Case Name Republic vs Ontuca

GR No. | Date GR 232053 (July 15, 2020)

Topic Entries in the Civil Register

Doctrine The correction of entries in the birth certificate regarding the civil status of the parents
must be filed in Court under Rule 108 because it will determine the status of the child as
legitimate or illegitimate.
Parties involved REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, VS. ANNABELLE ONTUCA Y PELEÑO
(MOTHER AND GUARDIAN OF HER MINOR CHILD, ZSANINE KIMBERLY JARIOL Y
ONTUCA), respondent.
Ponente Lopez, J.

General Summary Annabelle Ontuca’s midwife Carabeo volunteered to register her child (Zsanine)’s birth in
the civil registrar. The midwife made a lot of erroneous entries in the certificate. She filed
in the RTC under Rule 108 and it granted the petition. OSG moved for reconsideration
stating RTC has no jurisdiction. SC ruled that the change of name can be through RA 9048
while the civil status must be through Rule 108.

Facts:
● Aug 14, 2000 – Annabelle Ontuca y Peleño gave birth to her daughter
o Corazon Carabeo (midwife) assisted her in giving birth to Zsanine
o After Zsanine was born, Carabeo volunteered herself to register Zsanine’s birth in the Parañaque civil
registrar. Annabelle gave the necessary details.
● After several days, midwife delivered the birth certificate to Annabelle. Upon seeing, Annabelle was dismayed
to see the erroneous entries in the certificate
a) Entry No. 6 – the name “Mary” was added in her first name while her middle name was
misspelled as “Paliño”
b) Entry No. 18 – in the date and place of marriage, “May 25, 1999 at Occ. Mindoro” was indicated
despite the fact that Annabelle was not married with the father of her child;
c) Entry No. 20 – Annabelle appeared as the informant who signed and accomplished the form,
instead of the midwife
● To correct the entries, Annabelle filed a Petition under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court before the RTC. o In her
petition, she prayed that the name “Mary Annabelle Peleño Ontuca” be corrected by removing “Mary”
and changing “Paliño” to “Peleño”, and that the date and place of marriage of parents be changed from
“May 25, 1999 at Occ. Mindoro” to “NOT MARRIED.”
● RTC: Set the case for hearing and ordered Annabelle to furnish a copy of the petition to the OSG, the NSO, and
the local civil registrar. After trial, RTC granted the petition.
● OSG: Moved for reconsideration
o RTC has no jurisdiction to correct Annabelle’s first name and middle name under Rule 108 because the
errors are clerical that can be corrected through administrative proceedings under Republic Act (RA)
No. 9048, as amended.
o On the other hand, the change in the date and place of marriage of the child's parents is substantial,
hence, Annabelle should have impleaded the OSG and all other persons who have a claim or any
interest in the proceedings.
● RTC denied the motion. Hence, this petition.

UP Law - 1 BGC Eve 2 (2027) / LAW 100

Issue/s: W/N RTC has jurisdiction to order the correction of Annabelle’s first name, middle name, as well as
her civil status under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court?
NO to her name but YES to civil status

Ruling: FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is PARTLY GRANTED. The Regional Trial Court's Decision dated November 15,
2016 in Special Proceedings No. 15-66 is AFFIRMED with respect to the correction of Entry No. 6 pertaining to Annabelle
Ontuca y Peleño's first name and middle name in the birth certificate of her child Zsanine Kimberly Jariol y Ontuca. On
the other hand, the correction of Entry No. 18 referring to the date and place of marriage of the child's parents is SET
ASIDE.

Reasoning:

• Rule 108 applies when the person is seeking to correct clerical and innocuous mistakes in his or her
documents with the civil register. It also governs the correction of substantial errors affecting the
civil status, citizenship, and nationality of a person. The proceedings may either be summary, if the
correction pertains to clerical mistakes, or adversary, if it involves substantial errors. The petition
must be filed before the RTC and it may grant or dismiss the petition and serve a copy of its
judgment to the Civil Registrar.

• In 2001, RA No. 9048 was enacted, amending Rule 108, provided an administrative recourse for the
correction of clerical or typographical errors leaving substantial corrections to Rule 108 o Under the
law, 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.

• In 2012, RA No. 10172, amended RA No. 9048, expanding the authority of local civil registrars and the
Consul General to make changes in the day and month in the date of birth, as well as in the recorded sex
of a person, when it is patently clear that there was a typographical error or mistake in the entry.

