Case Summary (G.R. No. 211724)
Petitioner’s Claim and Evidence
Petitioner discovered his NSO birth certificate listed him as “Felipe Condeno” despite his long use of the surname “Almojuela” for approximately sixty years. He filed a Petition for Correction of Entry in the NSO birth certificate, seeking to change his surname from Condeno to Almojuela. He relied on widespread and continuous use of the surname Almojuela in official and private records (school records, GSIS membership, government service records including an appointment, passport, marriage contract, and other documents). He also presented a Local Civil Registrar-issued birth certificate showing “Felipe Almojuela” as his registered full name, although the Book of Births in the custody of the Municipal Civil Registrar ultimately reflected “Felipe Condeno.”
Procedural Chronology and Key Dates
- Petitioner born February 25, 1950 (Pandan, Catanduanes).
- Petition filed in RTC (Spec. Proc. No. 1345) — petition filed December 17, 2010 (per record).
- RTC initial Order dismissing petition (January 10, 2011) for improper invocation of Rule 108 and because a similar petition had been dismissed.
- RTC reconsideration Order allowing evidence (February 9, 2011).
- RTC Decision granting petition and ordering correction of municipal and NSO records (October 6, 2011).
- RTC Order denying OSG motion for reconsideration (November 14, 2011).
- CA Decision reversing and nullifying the RTC orders (February 27, 2014).
- Supreme Court resolution affirming CA (decision rendered August 24, 2016).
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
Primary procedural framework: Rule 108 of the Rules of Court (correction or cancellation of entries in the civil register), specifically Sections 3, 4 and 5 (parties, notice and publication, opposition). Substantive family law reference: Article 176 of the Family Code as amended by Republic Act No. 9255 (recognition and use of father’s surname). The Court’s review rests on the rule-making authority of the Supreme Court under Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, which legitimizes procedural rules like Rule 108.
RTC Proceedings and Rationale for Granting Correction
After reconsideration and presentation of evidence, the RTC concluded that permitting petitioner to retain the surname he had used for over sixty years would avoid confusion and cause no prejudice to the Almojuela family. The RTC found petitioner accepted and acknowledged by half-siblings and ordered correction of petitioner’s municipal birth records first, to be followed by correction in NSO records.
OSG Opposition and Procedural Challenge
The OSG moved for reconsideration before the RTC, asserting lack of jurisdiction due to defective publication and improper captioning of the petition (alleging the petition failed to state petitioner’s alias/other name, the name sought to be adopted, and the cause for change of name). The RTC denied that motion, concluding that the petition sought correction of NSO entries and that jurisdictional requirements had been met.
Court of Appeals’ Reversal — Grounds
The CA reversed and set aside the RTC’s decisions on two primary grounds: (1) failure to strictly comply with Rule 108’s mandatory party-joinder and notice requirements — petitioner did not implead or notify the Local Civil Registrar and his half-siblings who would be affected by the correction; and (2) the requested correction was not merely clerical but implicative of filiation, and petitioner had not shown recognition of paternity as required under Article 176 of the Family Code (as amended by RA 9255), thereby precluding use of the Almojuela surname as a matter of substantive entitlement.
Legal Standards on Rule 108 Compliance
The Supreme Court reiterated that Rule 108 prescribes an adversary proceeding for substantial corrections to the civil register. Sections 3–5 mandate: (a) the civil registrar and all persons claiming any interest affected thereby must be made parties; (b) reasonable notice to persons named in the petition and publication once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province; and (c) opportunity to file opposition within 15 days. The Court emphasized the dual notice requirement: notice to persons named and to other persons who may be affected though not named.
Jurisprudential Support and Indispensability of Parties
The Court relied on prior decisions (as cited in the record) holding that the civil registrar is an indispensable party and that omission to implead or notify affected persons renders the proceedings void for lack of jurisdiction. Cases applied in like contexts include Republic v. Coseteng‑Magpayo, Labayo‑Rowe v. Republic, Republic v. Uy, and related authorities cited by the CA and RTC. The Court reiterated that Rule 108 cannot be stretched to effect substantial, controversial alterations (e.g., legitimacy, paternity, citizenship) withou
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 211724)
Case Caption and Docket Information
- Reported at 793 Phil. 780, First Division; G.R. No. 211724; Decision date: August 24, 2016.
