G.R. No. 170340 ; June 29, 2007
Republic of the Philippines, petitioner, vs. Carlito I. Kho, Michael Kho, Mercy Nona Kho-Fortun, Heddy Moira Kho-Serrano, Kevin Dogmoc Kho (Minor), and Kelly Dogmoc Kho (Minor), respondents.

FACTS

Respondents Carlito Kho and his siblings filed a petition under Rule 108 to correct entries in their birth certificates. They sought to change their mother Epifania Inchoco’s citizenship from “Chinese” to “Filipino” and to delete the word “married” regarding their parents’ status, alleging no legal marriage existed between Juan Kho and Epifania. Carlito also petitioned for corrections concerning his minor children, Kevin and Kelly, specifically to correct their mother’s first name from “Maribel” to “Marivel” and to change the date of his marriage to Marivel from April 27, 1989, to January 21, 2000. An amended petition further sought to delete “John” from Carlito’s name and correct his father’s name and citizenship in his marriage certificate. The petition was duly published, and the trial court granted all corrections.
The Republic appealed, arguing that the minors’ mother, Marivel, was an indispensable party not impleaded, that evidence for the corrections on parental marriage and citizenship was insufficient, and that the deletion of “John” from Carlito’s name constituted a change of name requiring a separate Rule 103 proceeding. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, prompting the Republic’s petition for review.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court properly granted the petition for correction of entries under Rule 108.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ decisions. The corrections regarding the citizenship of Epifania and the marital status of the parents were properly granted under Rule 108, as they involved clerical or innocuous errors substantiated by evidence, including Epifania’s testimony and voter’s affidavit proving her Filipino citizenship. The deletion of “John” from Carlito’s name was a mere cancellation of a second name erroneously included, not a change of name requiring Rule 103; it rectified a clerical error to reflect his true and registered name as “Carlito Kho.”
Concerning the minors, the correction of their mother’s first name was a simple clerical error. The correction of their parents’ marriage date, while substantial, did not affect the children’s illegitimate status, as they were born while Carlito’s first marriage was still subsisting. Hence, Marivel was not an indispensable party, and the minors were properly represented by their father. The Court emphasized that Rule 108 proceedings are valid for both clerical and substantial errors, provided all interested parties are notified, which was satisfied through publication and the participation of the State via the Office of the Solicitor General.