Applying these laws, SC determines whether the correction of Annabelle's first name and surname
is substantial or clerical.
o "substantial" = consisting of or relating to substance, or something that is important or essential. o In
relation to change or correction of an entry in the birth certificate, substantial refers to that which
establishes, or affects the substantive right of the person on whose behalf the change or
correction is being sought. Thus, changes which may affect the civil status from legitimate to
illegitimate, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, as well as sex, civil status, or citizenship of a
person, are substantial in character.
o “clerical” = RA No. 9048, as amended, defines a clerical or typographical error as a mistake committed in
the performance of clerical work in writing, copying, transcribing or typing an entry in the civil register
that is harmless and innocuous, such as misspelled name or misspelled place of birth, mistake in the
entry of day and month in the date of birth or the sex of the person or the like, which is visible to the
eyes or obvious to the understanding, and can be corrected or changed only by reference to other
existing record/s.

In the case at bar:

UP Law - 1 BGC Eve 2 (2027) / LAW 100
A. the correction of Annabelle's middle name from "PALIÑO" to "PELEÑO" involves clerical or
typographical error. It merely rectified the erroneous spelling through the substitution of the letters "A"
and "I" in "PALIÑO" with the letter "E," so it will read as "PELEÑO." Similarly, the error in Annabelle's first
name is clerical that will neither affect nor prejudice her substantial rights. Her passport and postal ID
satisfactorily show her first name. Therefore, by referring to her other existing records, the innocuous
errors in her name may be corrected under RA 9048, which also applies to her personal information in the
birth certificate of her child and not just erroneous entries pertaining to the owner of said birth
certificate.
B. The correction of the date of the parent’s marriage is substantial, therefore must be filed under Rule 108. It will
alter the child’s status from legitimate to illegitimate. Annabelle correctly filed a petition for cancellation/correction of
the entries before the RTC under Rule 108. However, Annabelle failed to observe the required procedures.
• The rules require 2 sets of notices to potential oppositors – One given to persons named in the petition and
another served to persons who are not named in the petition but may be considered interested or affected
parties. Consequently, the petition for a substantial correction must implead the civil registrar and other
persons who have or claim to have any interest that would be affected.
• Nonetheless, there are instances when the subsequent publication of a notice of hearing may cure the
failure to implead and notify the affected or interested parties, but none of the exceptions are present in
this case.
o There was no earnest effort on the part of Annabelle to bring to court the OSG, the child's father,
and siblings, if any, and other parties who may have an interest in the petition. Also, these
indispensable parties are not the ones who initiated the proceedings, and Annabelle cannot possibly
claim that she was not aware, actually or presumptively, as to the existence or whereabouts of
these interested parties. Lastly, it does not appear that the indispensable parties were inadvertently
and unintentionally left out when Annabelle filed the petition.

In sum, the failure to strictly comply with the requirements under Rule 108 renders the proceedings void for the
correction of substantial errors.

SC, however, sustain the correction of Annabelle's first name and middle name under Rule 108. • Ideally, Annabelle
should have filed the petition for correction with the local civil registrar under RA No. 9048, as amended, and only
when the petition is denied can the RTC take cognizance of the case.
• In any case, RA No. 9048, as amended, did not divest the trial courts of jurisdiction over petitions for correction
of clerical or typographical errors in a birth certificate. To be sure, the local civil registrars' administrative
authority to change or correct similar errors is only primary but not exclusive. The regular courts maintain the
authority to make judicial corrections of entries in the civil registry.
• Also, the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction is not absolute and may be dispensed with for reasons
of equity.

In this case, Annabelle had presented testimonial and documentary evidence, which the RTC had evaluated and found
sufficient. To require her to file a new petition with the local civil registrar and start the process all over again would not
be in keeping with the purpose of RA No. 9048, that is, to give people an option to have the erroneous entries in their
civil records corrected through an administrative proceeding that is less expensive and more expeditious. Consequently,
it will be more prudent and judicious for Annabelle, and other persons similarly situated, to allow the filing of a single
petition under Rule 108, rather than two separate petitions before the RTC and the local civil registrar. This will avoid
multiplicity of suits and further litigation between the parties, which is offensive to the orderly administration of justice.

Separate Opinion/s: NA

UP Law - 1 BGC Eve 2 (2027) / LAW 100

UP Law - 1 BGC Eve 2 (2027) / LAW 100