Case Summary (G.R. No. 243288)
Key Dates
Petitioner filed his petition in 2014.
RTC decision: October 21, 2015.
CA decision: April 26, 2018.
CA resolution denying reconsideration: November 26, 2018.
Supreme Court decision: August 28, 2019.
Applicable Law
Primary statutes and rules relied upon: 1987 Constitution (applicable as the decision date is 1990 or later), Republic Act No. 9048 (as amended by R.A. 10172), Rules of Court — Rule 103 (change of name) and Rule 108 (cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry), Civil Code Articles 376 and 412 (as historically governing name changes and registry corrections). Key jurisprudence cited includes Republic v. Gallo, Silverio v. Republic, Republic v. Cagandahan, Republic v. Sali, Mercadera, Republic v. Hernandez, Labayo-Rowe, and others discussed by the courts below.
Factual Background
Petitioner sought judicial relief to change the entries in his birth certificate from “Feliciano Bartholome” to “Ruben Cruz Bartolome,” alleging that he has used the name “Ruben [Cruz] Bartolome” since childhood. He submitted documentary evidence bearing the name “Ruben C. Bartolome,” including a medical diploma (1965), CSC certificate for medical examiners (1965), PRC ID (1968), marriage contract (1968), passport (2010), senior citizens ID (2002), and an NBI clearance (2011). The State was notified and the city prosecutor deputized to appear, but no motion to dismiss, comment, opposition, or controverting evidence was filed by the State. Petitioner’s father and siblings were never impleaded.
Procedural Posture
Petitioner filed a petition for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court before the RTC. After trial, the RTC denied the petition. Petitioner appealed to the CA; the CA denied the appeal and later denied his motion for reconsideration. Petitioner then filed a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.
RTC Ruling
The RTC denied the petition on three grounds: (1) failure to exhaust administrative remedies — the RTC viewed the change of first name as a matter governed by R.A. 9048 and therefore administrative; (2) insufficiency of evidence — the RTC found petitioner did not satisfactorily prove habitual and continuous use of “Ruben C. Bartolome” since childhood; and (3) improper venue — for correction of the surname the RTC held the proper venue was the RTC of Manila where the civil registry record is kept, pursuant to Rule 108.
CA Ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC. The CA held that petitioner should have sought relief under R.A. 9048 (correction of entries and change of first name via administrative proceedings) rather than a Rule 103 petition. The CA also found petitioner failed to prove the actual spelling of his father’s and siblings’ surname as “Bartolome.” The CA denied reconsideration, prompting the Supreme Court review.
Issue Presented
Whether the petitioner’s requested change/correction of his first name, middle name, and surname in his birth certificate—from “Feliciano Bartholome” to “Ruben Cruz Bartolome”—should have been pursued under R.A. 9048 (as amended by R.A. 10172), under Rule 103 (change of name), or under Rule 108 (correction/cancellation of entries).
Supreme Court Ruling — Holding
The petition was denied. The Supreme Court agreed with the CA and OSG that the administrative procedures under R.A. 9048, as amended by R.A. 10172, govern the changes and corrections sought in this case. The Court explained the current allocation of remedies and procedure following statutory amendment and controlling jurisprudence.
Supreme Court Rationale — Law and Precedent
- The Court reiterated the distinction between judicial change-of-name proceedings (Rule 103) and corrections or changes now amenable to administrative procedure under R.A. 9048 and R.A. 10172. Historically Articles 376 and 412 of the Civil Code required judicial authority for name changes or registry corrections; R.A. 9048 removed from judicial ambit certain clerical/typographical errors and changes of first name or nickname by vesting authority in the city/municipal civil registrar or consul general. R.A. 10172 further extended administrative correction to the day and month of birth and sex where a clerical or typographical error is patently clear.
- The Court summarized the operative rules post-amendments:
- Changes of first name, corrections of clerical/typographical errors in the civil register, and changes/corrections of day/month of birth or sex (when patently clerical) must first be filed administratively with the local civil registry under R.A. 9048 (as amended).
- A change of surname, or a combined change of first name and surname, may be litigated under Rule 103, but only after an administrative petition has been filed and denied; Rule 103 also requires the jurisprudential grounds for substantive name changes.
- Substantial cancellations or corrections in the civil registry remain within Rule 108, but clerical or typographical corrections are administratively remediable and subject to Rule 108 only after administrative denial when applicable.
- The Court cited Republic v. Gallo and other authorities to show that entering a middle name and correcting misspellings that are evident from existing records are clerical corrections suitable for administrative relief.
- The Court emphasized that Rules 103 and 108 now operate only after administrative proceedings under R.A. 9048 are first resorted to and denied.
Application to Petitioner’s Claims
- Change of first name: Petitioner sought to change “Feliciano” to “Ruben.” Under R.A. 9048 (Section 4), grounds for administrative change of first name include habitual and continuous use and public recognition by the new first name. Such relief is primarily administrative; petitioner should have filed with the local civil registrar where the record is kept. Judicial remedy under Rule 103 would be available only if the administrative petition is filed and denied.
