Case Summary (G.R. No. 206023)
Petition for Correction of Entry under Rule 108
Lorena Omapas Sali asserted that her first name and birth date were erroneously recorded by the Local Civil Registrar of Baybay, Leyte. The records incorrectly reflected her first name as "Dorothy" instead of "Lorena" and her birth date as June 24, 1968, instead of April 24, 1968. Sali presented several documentary proofs including her Baptismal Certificate, Certificate of Marriage, Postal Identity Card, and a Certificate of Live Birth with erroneous information. She maintained she has been known by the name "Lorena" since birth and that the correction was needed solely to set the record straight without any intention to evade liability or affect inheritance rights.
Proceedings and Decisions Below
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 14, Baybay City, Leyte, granted Sali's petition on February 23, 2010, ordering the Local Civil Registrar and the National Statistics Office to correct the entry. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed on grounds of jurisdictional deficiency, arguing the petition was essentially a change of name requiring compliance with Rule 103, including the listing of aliases which Sali allegedly failed to include. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision on February 11, 2013, ruling that Sali's petition was for correction of clerical errors and not a change of name, and found no fraudulent intent or public prejudice.
Grounds of the Petition for Review
The Republic argued:
- The CA erred by applying Rule 108 instead of Rule 103, asserting that the correction involved a substantial change of the first name, which is governed by Rule 103 and requires declaration of aliases.
- Sali failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by Republic Act No. 9048 (R.A. 9048), which governs correction of clerical or typographical errors and change of first name or nickname administratively without judicial intervention.
Legal Framework: Rules 103 and 108, RA 9048, and RA 10172
Rule 103 of the Rules of Court governs the judicial change of name and requires stating the applicant’s names and aliases in the petition title and hearing order. Rule 108 addresses correction or cancellation of entries in the civil registry, traditionally covering clerical or typographical errors.
R.A. No. 9048, effective since April 22, 2001, authorizes the correction or change of clerical or typographical errors and change of first name or nickname by the local civil registrar or consul general through administrative process. Judicial relief is only appropriate when the administrative petition is denied. This law vests primary jurisdiction over first name changes and minor corrections with administrative bodies, excluding them from the immediate coverage of Rules 103 and 108 unless administrative remedies are exhausted.
R.A. No. 10172, enacted on August 15, 2012, amended R.A. 9048 to include changes or corrections to the day and month of birth, as well as the sex of a person, as subject to administrative correction, provided there is a clear clerical or typographical error. However, since Sali’s petition was filed in 2008, prior to the effectivity of R.A. 10172, corrections of her birth date remained governed by Rule 108 and judicial proceedings.
Application to Sali’s Case: Nature of the Petition
The Court clarified that Sali’s petition was not for a change of name under Rule 103 but rather for correction of clerical error under Rule 108. The evidence showed Sali has been habitually and continuously known as "Lorena" since birth, negating any intent to change her name but merely to correct erroneous registry entries. Accordingly, the petition for correction of the first name was improperly filed with the RTC without exhausting administrative remedies as required under R.A. 9048.
Jurisdiction and Exhaustion of Remedies
The Court emphasized that petitions for change of first name must be filed first with the local civil registrar under R.A. 9048, and only when denied may an appeal or judicial petition be pursued. Thus, the RTC lacked primary jurisdiction over the first name correction, and Sali’s remedy must be administrative. The Court dismissed without prejudice the petition portion relating to the first name correction, allowing Sali to refile administratively.
Conversely, the prayer to correct the date of birth from "June 24, 1968" to "April 24, 1968" involved a clerical error subject to Rule 108 since R.A. 10172 was not yet in effect. The procedural safeguards—notice, opportunity to oppose, and publication—were complied with. The Republic did not contest the correction of the birth date, and the Court found no fault in granting this correction.
Compliance with Procedural Requirements for Correction under Rule 108
The Court found that Sali complied with the jurisdictional and procedural requirements including impleading the Local Civil Registrar as respondent, adequate notice through publication and posting in public places, and service to interested parties including the Solicitor General and Assistant Provincial Prosecutor. The adversarial proc
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 206023)
Background and Nature of the Petition
- The case involves a petition for correction of entry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court filed by respondent Lorena Omapas Sali.
- Sali sought to correct two major erroneous entries on her certificate of live birth:
- Her first name was mistakenly recorded as "Dorothy" instead of "Lorena."
- Her date of birth was incorrectly entered as "June 24, 1968" instead of "April 24, 1968."
- The errors were due to inadvertence and mistake by personnel of the Local Civil Registrar of Baybay, Leyte.
- Sali’s petition was supported by various documentary evidence including her baptismal certificate, certificate of marriage, postal identity card, and other official documents confirming her correct name and birth date.
- The petition clearly stated that the correction aimed solely to rectify errors in the birth record and was not intended to evade any criminal or civil liability nor affect any hereditary succession rights.
Proceedings in the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals
- The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 14 of Baybay City, Leyte, granted Sali’s petition after compliance with procedural and jurisdictional requirements.
- A commissioner (the Clerk of Court) was appointed to receive evidence, and a hearing was conducted following due process.
- The RTC ordered the Local Civil Registrar of Baybay City and the National Statistics Office (NSO) to correct the first name and date of birth entries upon finality of the decision and payment of legal fees.
- The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed the RTC decision before the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing lack of jurisdiction due to procedural defects, specifically the failure to state Sali’s aliases in the petition title and hearing order, and failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
- The CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto, ruling that:
- No alias was known or used by Sali other than "Lorena," making the requirement irrelevant.
- Sali complied with the mandatory adversarial proceedings and afforded the Republic ample opportunity to contest.
- The correction of Sali’s first name would avoid confusion and was not sought for fraudulent reasons or against public interest.
Issues on Jurisdiction, Applicable Rules, and Remedy
- The petition raised two primary questions for the Supreme Court:
- Whether Rule 108 (Correction of Entries) or Rule 103 (Change of Name) applies.
- Whether Sali failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to judicial relief.
- The Republic contended:
- The petition was effectively for a change of first name triggering Rule 103, which requires stating all names and aliases and is subject to specific grounds and judicial scrutiny.
- The petition should have been dismissed for lack of administrative remedy exhaustion under Republic Act No. 9048 (RA 9048).
- The Court clarified that:
- Sali’s petition i