G.R. No. 130277 . May 9, 2002.
MA. LOURDES BARRIENTOS ELEOSIDA, for and in behalf of her minor child, CHARLES CHRISTIAN ELEOSIDA, petitioner, vs. LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF QUEZON CITY, and CARLOS VILLENA BORBON, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ma. Lourdes Eleosida filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) seeking to correct entries in the birth certificate of her son, Charles Christian. The certificate indicated the child’s name as Charles Christian Eleosida Borbon, born to Ma. Lourdes and Carlos Borbon, with an entry stating the parents were married. Petitioner alleged she and Carlos Borbon were never married, the child was illegitimate, and thus the child’s surname should be changed from “Borbon” to “Eleosida,” the entry on the parents’ marriage should be deleted, and the informant’s name corrected.
The RTC issued a notice of hearing, ordered its publication, and furnished copies to respondents, including the Local Civil Registrar and Carlos Borbon. No opposition was filed. Subsequently, the RTC set a date for petitioner to present evidence. However, before any evidence could be presented, the RTC motu proprio dismissed the petition.

ISSUE

Whether the RTC erred in dismissing the petition motu proprio on the ground that the corrections sought were substantial and thus not allowable under a summary proceeding for correction of entries.

RULING

Yes, the RTC erred. The Supreme Court clarified that while Article 412 of the Civil Code governs the summary correction of clerical errors, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court provides the proper adversary proceeding for the cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry involving substantial changes, such as those affecting civil status, nationality, or citizenship. The case of Republic v. Valencia established that Rule 108 is precisely the vehicle for such substantial corrections, provided it is conducted as a genuine adversarial proceeding.
In this case, the changes sought—altering the child’s surname and deleting the record of the parents’ marriage—were indeed substantial as they would affect the child’s legitimacy. However, the RTC had already complied with the procedural requirements of Rule 108 by issuing an order setting the case for hearing, ordering publication, and notifying all interested parties, including the Solicitor General. This transformed the proceeding into an adversarial one. Therefore, the RTC prematurely dismissed the petition without allowing petitioner to present her evidence and without giving notified parties the opportunity to oppose. The case was remanded to the RTC for further proceedings to allow the petition to be heard on its merits in accordance with Rule 108.