G.R. No. L-22035; April 30, 1968
LEONCIA SAN ROQUE, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Petitioner Leoncia San Roque filed a verified petition with the Court of First Instance of Bulacan, captioned “In RE: Petition To Correct Name In The Birth Certificate Of Leoncia San Roque.” She alleged that she was born on October 22, 1935, in Polo, Bulacan, but the name appearing on her birth certificate on file with the Local Civil Registrar is “Lucia San Roque.” She further alleged that since birth, she had continuously used and had always been known by the name “Leoncia San Roque,” as evidenced by her marriage contract, residence certificate, and a Transfer Certificate of Title. The court ordered publication of the petition and set it for hearing. The Office of the Solicitor General, representing the Republic, filed an opposition, contending that the petition did not allege a clerical error and thus correction could not be made under the summary procedure. The lower court, finding the opposition not well-founded and with the oppositor failing to appear at the hearing, allowed the petitioner to present evidence and subsequently rendered a decision granting the petition to change the name from “Lucia” to “Leoncia” in the civil registry.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in treating the petition, which was captioned as one for correction of an entry in the civil registry under Article 412 of the Civil Code and Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, as a petition for a change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court. It held that although the petition was captioned as one for correction of a name in the birth certificate, its essential allegations admitted that the petitioner’s real name as recorded was “Lucia” but that she had been using and known as “Leoncia” since birth. This made the petition, in substance, one for a change of name under Rule 103, not a mere correction of a clerical error under Rule 108. The Court distinguished the case from Ty Cong Ting vs. Republic, which held that Article 412 of the Civil Code and Rule 108 cover only corrections of clerical errors and not substantial changes affecting status or citizenship, and from Chomi vs. Local Civil Registrar, which held that the real name is that in the Civil Register and the proper remedy for a change is the special proceeding under Rule 103. The Court found that the procedural requirements of Rule 103, including publication, were strictly complied with, giving the State ample opportunity to oppose. Therefore, the trial court committed no reversible error in treating the petition under Rule 103 and granting the change of name.