Scribd
Upload
1K views1 page

Bartolome V People

The petitioner filed a petition for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, seeking to correct his first name, middle name, and surname as appearing in his birth certificate. The Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the changes sought fall under the authority of R.A. 9048, which allows corrections of clerical or typographical errors by the local civil registrar. As the allegedly misspelled surname could be readily corrected by referring to existing civil registry records, the appropriate proceeding was an administrative one under R.A. 9048, not a judicial petition under Rule 103. The petition was denied without prejudice to filing under R.A. 9048

Uploaded by

jacq17
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views1 page

Bartolome V People

The petitioner filed a petition for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, seeking to correct his first name, middle name, and surname as appearing in his birth certificate. The Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the changes sought fall under the authority of R.A. 9048, which allows corrections of clerical or typographical errors by the local civil registrar. As the allegedly misspelled surname could be readily corrected by referring to existing civil registry records, the appropriate proceeding was an administrative one under R.A. 9048, not a judicial petition under Rule 103. The petition was denied without prejudice to filing under R.A. 9048

Uploaded by

jacq17
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

243288, August 28, 2019


DR. RUBEN C. BARTOLOME, PETITIONER, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT.
Facts:
In 2014, petitioner, a resident of Parañaque City, filed a petition for change of name
under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court before the RTC, seeking "to correct the name 'Feliciano
Bartholome' as appearing in his birth certificate x xx. He stated that he has been using the name
'Ruben [Cruz] Bartolome' since his childhood."
The CA Decision denied the appeal and affirmed the Decision of Branch 258, Regional
Trial Court of Parañaque City (RTC), which denied petitioner's petition for change of name
under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court for failure to exhaust administrative remedies,
insufficiency of evidence, and improper venue.
Issue:
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.
Held:
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.
The Court agrees with the CA and the OSG that the aforementioned changes and
corrections are covered by Section 1 of R.A. 9048 as amended by R.A. 10172, which provides:
Section 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or Typographical Error and Change of First
Name or Nickname. — No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a
judicial order, except for clerical or typographical errors and change of first name or nickname,
the day and month in the date of birth or sex of a person where it is patently clear that there was a
clerical or typographical error or mistake in the entry, which can be corrected or changed by the
concerned city or municipal civil registrar or consul general in accordance with the provisions of
this Act and its implementing rules and regulations. (Underscoring supplied)
As herein petitioner's allegedly misspelled surname, "Bartholome," may be readily
corrected by merely referring to the existing records of the civil registrar, such as the surnames
of petitioner's parents and immediate family members, the petition should have been filed under
R.A. 9048 and not under Rule 103 of the Rules. It likewise follows that the petition should have
been filed with the local civil registry office of the city or municipality where the record being
sought to be corrected or changed is kept, in accordance with Section 3 of R.A. 9048 and not in
accordance with the venue provided in Rule 103.
Hence, petition was denied without prejudice to the filing of the appropriate
administrative proceeding under R.A. 9048, as amended by R.A. 10172.

You might also like