G.R. No. 243288 . August 28, 2019
DR. RUBEN C. BARTOLOME, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Dr. Ruben C. Bartolome, a resident of Parañaque City, filed a petition for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque. He sought to correct the name “Feliciano Bartholome” on his birth certificate to “Ruben Cruz Bartolome,” claiming he had used the latter name since childhood. In support, he presented various documents, including his diploma, professional IDs, passport, and marriage contract, all bearing the name “Ruben C. Bartolome.” The State, through the Office of the Solicitor General, did not file any opposition or present controverting evidence.
The RTC denied the petition, citing failure to exhaust administrative remedies under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9048, insufficiency of evidence, and improper venue. It ruled that correction of the first name fell under R.A. 9048, an administrative remedy, while correction of the surname required a Rule 108 petition filed in Manila where the civil registry is located. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, holding that the corrections sought for both first name and surname were covered by R.A. 9048 and that petitioner failed to prove his family name was spelled “Bartolome.”

ISSUE

Whether the change or correction of petitioner’s name from “Feliciano Bartholome” to “Ruben Cruz Bartolome” should be filed under R.A. 9048, Rule 103, or Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the rulings of the lower courts. The Court clarified the distinctions between Rule 103 (change of name), Rule 108 (cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry), and the administrative procedure under R.A. 9048, as amended by R.A. 10172. A Rule 103 petition is a judicial proceeding for changing one’s name, which is a privilege granted only upon showing of proper and compelling reasons, such as when the name is ridiculous or causes embarrassment. Conversely, Rule 108 is a judicial remedy for correcting clerical or typographical errors in the civil register, requiring publication and involvement of all affected parties.
The Court held that R.A. 9048, as amended, established an administrative procedure that now covers both the correction of clerical or typographical errors in any entry in the civil register (including first name, nickname, day/month/year of birth, or sex) and the change of first name or nickname. Since petitioner’s objective was to correct the entries in his birth certificate to reflect the name he has allegedly used since childhood, and not to change his name for reasons of public interest, the proper remedy was an administrative petition under R.A. 9048 filed with the local civil registrar. The Court found no error in the CA’s conclusion that petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claim of continuous use of the desired name.