G.R. No. 211724 - Almojuela vs. Republic

Petitioner: Felipe C. Almojuela, who for nearly sixty (60) years has been known and recognized by his family and community with the surname “Almojuela.”
Discovery of Discrepancy: Upon requesting a copy of his birth certificate from the National Statistics Office (NSO), petitioner found that his surname was recorded as “Condeno” instead of “Almojuela.”

Filing of Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Correction of Entry in his NSO birth certificate before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Virac, Catanduanes (Spec. Proc. No. 1345).
Allegations Presented:

Petitioner claimed he was born on February 25, 1950, in Pandan, Catanduanes.
He asserted that he is the natural child of Jorge V. Almojuela (a former governor of Catanduanes) and Francisca B. Condeno, despite their relationship being non-marital.
He relied on various evidences such as school records, government documents, and a copy of a birth certificate from the local civil registrar that showed his surname as “Almojuela.”

The RTC initially dismissed the petition on January 10, 2011, for being an improper recourse to Rule 108 since the petition was deemed more than a mere clerical correction but involved filiation.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, arguing that the petition was solely for correcting the surname on his birth certificate to match his long-standing usage.
The RTC then allowed petitioner to present further evidence by reconsidering its earlier disposition on February 9, 2011.

During the proceedings, it was discovered that the Book of Births in the custody of the Municipal Civil Registrar of Pandan, Catanduanes recorded the petitioner’s name as “Felipe Condeno” rather than “Felipe C. Almojuela.”
Notwithstanding the evidence, the RTC ruled in its Decision dated October 6, 2011 to grant the petition with the condition that the correction in the Municipal Civil Registrar’s record should be effected first.

The OSG raised issues of lack of jurisdiction due to defective publication.
It contended that the petition did not include the required information under Rule 108, such as the alias being used, the name sought, and the cause for the change.

The RTC maintained that the petition was for correcting the entry in the NSO records and that petitioner had complied with the jurisdictional requirements.

The OSG’s appeal was elevated to the CA.
In its Decision dated February 27, 2014, the CA reversed the RTC’s order granting the correction and nullified the order to change petitioner’s surname.
The CA found that petitioner failed to implead as required by Rule 108 both the Local Civil Registrar and his half-siblings, who were affected by the correction.

Whether petitioner’s failure to implead the Local Civil Registrar and his half-siblings constituted a lack of jurisdiction over the petition for correction of entry.
Whether the petition, although invoking Rule 108, sufficiently complied with its procedural requirements which mandate notice and inclusion of all interested or affected parties.

Whether the correction of petitioner’s surname was a mere clerical change or involved substantial and controversial issues regarding filiation.
Whether the rules governing correction of entry allow a subsequent determination of filiation issues without the proper adversary process.