G.R. No. 207074 , January 17, 2018
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner vs. Michelle Soriano Gallo, Respondent

FACTS

Respondent Michelle Soriano Gallo filed a Petition for Correction of Entry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Ilagan City, Isabela. She sought to correct several entries in her Certificate of Live Birth: her first name from “Michael” to “Michelle,” her sex from “Male” to “Female,” and to include her middle name “Soriano,” her parents’ middle names, and her parents’ marriage date. Gallo presented supporting documents including her diploma, voter’s certification, transcript of records, and a medical certificate confirming her female sex. She testified she never underwent gender-reassignment surgery and filed the petition to obtain a passport, not to evade liability.
The RTC granted the petition, finding the corrections to be harmless and innocuous. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed, arguing that the proper remedy was a Petition for Change of Name under Rule 103, not a correction under Rule 108. It contended Gallo failed to comply with Rule 103’s jurisdictional requirements, such as stating her official name in the petition’s title and the cause for the change in the published notice. The Court of Appeals denied the appeal, upholding the use of Rule 108.

ISSUE

Whether the corrections sought by Gallo, particularly the change of first name and sex, are proper subjects of a Rule 108 petition for correction of entries or require a Rule 103 change of name proceeding.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the Republic’s petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The corrections sought by Gallo are clerical errors correctible under Rule 108, in relation to Republic Act No. 9048 (as amended by R.A. 10172). The legal logic distinguishes between a change of name under Rule 103, which is a substantive alteration of one’s identity label, and a correction of entry under Rule 108, which merely rectifies a mistaken recording to reflect the true facts.
Here, Gallo’s petition aimed not to change her identity but to correct the record to match her true identity, which she has consistently lived as and which is supported by documentary and medical evidence. The change from “Michael” to “Michelle” and from “Male” to “Female” constitutes the correction of a patently clear clerical error—a mistake in the performance of clerical work in recording the entry. Following precedents like Republic v. Cagandahan, the Court recognizes that where the correction involves sex and is based on biological and psychosocial factors, it is a clerical error. The inclusion of the missing middle names and marriage date are likewise clerical corrections. Since the errors are harmless, innocuous, and do not affect nationality, age, or civil status, a summary proceeding under Rule 108 is the appropriate remedy, not an adversarial change of name proceeding under Rule 103.