- Inclusion of middle name: Entry of
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 243288)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for review on certiorari filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the April 26, 2018 Decision and November 26, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV. No. 106384.
- The CA Decision denied petitioner’s appeal and affirmed the October 21, 2015 Decision of Branch 258, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City in S.P. Proc. Case No. 14-0100, which denied petitioner’s petition for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court.
- The RTC denied the petition on three grounds: failure to exhaust administrative remedies, insufficiency of evidence, and improper venue.
- The CA denied petitioner’s appeal and later denied his motion for reconsideration; petitioner then filed the present Supreme Court Petition insisting Rule 103 was the proper remedy.
- The Supreme Court denied the Petition and affirmed the CA Decision and Resolution, without prejudice to filing the appropriate administrative proceeding under R.A. 9048 as amended by R.A. 10172.
Parties and Representation
- Petitioner: Dr. Ruben C. Bartolome (filed as petitioner seeking name change/correction).
- Respondent: Republic of the Philippines.
- Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) was notified and Office of the City Prosecutor of Parañaque City was deputized to appear on behalf of the State.
- Records indicate no motion to dismiss questioning court jurisdiction or venue was filed by the State; the State did not present controverting evidence nor file any comment or opposition.
Facts and Nature of Relief Sought
- In 2014 petitioner, a resident of Parañaque City, filed a petition for change of name under Rule 103 seeking “to correct the name ‘Feliciano Bartholome’ as appearing in his birth certificate…,” and stating he has been using the name “Ruben [Cruz] Bartolome” since childhood.
- Petitioner sought to change his first name, to include his middle name, and to correct the spelling of his surname — specifically from “Feliciano Bartholome” on his birth certificate to “Ruben Cruz Bartolome.”
- Petitioner alleged habitual and continuous use of the name “Ruben C. Bartolome” since childhood and public recognition by that name in the community.
Evidence Presented by Petitioner
- After posting and publication, petitioner was allowed to present the following documents bearing the name “Ruben C. Bartolome”:
- Doctor of Medicine Diploma dated May 18, 1965;
- CSC Certificate for Medical Examiners Physician dated December 6, 1965;
- PRC ID No. 0030981 dated December 6, 1968;
- Marriage Contract No. 894-2-68 dated May 18, 1968;
- Philippine Passport No. EB 1611302 dated December 23, 2010;
- Senior Citizens ID Card No. 2006661 dated December 11, 2002;
- NBI Clearance No. 15050159 dated November 25, 2011.
- Records reflect that petitioner did not implead his father and siblings as parties and did not present evidence to show that his father’s or siblings’ surnames were actually spelled “Bartolome.”
Notifications, Joinder and Absences in the Record
- The OSG was notified and the Office of the City Prosecutor of Parañaque City was deputized to appear for the State, yet no motion to dismiss was filed by the State challenging jurisdiction or venue.
- The State filed no controverting evidence and filed no comment or opposition.
- Petitioner’s father and siblings were not impleaded in the petition.
RTC Ruling (Branch 258, Regional Trial Court, Parañaque City)
- The RTC denied the petition on the following grounds:
- Failure to exhaust administrative remedies: the RTC held petitioner availed of the wrong procedure for his first name because R.A. 9048 vests authority to entertain petitions for change of first name with the city or municipal registrar or consul general concerned.
- Improper venue for the surname correction: the RTC held the proper venue for correction of the birth certificate entry was the Regional Trial Court of Manila where the corresponding civil registry is located, pursuant to Section 1, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
- Insufficiency of evidence: the RTC found that the evidence was not sufficient to prove that petitioner had been habitually and continuously using the name “Ruben C. Bartolome” since childhood.
Court of Appeals Ruling
- The CA denied petitioner’s appeal, reiterating:
- The changes sought—change of first name and correction of surname as appearing in the birth certificate—are governed by R.A. 9048 and therefore should have been filed as an administrative petition with the local civil registrar, not as a Rule 103 judicial petition.
- Petitioner failed to adduce sufficient evidence to show that his father’s and siblings’ last name was actually spelled “Bartolome.”
- The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, prompting the present petition to the Supreme Court.
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the change/correction sought in petitioner’s first name, middle name, and surname, as 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.
Court’s Holding (Supreme Court)
- The Petition lacks merit.
- The CA and the OSG correctly found that the administrative proceeding under R.A. 9048 applies to all corrections sought in the instant case.
- All changes sought by petitioner fall within the ambit of R.A. 9048, as amended by R.A. 10172; petitioner may only avail of judicial remedies under Rule 103 or Rule 108 if the administrative petition is first filed and thereafter denied.
Legal Framework and Doctrinal Summary (Rules 103 and 108 in relation to R.A. 9048 and R.A. 10172)
- Historical baseline:
- Under Articles 376 and 412 of the Civil Code and pre-amendment jurisprudence, judicial authority was required to change a person’s name or to