G.R. No. 186027 - Republic vs. Mercadera

Merlyn Mercadera (Mercadera), through her Attorney-in-Fact Evelyn M. Oga, filed a petition for correction of her given name in her Certificate of Live Birth from "Marilyn L. Mercadera" to "Merlyn L. Mercadera."
The petition was filed before the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Dipolog City pursuant to Republic Act No. 9048 (R.A. No. 9048), which authorizes local civil registrars to correct clerical or typographical errors and effect change of first names or nicknames without judicial order.
The Local Civil Registrar of Dipolog City refused to make the correction, citing absence of a permanent appointment, thus requiring a court order.
Consequently, Mercadera filed a Petition for Correction of Some Entries under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 8, Dipolog City, docketed as Special Proceedings No. R-3427 (SP No. R-3427).

The RTC set a hearing and required notice via publication and posting, including notices to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and city civil registrar.
The OSG entered appearance but only on the hearing date, prompting a rescheduling.
On the new hearing date, with no opposition, the court allowed Mercadera to present her evidence ex parte.
Mercadera presented testimony and several documentary exhibits proving consistent use of the name "Merlyn" in her baptismal certificate, school diplomas, GSIS certificate, and community tax certificate, while the Certificate of Live Birth showed the registered name as "Marilyn."
The RTC admitted the evidence and granted the petition, ordering correction of her given name in the certificate of live birth from "Marilyn" to "Merlyn."

The OSG appealed the RTC decision, asserting that Mercadera sought a change rather than a correction of name and should have resorted to Rule 103 instead of Rule 108.
The OSG also questioned the admissibility of the documentary evidence and hearsay testimony.
The CA affirmed the RTC, ruling that the petition was for correction of an entry, not a change of name, and upheld the admissibility of evidence since there was no objection during trial.

The OSG filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court, reiterating the issues raised before the CA.
The Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) filed a Comment for Mercadera.
The Supreme Court took cognizance of the issues on the proper applicability of Rule 108 versus Rule 103 and the nature of the evidence admitted.

Whether the petition filed by Mercadera to correct her given name from "Marilyn" to "Merlyn" should have been under Rule 103 (Petition for Change of Name) instead of Rule 108 (Correction of Entries in Civil Registry).

Whether the RTC and CA erred in admitting and giving probative value to photocopies of documents and the hearsay testimony of Mercadera’s attorney-in-fact, Evelyn M. Oga.

Whether correction of Mercadera’s given name from "Marilyn" to "Merlyn" constitutes a material change of name involving modification of substantive rights or merely a clerical correction.