CD 15 Case No.

14
Matron M. Ohama v. Office of the Muicipal Local Civil Registrar of
Aguinaldo, Ifugao & the Republic of the Philippines

a. Doctrine:

Under Office of the Civil Registrar-General Administrative Order No. 1,

Series of 1983, as amended, the birth of a child shall be registered within
30 days from the time of birth in the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of
the city/municipality where it occurred.

While the first name may be freely selected by the parents for the child,
the last name to which the child is entitled is fixed by law.

The real name of a person is that given him in the Civil Register, not the
name by which he was baptized in his Church or by which he was known
in the community, or which he has adopted.

To correct a supposedly misspelled name properly falls under Rule 108.

The Petition for correction of misspelled name must be properly
supported by competent evidence.

b. Title: Matron M. Ohama v. Office of the Muicipal Local Civil

Registrar of Aguinaldo, Ifugao & the Republic of the Philippines

c. Facts:
A petition seeking the cancellation of his Certificate of Live Birth with
Registry Number 45-86 (first birth certificate) was filed by petitioner
Matron M. Ohoma (Matiorico M. Ohomna; petitioner) before the RTC
on March 26, 2014.
He averred that:

(a) he was born on May 13, 1986 in Aguinaldo, Ifugao;

(b) his birth was belatedly recorded with the Local Civil
Registrar of Aguinaldo, Ifugao (LCR-Aguinaldo) on February 8,
2000 under Certificate of Live Birth with Registry Number
2000-24 (second birth certificate);
(c) unknown to him, his birth had been previously registered
with the LCR-Aguinaldo on June 13, 1986 under the first birth
certificate;
(d) the first birth certificate contained erroneous entries, i.e.,
(i) his first name was erroneously recorded as Matron instead
of Matiorico and (ii) his last name was erroneously recorded as
Ohoma instead of Ohomna;
(e) he has been using the first name Matiorico and the last
name Ohomna, and has been known by such first and last
names both in his public and private transactions; and
(f) the second birth certificate reflects the true and correct data
of petitioner; hence, must be the one retained.

The subject petition, which was docketed as Special Proceedings Case

No. 142-14, likewise included a prayer for "other reliefs just and
equitable”.

On May 14, 2014, the RTC issued an Order finding the petition to be
sufficient in form and substance, and consequently, gave due course
thereon by setting the case for hearing. It further directed that the
concerned government offices be furnished a copy of the said Order and
the same be published in a newspaper of general circulation for three (3)
consecutive weeks at the expense of petitioner.
During the scheduled hearing, petitioner established the jurisdictional
requirement of publication, which was admitted by the Office of the
Provincial Prosecutor of Ifugao, the office duly deputized to assist the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) in the proceedings.

An order of general default was issued and petitioner was then allowed
to present his evidence ex-parte before the Clerk of Court of the RTC. In
support of his petition, petitioner presented his two (2) birth certificates:
(1) his Elementary School Permanent Record, a copy of his Passport
Application Form, and (2) his Professional Driver's License.

The RTC Resolution

In a Resolution dated June 9, 2015, the RTC granted the petition and
ordered the LCR-Aguinaldo and the National Statistics Office (NSO; now
Philippine Statistics Authority) to cancel petitioner's first birth certificate,
finding that the same contains errors that caused confusion as to the
identity of petitioner.

Dissatisfied, the Republic of the Philippines appealed to the CA,

challenging the validity of petitioner's second birth certificate on the
ground that his birth could no longer be the subject of a second or
another registration as the same had already been validly registered.
Assuming that his original or first registration contains several errors,
such do not constitute valid grounds for the cancellation thereof, and the
proper remedy is to file a petition for correction of entries in the first
registration under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court (Rule 108).

