GR No. 123456, January 30, 2024
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. JUAN DELA CRUZ and MARIA DELA CRUZ, Respondents.

FACTS

Juan and Maria Dela Cruz filed a petition for the correction of clerical errors in their children’s birth certificates before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The errors sought to be corrected were: (1) changing Juan’s middle name from “Santos” to “Reyes,” and (2) changing Maria’s date of birth from “June 12, 1970” to “June 12, 1975.” The RTC granted the petition. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed, arguing that the changes were substantial and not merely clerical, thus requiring an adversarial proceeding.

ISSUE

Whether the corrections sought by the respondents are merely clerical errors correctable under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, or substantial alterations requiring a full-blown adversarial proceeding.

RULING

The corrections are NOT merely clerical; they are substantial alterations requiring an adversarial proceeding under Rule 108.

A clerical error is one that is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding, a mistake made by a clerk or transcriber, or a mistake in copying or writing. It includes harmless mistakes such as misspellings, obvious typographical errors, and the like that do not affect the substance of the entry.

In this case:
1. The change of the father’s middle name from “Santos” to “Reyes” affects filiation and identity, as a middle name in the Philippines is traditionally the maternal surname. This alteration touches upon the child’s legitimacy and kinship.
2. The change of the mother’s date of birth by five years is a significant alteration to a primary civil registry entry that affects her age, a material fact with legal consequences for capacity, benefits, and status.

Substantial corrections, such as those affecting citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or the status of parties, require a strict adversarial proceeding under Rule 108. This ensures due process, as such changes may prejudice the government or third parties. The RTC erred in treating these as simple clerical errors. The petition should have been filed as a special proceeding under Rule 108, with publication and notice to all interested parties, including the civil registrar and the Solicitor General. The decision of the RTC is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petition for correction is DISMISSED without prejudice to the filing of an appropriate adversarial proceeding under Rule 108.