G.R. No. 197174, September 10, 2014
FRANCLER P. ONDE, Petitioner, vs. THE OFFICE OF THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRATION OF LAS PIÑAS CITY, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Francler P. Onde filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for correction of entries in his certificate of live birth. He alleged that his birth certificate erroneously stated: (1) that his parents, Guillermo A. Onde and Matilde DC Pakingan, were married on December 23, 1983, in Bicol, when in fact they were not married, making him an illegitimate child; (2) that his mother’s first name was “Tely” instead of “Matilde”; and (3) that his first name was “Franc Ler” instead of “Francler.” The RTC dismissed the petition, ruling it was insufficient in form and substance. It held that the correction regarding his parents’ marital status was substantial and required adversarial proceedings, and that the corrections to the first names could be done administratively under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9048. The RTC also denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, finding no proof that his parents were not married. Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

1. Whether the RTC erred in ruling that the correction of the first names of petitioner and his mother can be done by the city civil registrar under R.A. No. 9048.
2. Whether the RTC erred in ruling that correcting the entry on the birth certificate regarding his parents’ marital status is a substantial correction requiring adversarial proceedings.
3. Whether the RTC erred in dismissing the petition for correction of entries.
4. Whether the RTC erred in ruling that there was no proof petitioner’s parents were not married.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the RTC’s orders, with the clarification that the dismissal was without prejudice.
1. On the correction of first names: The Court agreed with the RTC that the correction of the first names of petitioner and his mother, being clerical or typographical errors, can be done by the city civil registrar under R.A. No. 9048, which authorizes administrative correction without a judicial order. The Court cited Silverio v. Republic and Republic v. Cagandahan, noting that R.A. No. 9048 removed such corrections from the ambit of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
2. On the correction of marital status: The Court agreed that correcting the entry from “married” to “not married” is a substantial correction, as it affects petitioner’s legitimacy, converting him from a legitimate to an illegitimate child. Following Republic v. Uy, such substantial alterations require appropriate adversary proceedings under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
3. On the dismissal of the petition: The Court affirmed the dismissal. Since petitioner no longer contested the RTC’s ruling on the correction of first names, and the petition included this relief, reinstatement was not warranted. However, the dismissal was without prejudice. Petitioner may avail of the administrative remedy under R.A. No. 9048 for the first name corrections and may file a new petition under Rule 108 for the substantial correction regarding his parents’ marital status.
4. On the procedural requirements for a new petition: The Court clarified that a petition for substantial correction under Rule 108 must comply with adversarial procedural requirements. Citing Section 3, Rule 108, and the rulings in Eleosida v. Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City and Republic v. Uy, the Court emphasized that all interested parties, including the civil registrar and persons whose interests would be affected (such as petitioner’s parents), must be made parties to the proceeding.
5. On the proof of non-marriage: The Court deemed it unnecessary to rule on this issue, as petitioner would have the opportunity to present proof when he files a new petition for the substantial correction.
DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the Orders dated October 7, 2010 and March 1, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 201, Las Piñas City, in Special Proceedings Case No. 10-0043 are AFFIRMED. The dismissal ordered by the Regional Trial Court is, however, declared to be without prejudice. No pronouncement as to costs.