GR 206023; (April, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 206023. April 03, 2017
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Lorena Omapas Sali, Respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Lorena Omapas Sali filed a Petition for Correction of Entry under Rule 108 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baybay City, Leyte. She sought to correct two entries in her Certificate of Live Birth: her first name from “Dorothy” to “Lorena” and her date of birth from “June 24, 1968” to “April 24, 1968.” She alleged these were clerical errors made by the local civil registrar. Sali presented supporting documents, including a baptismal certificate and a marriage certificate, to prove she had consistently used the name “Lorena” and the April birthdate. The RTC granted the petition.
The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing the RTC lacked jurisdiction because the petition’s title and the hearing order did not state Sali’s aliases, as required for a change of name under Rule 103. The Republic also contended that Sali failed to exhaust administrative remedies under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9048. The CA affirmed the RTC, ruling the petition was properly under Rule 108 for clerical errors and that requiring an alias would be absurd as she had no other known name.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the grant of the petition for correction of entries under Rule 108 instead of treating it as a petition for change of name under Rule 103, and in not dismissing it for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under R.A. No. 9048.
RULING
The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. It held that the correction of the date of birth from June to April involves a clerical or typographical error properly correctable under Rule 108, as affirmed by the lower courts. However, the change of first name from “Dorothy” to “Lorena” constitutes a substantial change, not a mere clerical error. Following the precedent in Republic v. Silverio, substantial corrections to first names are not allowable under Rule 108.
For such substantial changes, the governing law is R.A. No. 9048, as amended by R.A. No. 10172, which vests the authority to correct clerical or typographical errors in the first name upon the city or municipal civil registrar or consul general through an administrative proceeding. Since Sali’s petition sought this substantial change, she was required to exhaust this administrative remedy first. The Court therefore modified the CA decision, dismissing the portion of the petition seeking to change the first name without prejudice to filing the appropriate administrative petition with the local civil registrar. The correction of the birth date was upheld.