The person wanting to change or cancel the entry must know the proper legal remedy to avail (himself of) to avoid wasting his or her time and resources; this will also limit the unnecessary filing of actions in courts
One of the most common legal problems encountered in the Philippines is an error of entry in the birth certificate.
The errors can occur in the first name, middle name, surname, citizenship, sex of the person, birth month, birth year, or in the name of a parent.
Entries may also be canceled and corrected for: (a) marriage; (b) deaths; (c) judgments of annulment of marriage; (e) judgments for nullity of marriage; (f) legitimations; (g) adoptions; (h) acknowledgments of natural children; (i) naturalization; (j) election, loss or recovery of citizenship; or (k) judicial determination of filiation, among others (see Section 2, Rule 108, Rules of Court).
However, knowing what to correct, rectify, or cancel in an official government record is only the first step.
The person wanting to change or cancel the entry must know the proper legal remedy to avail (himself of) to avoid wasting his or her time and resources; this will also limit the unnecessary filing of actions in courts.
In 2001, Republic Act 9048 vested the civil registrar with primary jurisdiction over the correction of certain clerical or typographical errors and changes of first name.
Examples are: misspelled first name from Frank to Franco, change of first name from Michael to Michelle, or change from Kristoffersonfordham to Kristoffer because it is hard to pronounce.
More than a decade later, “Republic Act 10172 expanded the coverage of the summary administrative procedure provided under Republic Act 9048 to include clerical corrections in the day and/or month in the date of birth, or in the sex of the person, where it is patently clear that there was a clerical or typographical error or mistake in the entry” (Santos v. Republic, et al., G.R. 250520, May 5, 2021).
The Supreme Court, in the case of Bartolome v. Republic, summarized the rules:
“1. A person seeking 1) to change his or her first name, 2) to correct clerical or typographical errors in the civil register, 3) to change/correct the day and/or month of his or her date of birth, and/or 4) to change/correct his or her sex, where it is patently clear that there was a clerical or typographical error or mistake, must first file a verified petition with the local civil registry office of the city or municipality where the record being sought to be corrected or changed is kept, in accordance with the administrative proceeding provided under R.A. 9048 in relation to R.A. 10172.
2. A person seeking 1) to change his or her surname or 2) to change both his or her first name and surname may file a petition for change of name under Rule 103, provided that the jurisprudential grounds discussed in Republic v. Hernandez are present.
3. A person seeking substantial cancellations or corrections of entries in the civil registry may file a petition for cancellation or correction of entries under Rule 108… [R]ule 108 now applies only to substantial changes and corrections in entries in the civil register” (G.R. 243288, August 28, 2019).
It must be underscored that a “person may only avail (himself) of the appropriate judicial remedies under Rule 103 or Rule 108 [in the entries referred to as number 1 above] after the petition in the administrative proceedings is filed and later denied” (G.R. 243288, August 28, 2019).
In the Bartolome case, Ruben Bartolome filed a petition for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court seeking to correct the name “Feliciano Bartholome” as appearing in his birth certificate to “Ruben [Cruz] Bartolome.”
He claimed he had been using the name “Ruben [Cruz] Bartolome” since his childhood.
The issue to be resolved by the Supreme Court was “[w]hether the change/correction sought in petitioner’s first name, middle name, and surname, as appearing in his birth certificate, from ‘Feliciano Bartholome’ to ‘Ruben Cruz Bartolome’ should be filed under R.A. 9048, Rule 103, or Rule 108 of the Rules” (G.R. 243288, August 28, 2019).
“In Republic v. Sali, the Court held that a change of therein respondent Lorena Omapas Sali’s first name from ‘Dorothy’ to ‘Lorena’ was primarily administrative in nature and should be filed under the procedure provided in R.A. 9048.
“Hence, the change of first name from ‘Feliciano’ to ‘Ruben’ should have been filed with the local civil registry pursuant to Republic Act 9048” (cited in G.R. 243288, August 28, 2019).
