G.R. No. 211724 , August 24, 2016.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR CORRECTION OF ENTRY (CHANGE OF FAMILY NAME IN THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE OF FELIPE C. ALMOJUELA AS APPEARING IN THE RECORDS OF THE NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE), FELIPE C. ALMOJUELA, Petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Felipe C. Almojuela filed a Petition for Correction of Entry in his NSO birth certificate before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Virac, Catanduanes. He alleged that for almost sixty years, he had been using the surname “Almojuela,” but his NSO birth certificate registered him as “Felipe Condeno.” He claimed to be the acknowledged natural child of Jorge V. Almojuela and Francisca B. Condeno, who did not marry. He presented various documents showing his consistent use of “Almojuela.” The RTC initially dismissed the petition, finding it improper under Rule 108 as it involved filiation, but later reconsidered and allowed presentation of evidence. It was then discovered that the Book of Births with the Municipal Civil Registrar also listed his name as “Felipe Condeno,” not “Felipe C. Almojuela.” The RTC granted the petition, ordering the correction of his surname from “Condeno” to “Almojuela.” The Republic, through the OSG, appealed, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to defective publication and failure to properly caption the petition. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, holding that although Rule 108 was the correct remedy, petitioner failed to strictly comply with its requirements by not impleading the Local Civil Registrar and his half-siblings as parties. The CA also found the correction substantial, involving a determination of filiation, and noted petitioner failed to show his father recognized him through means allowed under the Family Code. Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in nullifying the correction of entry on petitioner’s birth certificate on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA’s ruling. The Court held that Rule 108 of the Rules of Court mandates an adversary proceeding for substantial corrections in the civil registry. Sections 3, 4, and 5 of Rule 108 require that the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest affected by the correction be made parties to the proceeding. Petitioner failed to implead the Local Civil Registrar and his half-siblings as indispensable parties. This failure to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements precluded the RTC from acquiring jurisdiction over the case. The Court cited Republic v. Coseteng-Magpayo and Republic v. Uy, emphasizing that all affected parties must be notified and given opportunity to oppose. The correction sought was substantial, not clerical, as it involved a change of surname based on filiation. The petition was bereft of merit.