- Nature of proceeding: Petition for review on certiorari from the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV. No. 98082 (Decision dated February 27, 2014).
- Lower tribunal: Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Virac, Catanduanes, Branch 43, Special Proceeding No. 1345.
- Parties: Petitioner — Felipe C. Almojuela; Respondent — Republic of the Philippines (represented by the Office of the Solicitor General).
- Disposition at Supreme Court: Resolution penned by Justice Perlas-Bernabe; Chief Justice Sereno (Chairperson), Justices Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, and Caguioa concurred.
Factual Background
- Petitioner Felipe C. Almojuela had for almost sixty (60) years used the surname “Almojuela.”
- Upon requesting his birth certificate from the National Statistics Office (NSO), petitioner discovered the NSO record registered him as “Felipe Condeno,” rather than “Felipe Almojuela.”
- Petitioner alleged birth on February 25, 1950 in Pandan, Catanduanes.
- Petitioner alleged he is the acknowledged natural child of Jorge V. Almojuela (father), former governor of Catanduanes, and Francisca B. Condeno (mother), both deceased, and that his parents did not marry each other.
- Petitioner asserted long-standing use of the surname “Almojuela” in official and legal documents, including: elementary to college school records; GSIS membership certificate; government service records; appointment as Provincial General Services Officer; Civil Service Commission First Grade Entrance Examination rating report; Philippine passport; marriage contract; and Certificate of Compensation Payment/Tax Withheld.
- Petitioner presented a copy of a birth certificate issued by the Local Civil Registrar of the Municipality of Pandan, Catanduanes, showing “Felipe Almojuela” as his registered full name.
- During RTC proceedings, it was discovered that the Book of Births in the custody of the Municipal Civil Registrar of Pandan reflected the name “Felipe Condeno,” contrary to petitioner’s allegation.
Relief Sought
- Petitioner filed a Petition for Correction of Entry in his NSO birth certificate seeking the change of his surname from “Condeno” to “Almojuela.”
- The petition sought correction of entry in the records of the NSO and related correction in the local Book of Births and that the Civil Registrar General be furnished with the corrected birth certificate.
Procedural History — RTC
- Petition filed on December 17, 2010 (petition not attached to the rollo).
- RTC initially dismissed the petition by Order dated January 10, 2011 on grounds that recourse to Rule 108 (correction of entry) was improper because the matter involved filiation and should be filed under Rule 103; RTC also noted a similar petition (Spec. Proc. No. 1229) had been dismissed.
- Petitioner moved for reconsideration; in an Order dated February 9, 2011, the RTC reconsidered and allowed petitioner to present evidence.
- RTC, upon evidence and consideration, issued Decision dated October 6, 2011 granting the petition: ordered correction of petitioner’s surname from “Condeno” to “Almojuela” in the Book of Births of the Municipal Civil Registrar and instructed the Municipal Civil Registrar to furnish the Civil Registrar General with a copy of the corrected birth certificate.
- RTC qualified its order by directing that the Book of Births be corrected first before NSO records could be corrected.
- The Republic (via OSG) moved for reconsideration before the RTC, citing lack of jurisdiction due to defective publication and asserting defects in the petition caption (alleged omission of alias/other name sought, name to be adopted, and cause for change).
- RTC denied OSG’s motion in an Order dated November 14, 2011 and reiterated that the petition was for correction of entry under Rule 108 and that jurisdictional requirements had been satisfied.
OSG’s Contentions on Reconsideration (before RTC and on appeal)
- The caption/title of the petition allegedly failed to state: (a) the alias or other name of petitioner; (b) the name he seeks to adopt; and (c) the cause for the change of name — omissions which the OSG argued rendered the petition defective.
- OSG argued lack of jurisdiction due to defective publication and procedural defects in the petition.
Court of Appeals Decision
- CA Decision dated February 27, 2014 reversed and set aside the RTC Decision and Order, nullifying the RTC’s order for correction of entry in petitioner’s birth certificate.
- CA hel