GR 103695; (March, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 103695. March 15, 1996.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, JAIME B. CARANTO, and ZENAIDA P. CARANTO, respondents.
FACTS
Spouses Jaime and Zenaida Caranto filed a petition for the adoption of fifteen-year-old Midael C. Mazon, who had been under their care. Concurrently, they prayed for the correction of the minor’s first name from “Midael” to “Michael,” alleging it was a clerical error in his birth record. The Solicitor General opposed the correction, arguing it could not be granted in an adoption proceeding under Rule 99 of the Rules of Court, but required a separate action under Rule 108 for correction of entries in the civil registry.
The Regional Trial Court granted both the adoption and the correction of name, dismissing the Solicitor General’s opposition. It reasoned that requiring a separate petition would cause multiplicity of suits. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in toto. The Republic, through the Solicitor General, elevated the case, contending the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the adoption because the published notice used the name “Michael” instead of “Midael,” and that the correction of entry was void for failure to implead the local civil registrar and publish notice specifically for the correction.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction over the petition for adoption and properly granted the correction of the minor’s first name within the same proceeding.
RULING
The Supreme Court partially granted the petition. On the issue of jurisdiction over the adoption, the Court held that the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction. The publication of notice using “Michael” instead of “Midael” did not constitute a jurisdictional defect, as the case involved only an obvious clerical error—the substitution of “ch” for “d”—unlike the substantial defect in identity present in Cruz v. Republic. The names were phonetically identical, and the purpose of publication to notify potential objectors was sufficiently served.
However, the Court ruled that the trial court acted without jurisdiction in ordering the correction of the civil registry entry. A petition for correction of entries under Rule 108 is a special proceeding distinct from adoption. The local civil registrar is an indispensable party who must be impleaded, and the petition for correction must be published separately. These mandatory requirements were not complied with; the published notice only pertained to the adoption. Consequently, the proceeding for correction was null and void for lack of jurisdiction. The Court modified the appellate decision by deleting the order for the correction of the minor’s first name in his birth certificate, while affirming the decree of adoption.