“In Republic v. Gallo, the Court unequivocally held that a prayer to enter a person’s middle name is a mere clerical error, which may be corrected by referring to existing records.”
Thus, Bartolome’s prayer that his middle name, ‘Cruz’ be entered, is a mere clerical correction and must be undertaken through the administrative proceeding provided under Republic Act 9048 (G.R. 243288, August 28, 2019).
“As regards petitioner’s (Bartolome) misspelled surname, it bears noting that in 1988 and prior to the enactment of R.A. 9048 as amended, the Court, in Labayo-Rowe v. Republic, held that a correction in the spelling of therein petitioner’s surname from “Labayo/Labayu” to “Labayo” was a mere clerical error that could be corrected through a summary proceeding under Rule 108” (G.R. 243288, August 28, 2019).
“In Labayo-Rowe, the Court defined clerical errors as ‘those harmless and innocuous changes such as the correction of names clearly misspelled, occupation of parents, errors that are visible to the eye or obvious to the understanding, errors made by a clerk or transcriber, or a mistake in copying or writing’” (G.R. 243288, August 28, 2019).
“It can be readily seen that this jurisprudential definition was expressly incorporated into R.A. 9048, which, as already discussed, expressly removed the correction of clerical or typographical errors from the ambit of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court…
“[T]he Court categorically holds that typographical or clerical errors in a person’s surname must likewise be corrected through the administrative proceeding…”(G.R. 243288, August 28, 2019).
“As herein petitioner’s allegedly misspelled surname, ‘Bartholome’ may be readily corrected by merely referring to the existing records of the civil registrar, such as the surnames of petitioner’s parents and immediate family members, the petition should have been filed under R.A. 9048 and not under Rule 103 of the Rules” (G.R. 243288, August 28, 2019).
“In sum, … if the prayer to administratively change petitioner’s first name is denied, the same may be brought under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court.
“If the prayers to administratively correct petitioner’s middle name and surname are denied, the same may be brought under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court” (G.R. 243288, August 28, 2019).
In the case of Santos v. Republic et al., Luigi Santos, son of Bong Revilla with another woman, “prays that he be allowed to change his surname from ‘Santos’ to ‘Revilla’ to ‘avoid confusion, x x x to show [his] sincere and genuine desire to associate himself to (sic) [Bong] Revilla[,] Jr. and to the Revillas, x x x to show that he accepts and embraces his true identity, and to show his true and genuine love to his biological father” (G.R. 250520, May 05, 2021).
The Supreme Court held “that petitioner correctly availed himself of the remedy under Rule 103 to change his surname from “Santos” to “Revilla.”
Contrary to the findings of the CA, Rule 108 is inapplicable as petitioner does not allege or identify any erroneous entry that requires substantial rectification or cancellation” (G.R. 250520, May 05, 2021).
“In the instant case, it is apparent that petitioner does not seek to correct any clerical or substantial error in his birth certificate or to effect any changes in his status as an adopted child of Patrick Santos.
“As such, neither Rule 108 nor R.A. 9048 as amended applies… [t]hus, he properly availed himself of… Rule 103 since he ‘seeks to alter the designation by which he is known and called in the community’” (G.R. 250520, May 5, 2021).
While the legal procedure was correct, there is “no basis to allow petitioner to change his (surname) to ‘Revilla’ simply because he is, biologically, the son of Bong Revilla and wants to associate himself with the Revilla family.”
Besides, the “adoption [of Luigi Santos by Patrick Santos] severs all legal ties between the adoptee and his or her biological parents” (G.R. 250520, May 5, 2021).
It is evident “[t]he State has an interest in the names borne by individuals and entities for purposes of identification.
A change of name is a privilege, not a right [and for this reason] [p]etitions for change of name are controlled by statutes” (Silverio v. Republic cited in G.R. 243288, August 28, 2019).