G.R. No. 146963 , March 15, 2004
Republic of the Philippines and The Local Civil Registrar, Guimba, Nueva Ecija, Petitioners, vs. Petronio L. Benemerito, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Petronio L. Benemerito filed a verified petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the correction of entries in the birth certificate of his son, Joven Lee Benemerito. He sought to change the father’s name from “Peter Laurente Benemerito” to “Petronio L. Benemerito” and the date of his marriage to the child’s mother, Edna V. Sicat, from “01 September 1989” to “25 January 1998.” Respondent testified that he and Sicat were married in 1998, having cohabited prior, and that the entries were erroneous.
The RTC granted the petition after publication of the notice in a newspaper of general circulation and notification to the Office of the Solicitor General and other agencies. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, holding that the proceedings were adversarial due to publication and the Public Prosecutor’s appearance, and that the corrections were innocuous, merely changing the child’s status from legitimate to legitimated.

ISSUE

Whether the corrections sought, involving the father’s name and the parents’ marriage date, are substantial changes requiring a full adversarial proceeding under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, rather than a summary proceeding for clerical errors.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts. The corrections sought are substantial, not merely clerical. A clerical error is a visible mistake in copying, such as a misspelling. Here, changing the father’s name from “Peter” to “Petronio” requires proof that these names refer to the same person, which is a matter of identity. Furthermore, altering the marriage date from 1989 to 1998 effectively changes the child’s status from legitimate (born during the purported 1989 marriage) to legitimated (born before the 1998 marriage of his parents). Such changes impact successional and familial rights and are therefore contentious.
Rule 108 mandates an adversarial proceeding for substantial corrections, requiring all interested parties—such as the child’s mother, grandparents, or others whose rights may be affected—to be impleaded and heard. Mere publication and the state’s non-opposition are insufficient to constitute the required adversarial proceeding. The Court held that the summary proceeding conducted fell short of these requirements. The petition was dismissed without prejudice to respondent initiating the proper adversarial proceeding under Rule 108 to establish the facts warranting the changes.