. A ridiculous name or hard to pronounce or write, 2. Change of status, 3. To avoid confusion.Ruling:Petitioner has not shown any proper or compelling reason to justify. His claim which is merely supported by his own testimony cannot overcome the fact that the name given him from the very beginning as Haw Liong as in fact this is the name that appears in his landing certificate. In his business dealing, he never used the name Alfonso Lantin.Llaneta vs Agrava Atanacia Llaneta was once married to Serafin Ferrer, they had Victoriano. Serafin died and Anatacia saw another man and their love bore a child, Teresita. All her life, Teresita was known as a Ferrer. She later discovered her registered name is Llaneta, and that she is an illegitimate child. Teresita petitioned to change her name to avoid confusion and difficulties. DENIED.Ruling:Petitioner established she has been using Ferrer all her life. Even Serafins nextof kin tolerated and still approve of her use of the same. The CA denied such change of name as would give the false impression of family relationship. The principle remains valid but only to the extent that the proposed change of name would in great probability cause prejudice or future mischief. In the case at bar, Serafins widowed mother Victoria have come forward in earnest support of the petition. No opposition came forth and Teresita has a spotless record. GRANTED

Considering that she had used "Merlyn" as her given name sincechildhood until she discovered the discrepancy in her Certificate of Live Birth, the RTC was convinced that the correction was justified.The OSG timely appealed praying for the reversal and setting asideof the RTC decision. For the OSG, the correction in the spelling of Mercaderas given name "is in truth a material correction as it wouldmodify or increase substantive rights", which would have been proper had she filed a petition under Rule 103 and proved any of thegrounds therefor.The CA was not persuaded. In its December 9, 2008 Decision, theappellate court affirmed the questioned RTC order.On March 6, 2009, the OSG filed the present petition. On behalf of Mercadera, the Public Attorneys Office (PAO) filed its Comment onJuly 3, 2009.ISSUES:WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERREDON A QUESTION OF LAW IN GRANTING THE CHANGE INRESPONDENTS NAME UNDER RULE 103.HELD:Rule 103 procedurally governs judicial petitions for change of given name or surname, or both, pursuant to Article 376 of the CivilCode. This rule provides the procedure for an independent specialproceeding in court to establish the status of a person involving hisrelations with others, that is, his legal position in, or with regard to, therest of the community. Essentially, a change of name does not defineor effect a change of ones existing family relations or in the rightsand duties flowing therefrom. It does not alter ones legal capacity or civil status.Rule 108, on the other hand, implements judicial proceedings for thecorrection 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.In the case at bench, the OSG posits that the conversion from"MARILYN" to "MERLYN" is not a correction of an innocuous error but a material correction tantamount to a change of name whichentails a modification or increase in substantive rights. For the OSG,this is a substantial error that requires compliance with the procedureunder Rule 103, and not Rule 108. A change of ones name under Rule 103 can be granted, only ongrounds provided by law, there must be a proper and compellingreason for the change and proof that the person requesting will beprejudiced by the use of his official name. In petitions for correction,only clerical, spelling, typographical and other innocuous errors in thecivil registry may be raised. Considering that the enumeration inSection 2, Rule 108 also includes "changes of name," the correctionof a patently misspelled name is covered by Rule 108. Suffice it tosay, not all alterations allowed in ones name are confined under Rule103. Corrections for clerical errors may be set right under Rule 108.Thus, the petition filed by Mercadera before the RTC correctly fallsunder Rule 108 as it simply sought a correction of a misspelled givenname. To correct simply means "to make or set aright; to remove thefaults or error from." To change means "to replace something withsomething else of the same kind or with something that serves as asubstitute." From the allegations in her petition, Mercadera clearlyprayed for the lower court "to remove the faults or error" from her registered given name "MARILYN," and "to make or set aright" thesame to conform to the one she grew up to, "MERLYN." The CA didnot allow Mercadera the change of her name. What it did allow wasthe correction of her misspelled given name which she had beenusing ever since she could remember. Mercadera complied with the requirement for an adversarialproceeding before the lower court. The publication and posting of thenotice of hearing in a newspaper of general circulation and thenotices sent to the OSG and the Local Civil Registry are sufficientindicia of an adverse proceeding. Considering that the OSG did notoppose the petition and the motion to present its evidence ex partewhen it had the opportunity to do so, it cannot now complain that theproceedings in the lower court were procedurally defective.Wherefore, the December 9, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.

Gregory OngG.R. No. 177721, July 3, 2007

Only natural-born Filipino citizens may be appointed as justice of the Supreme CourtDecision of administrative body (Bureau of Immigration) declaring one a natural-born citizen is not binding upon the courts when there are circumstances that entail factual assertions that need to be threshed out in proper judicial proceedings.FACTS:

This case arose when respondent Gregory S. Ong was appointed by Executive Secretary, in representation of the Office of the President, as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Petitioners contended that respondent Ong is a Chinese citizen, born on May 25, 1953 to Chinese parents. They further added that even if it were granted that eleven years after respondent Ongs birth, his father was finally granted Filipino citizenship by naturalization, that, by itself, would not make respondent Ong a natural-born citizen. For his part, respondent Ong contended that he is a natural-born citizen and presented a certification from the Bureau of Immigration and the DOJ declaring him to be such.

ISSUE: Whether or not respondent Ong is a natural-born Filipino citizen

RULING: xxx respondent Ong is a naturalized Filipino citizen. The alleged subsequent recognition of his natural-born status by the Bureau of Immigration and the DOJ cannot amend the final decision of the trial court stating that respondent Ong and his mother were naturalized along with his father.The series of events and long string of alleged changes in the nationalities of respondent Ong's ancestors, by various births, marriages and deaths, all entail factual assertions that need to be threshed out in proper judicial proceedings so as to correct the existing records on his birth and citizenship. The chain of evidence would have to show that Dy Guiok Santos, respondent Ong's mother, was a Filipino citizen, contrary to what still appears in the records of this Court. Respondent Ong has the burden of proving in court his alleged ancestral tree as well as his citizenship under the time-line of three Constitutions. Until this is done, respondent Ong cannot accept an appointment to this Court as that would be a violation of the Constitution. For this reason, he can be prevented by injunction from doing so.