Title
Chomi vs. Local Civil Registrar of Manila
Case
G.R. No. L-9203
Decision Date
Sep 28, 1956
Petitioner sought correction of birth certificate errors, claiming clerical mistakes in name and father's surname. Court ruled changes substantial, requiring separate name change petition under Act No. 1386 and Rule 103.
birth certificate
correct entry
civil register

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-9203)

Factual Background

Petitioner alleged that he was the son of Celerina Arellano Chomi and Sotera Tan, both deceased. He stated that he was baptized and was given the name Alberto, and that, since then, he had been known as Alberto T. Chomi or Alberto Chomi. He further alleged that his birth certificate in the civil register of Manila gave his name as Apolinario Arellano and his father’s name as Celerino Arellano, instead of Alberto Arellano Chomi and Celerino Arellano Chomi, which petitioner claimed were the corresponding names.

Opposition to the petition was filed by the Solicitor General. The opposition argued that the changes sought would involve a change not only in petitioner’s name but also in his father’s name, and that such changes were substantial rather than clerical. The Solicitor General also invoked Article 412 of the new Civil Code, contending that only clerical errors are authorized to be corrected through correction proceedings, and that if petitioner desired to change his name, the proper remedy was a petition under Act No. 1386 in relation with Rule 103 of the Rules of Court.

Trial Court Proceedings and Denial of the Petition

The Court of First Instance sustained the opposition and denied the petition. After denial of petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, petitioner elevated the case by appeal to the Supreme Court.

Evidence and the Petitioner’s Claims on Appeal

The Supreme Court noted that petitioner presented evidence to support his claim that he was born on June 1, 1916 and that such birth was duly registered in Manila under Register No. 3873. Petitioner’s evidence also established that the name of his father appearing in the register was Celerino Arellano and his mother’s name was Sotera Tan, with the data allegedly furnished by Dr. Rebecca Parish of the Mary Johnston Hospital (Exhibit “D”). By the testimony of Pedro Batungbakal, the Court further found evidence that petitioner was the son of Celerino Arellano Chomi and Sotera Tan; that Batungbakal acted as godfather when petitioner was baptized at the Tondo Catholic Church; that petitioner was given the name Alberto; and that since then petitioner had been known by, and actually used, the name Alberto T. Chomi. The Court observed that no evidence contradicted this testimony.

Petitioner’s principal position was that the real surname of his father and of petitioner himself was Arellano Chomi, and that the civil registry officials had made a mistake in entering petitioner’s name. Petitioner maintained, in substance, that his birth certificate should be corrected to reflect the baptismal and commonly used name and the full surname, rather than the shorter names appearing in the civil register.

The Supreme Court’s Assessment of Alleged “Mistake”

The Supreme Court acknowledged that petitioner’s contention could appear, at first glance, to be well founded. Upon careful analysis, however, the Court found no mistake or error in the birth record that would justify a correction under the civil registry correction framework invoked by petitioner.

The Court reasoned that what petitioner perceived as error did not consist in an incorrect entry of petitioner’s name in the register. Instead, the Court viewed the name as possibly incomplete, not incorrect, because the register did not add the father’s real surname “Chomi”. On petitioner’s further claim regarding his name being Alberto, the Court held that its appearance in the civil register could not have been a mistake, because petitioner’s baptism had involved a different name. The Court treated the baptismal name as the origin of the name “Alberto” used and adopted by petitioner thereafter, while the civil registry entry reflected the name recorded in the official registration process.

Limits of Correction Proceedings and the Nature of the Relief Sought

The Court concluded that the omission of “Chomi” was not an error or mistake within the contemplation of correction proceedings. At most, the Court treated the name as incomplete. Such incompleteness, the Court held, was insufficient to authorize the requested proceedings, particularly because petitioner filed the petition almost forty years after the original registration and because the change sought was not merely one of form. The Court emphasized that the desired change was substantial and could affect the status of the person subject of the entry. Thus, even if petitioner’s personal circumstances could justify an alteration in his identity as used socially, the civil registry correction procedure was not the proper vehicle where the relief sought would materially alter the official name and status reflected in the register.

Doctrinal Discussion on the Civil Registry and Legal Name

To support its conclusion, the Court discussed fundamentals on the establishment and purpose of the civil registry. The Court noted that Act No. 3753 was enacted to establish a registry “for recording the civil status of persons,” with facts required to be recorded similar to those required under Article 326 of the Spanish Civil Code. While the act did not expressly state that the name of the child had to be stated in every entry, the Court held that the registry was understood to contain the name given or to be given to the child, supported by Article 20, Law on Civil Registry of 1870. The Court treated this requirement as necessary for the purposes of the civil registry.

For purposes of the law, the Court stated, the official name of petitioner was Alberto Arellano—the name appearing in the civil register. The Court held that baptism by another name and the subsequent use of that baptismal name did not per se change the legal name. The Court further declared that the only legally effective way to change a person’s name was through the appropriate proceedings established by law and the Rules of Court.

The Court explained that these principles were necessary to conserve the means of identifying citizens and to prevent confusion that could result from indiscriminate adoption of names. The Court then addressed the practice in the “Catholic country” of adopting name

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms