Spec Pro Class 2020

FACTS:

Virgel L. Tipay sought the correction of several entries in his birth certificate. Attached to the petition are two (2) copies of his birth certificate, respectively issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar of Governor Generoso, Davao Oriental and the National Statistics Office (NSO). Both copies reflect his gender as "FEMALE" and his first name as "Virgie." It further appears that the month and day of birth in the local civil registrar's copy was blank, while the NSO-issued birth certificate indicates that he was born on May 12, 1976. Virgel alleged that these entries are erroneous, and sought the correction of his birth certificate as follows: (a) his gender, from "FEMALE" to "MALE;" (b) his first name, from "VIRGIE" to "VIRGEL;" and (c) his month and date of birth to "FEBRUARY 25, 1976."

​

The petition was found sufficient in form and substance, and the case proceeded to trial. Aside from his own personal testimony, Virgel's mother, Susan L. Tipay, testified that she gave birth to a son on February 25, 1976, who was baptized as "Virgel." The Certificate of Baptism, including other documentary evidence such as a medical certificate stating that Virgel is phenotypically male, were also presented to the trial court.

​

There was no opposition to the petition. Hence, the RTC rendered its Decision dated granting Virgel's petition. From this decision, the Republic filed a Notice of Appeal, which was given due course by the trial court. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argued that the change of Virgel's name from Virgie should have been made through a proceeding under Rule 103, and not Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. The CA ruled in favor of Virgel, stating that while the correction of the entry on his gender is considered a substantial change, it is nonetheless within the jurisdiction of the trial court under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

​

Unsatisfied with the ruling of the CA, the Republic appealed to this Court insisting that the entries sought to be corrected are substantial changes outside the jurisdiction of the trial court.

​

Issue:

Whether or not the RTC erred in taking cognizance of the petition for correction of entries in Virgel’s birth certificate.

 

Ruling:

No. Rule 108 of the Rules of Court governs the procedure for the correction of substantial changes in the civil registry.

 

It is true that initially, the changes that may be corrected under the summary procedure of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court are clerical or harmless errors. Errors that affect the civil status, citizenship or nationality of a person, are considered substantial errors that were beyond the purview of the rule.

​

Evidently, the Republic incorrectly argued that the petition for correction under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is limited to changes in entries containing harmless and innocuous errors. The cited cases in the petition were already superseded by much later jurisprudence. Most importantly, with the enactment of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9048 in 2001, the local civil registrars, or the Consul General as the case may be, are now authorized to correct clerical or typographical errors in the civil registry, or make changes in the first name or nickname, without need of a judicial order. This law provided an administrative recourse for the correction of clerical or typographical errors, essentially leaving the substantial corrections in the civil registry to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

​

The RTC was correct in taking cognizance of the petition for correction of entries in Virgel’s birth certificate.