G.R. No. 243288 - Bartolome vs. Republic

Case Summary (G.R. No. 243288)

Factual Background

In 2014, petitioner filed a petition under Rule 103 before the RTC of Paranaque City seeking to correct his name in the birth certificate from "Feliciano Bartholome" to "Ruben Cruz Bartolome." Petitioner asserted that he had used the name "Ruben [Cruz] Bartolome" since childhood. After the required posting and publication, petitioner offered documentary evidence bearing the name "Ruben C. Bartolome," including his Doctor of Medicine diploma, civil service and professional credentials, marriage contract, passport, senior citizens card, and NBI clearance. The records show that the Office of the Solicitor General was notified and the City Prosecutor of Paranaque was deputized to appear for the State, but no motion to dismiss was filed, the State presented no controverting evidence, and petitioner's father and siblings were never impleaded.

Trial Court Proceedings

Following trial, the RTC denied the petition on October 21, 2015. The court found that the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies under R.A. 9048 for the requested change of first name; that the petition was improperly filed in the venue chosen for the requested surname correction because the proper registry was in Manila pursuant to Rule 108; and that the evidence was insufficient to prove habitual and continuous use of the name "Ruben C. Bartolome" since childhood.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC in its April 26, 2018 Decision and in its November 26, 2018 Resolution denying reconsideration. The CA concluded that petitioner should have availed himself of the administrative remedy under R.A. 9048, which governs change of first name and clerical corrections, rather than a Rule 103 petition. The CA also found insufficient proof that petitioner's father and siblings spelled their surname "Bartolome."

Petitioner's Contentions

Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court via Rule 45, maintaining that Rule 103 was the proper remedy for his cause and contending that R.A. 9048 covered changes in the "first name or nickname only" and did not extend to correction of his surname. He argued that requiring separate administrative filings would amount to an impermissible splitting of his cause of action.

Respondent's Position

In its Comment, the Office of the Solicitor General supported the CA ruling. The OSG asserted that petitioner should have first filed with the local civil registrar under R.A. 9048, as amended by R.A. 10172, to change his first name and to correct the spelling of his surname, and that both requested corrections were within the scope of the administrative remedy so that no unlawful splitting of causes occurred.

Issue Presented

The determinative issue was whether petitioner’s requested change and corrections of his first name, middle name, and surname as they appear in his birth certificate—from "Feliciano Bartholome" to "Ruben Cruz Bartolome"—should be pursued under R.A. 9048, under Rule 103, or under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court held that the CA and the OSG correctly ruled that the administrative procedure under R.A. 9048, as amended by R.A. 10172, applied to the changes and corrections sought by petitioner. The Court affirmed the CA Decision and Resolution and ordered that the denial be without prejudice to the filing of the appropriate administrative petition under R.A. 9048, as amended.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reviewed the jurisprudential distinction between Rule 103 and Rule 108 and explained the effect of R.A. 9048 and R.A. 10172, relying on its prior discussions in Republic v. Gallo, Silverio v. Republic, Republic v. Cagandahan, and Republic v. Sali. The Court observed that prior to R.A. 9048 changes of name and corrections of registry entries required judicial authority under Articles 376 and 412 of the Civil Code and proceeded under Rule 103 or Rule 108. R.A. 9048 removed from the ambit of Rule 108 clerical or typographical errors and vested primary jurisdiction to correct such errors and to change first names or nicknames with the city or municipal civil registrar or consul general, thereby converting those remedies into primarily administrative proceedings. R.A. 10172 further clarified and expanded the administrative corrections to include day and month of birth and sex where the error is patently clerical or typographical.

Application of Statutory Criteria to Petitioner’s Claims

The Court applied R.A. 9048 and its definitions in Sections 1, 2, and 4 to petitioner’s claims. The requested change of first name from "Feliciano" to "Ruben" fell squarely within the administrative remedy because Section 4 of R.A. 9048 lists grounds such as habitual and continuous use of a new first name and public recognition by that name, which are grounds for administrative relief. The inclusion of petitioner’s middle name "Cruz" was classified as a clerical correction under Section 2(3) and thus administrative. The alleged misspelling of the surname "Bartholome" was likewise characterized as a clerical or typographical error that could be corrected administratively by reference to existing records, in line with the reasoning in Labayo-Rowe v. Republic and subsequent rulings that such typographical surname corrections are covered by R.A. 9048. The Court therefore concluded that all the changes petitioner sought were subject to the administrative procedure and that judicial remedies under Rule 103 or Rule 108 are available only after denial of the administrative petition.

Evidence and Findings of Habitual Use

The Court noted that both the RTC and the CA found that petitioner failed to prove habitual and continuous use of the name "Ruben Cruz Bartolome" since childhood and failed to establish that his father’s and siblings’ surnames were spelled "Bartolome." The Court emphasized the threshold rule that resolution of factual issues is the function of the lower courts and that such findings are generally binding on the Supreme Court. No excep

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 243288)

Parties and Procedural Posture

DR. RUBEN C. BARTOLOME filed a petition for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court in the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City seeking to change his birth certificate entry from "Feliciano Bartholome" to "Ruben Cruz Bartolome".
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES was represented by notice to the Office of the Solicitor General and by deputized appearance of the Office of the City Prosecutor of Parañaque City, but no motion to dismiss or opposition was filed by the State.
The trial court denied the petition and the Court of Appeals affirmed in its April 26, 2018 Decision and November 26, 2018 Resolution in CA-G.R. CV. No. 106384.
Petitioner invoked a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court before the Supreme Court.

Key Facts

Petitioner alleged that he has been using the name "Ruben Cruz Bartolome" since childhood and sought correction of his first name, the inclusion of his middle name, and correction of the surname spelling on his birth certificate.
Petitioner submitted documentary evidence consisting of a Doctor of Medicine diploma, a CSC certificate for medical examiners, a PRC identification card, a marriage contract, a Philippine passport, a Senior Citizens ID card, and an NBI clearance, all bearing the name "Ruben C. Bartolome".
The records show that petitioner did not implead his father or siblings as parties and did not present direct proof of his family's surname spelling.
The State did not present controverting evidence to challenge petitioner’s documentary submissions.

Trial Court Ruling

The RTC denied the petition for change of name on three grounds: failure to exhaust administrative remedies, insufficiency of evidence, and improper venue.
The RTC held that a petition to change a first name should have been filed under R.A. 9048 with the city or municipal civil registrar and not directly under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court.
The RTC found the venue improper for the surname correction and indicated that the Regional Trial Court of Manila, where the civil registry is located, was the proper judicial forum pursuant to Rule 108.
The RTC concluded that the evidence was insufficient to prove habitual and continuous use of the name "Ruben C. Bartolome" since childhood.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s appeal and agreed that petitioner should have first pursued administrative remedy under R.A. 9048 rather than a direct Rule 103 action.
The Court of Appeals found that petitioner failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish that his father’s and siblings’ surname were spelled "Bartolome".
The Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, leading to the present petition.

Issues Presented

Whether the change or correction sought in petitioner’s first name, middle name, and surname 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 of Court.

Supreme Court Ruling

The petition for review under Rule 45 lacked merit and was denied.
The Supreme Court affirmed the rulings of the Court of Appeals and the tri