G.R. No. 207074 - Republic vs. Gallo

On May 13, 2010, Michelle Soriano Gallo filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ilagan City, Isabela (Special Proc. No. 2155) a petition under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court to correct her Certificate of Live Birth.
She sought to change her first name from “Michael” to “Michelle,” to correct her biological sex from “Male” to “Female,” and to supply missing middle names (hers: Soriano; mother’s: Angangan; father’s: Balingao) and her parents’ marriage date (May 23, 1981).

The RTC set the petition for hearing on August 2, 2010, ordered publication of notice, and allowed the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor (authorized by the OSG) to appear. Gallo testified and submitted documentary proof (diploma, transcript, voter’s certification, medical certificate, birth and marriage certificates).
On December 7, 2010, the RTC granted the petition as “harmless and innocuous.” It cited Rule 108 and Republic v. Cagandahan for jurisdiction.
The OSG appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that Rule 103 (change of name) applied, and that Gallo failed to comply with its jurisdictional requirements.
On April 29, 2013, the CA denied the appeal, holding that the corrections were clerical, thus properly under Rule 108 (and later RA 10172/RA 9048 for administrative correction).
The Republic then filed a petition for review under Rule 45 before the Supreme Court, raising procedural and legal errors in the lower courts’ rulings.

Did the Republic improperly raise a factual question—whether Gallo’s requested change was substantive rather than clerical—in a Rule 45 petition limited to legal issues?
Does Gallo’s petition involve a substantial change of name under Rule 103 or only clerical corrections under Rule 108 and Republic Act 9048 (as amended by RA 10172)?

Did Gallo fail to exhaust the administrative remedy before the civil registrar under RA 9048, and thus violate the doctrine of primary jurisdiction?