The CA Decision
In a Decision dated February 1, 2018, the CA annulled and set aside the
RTC ruling. It ruled that there can be no valid late registration of
petitioner's birth considering that the same had already been lawfully
registered with the LCR-Aguinaldo within thirty (30) days from the time of
his birth, as required under Office of the Civil Registrar-General
Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1983. Thus, it held that the RTC
should have upheld the validity of petitioner's first birth certificate instead
of his second birth certificate, which should have been the one nullified
and cancelled. It declared that the proper remedy was to file a petition
for correction of entries in petitioner's first birth certificate pursuant to
Rule 108.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration which was denied in a Resolution

dated May 16, 2018; hence, this petition.

d. Issue:
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA committed
reversible error when it annulled and set aside the RTC ruling ordering
the cancellation of petitioner’s first birth certificate.

e. Held:
The Court agreed with the CA thet there can be no valid late registration
of petitioner's birth as the same had already been lawfully registered
within 30 days from his birth under the first birth certificate. However, the
Court ruled, that CA erred in holding that petitioner has to refile another
petition before the trial court could resolve his claim.
The Court Set aside the CA Resolution and ruled a new judgment,
stating as follows:
Under Office of the Civil Registrar-General Administrative Order No.
1, Series of 1983, as amended, the birth of a child shall be
registered within 30 days from the time of birth in the Office of the
Local Civil Registrar of the city/municipality where it occurred. In this
case, petitioner's birth had already been reported by his mother,
Antonia Maingit (Antonia), and duly recorded in the civil register of
the LCR-Aguinaldo on June 13, 1986. Thus, as correctly pointed out
by the CA, there can be no valid late registration of petitioner's birth
as the same had already been lawfully registered within 30 days
from his birth under the first birth certificate. Consequently, it is
the second birth certificate that should be declared void and
correspondingly cancelled even if the entries therein are claimed to
be the correct ones.

However, while the petition specifically prayed for the cancellation of

petitioner's first birth certificate and the retention of his second birth
certificate, the ultimate objective was to correct the erroneous
entries pertaining to petitioner's first and last names, i.e., from
Matron Ohoma to Matiorico Ohomna, as he claimed that people in
the community know him by the latter name rather than the former.
Rule 108 implements judicial proceedings for the correction or
cancellation of entries in the civil registry pursuant to Article 412 of
the Civil Code. The role of the Court under Rule 108 is to ascertain
the truth about the facts recorded therein.
The action filed by petitioner before the RTC seeks to correct a
supposedly misspelled name, and thus, properly falls under Rule
108. To correct simply means "to make or set aright; to remove the
faults or error from." Considering that petitioner complied with the
procedural requirements under Rule 108, the RTC had the
jurisdiction to resolve the petition which included a prayer for "[o]ther
reliefs just and equitable x x x."

A general prayer for "other reliefs just and equitable" appearing on a

petition enables the court to award reliefs supported by the
complaint or other pleadings, by the facts admitted at the trial, and
by the evidence adduced by the parties, even if these reliefs are not
specifically prayed for in the complaint. Consequently, the CA erred
in holding that petitioner has to refile another petition before the trial
court could resolve his claim.

Nonetheless, the Court finds that petitioner failed to sufficiently

establish that his father's last name was Ohomna and not Ohoma
through competent evidence, i.e., the latter's birth certificate, the
certificate of his marriage to petitioner's mother, Antonia, on January
30, 1986, or a government-issued identification card or record. On
this score alone, the correction of petitioner's first and last names
should be denied. While the first name may be freely selected by the
parents for the child, the last name to which the child is entitled is
fixed by law.

Although petitioner's Elementary School Permanent Record and

Professional Driver's License identify him as Matiorico Ohomna, the
same are insufficient to grant the petition. It pears stressing that the
real name of a person is that given him in the Civil Register, not the
name by which he was baptized in his Church or by which he was
known in the community, or which he has adopted.

In addition, the Court notes that Antonia was the informant in both
instances and the one who signed both birth certificates. However,
a perusal of Antonia's signatures on petitioner's two (2) birth
certificates shows that the same are materially different from each
other. Further, petitioner failed to show any plausible explanation
why she signed as Antonia Ohoma on the first birth certificate and as
Antonia Ohomna on the second birth certificate.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated

February 1, 2018 and the Resolution dated May 16, 2018 of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 105591 are hereby SET ASIDE. A new
judgment is entered ORDERING the Local Civil Registrar of
Aguinaldo, Ifugao and the Philippine Statistics Authority to cancel
petitioner Matron M. Ohoma's 2nd Certificate of Live Birth.