G.R. No. L-29214. October 29, 1976.
IN RE: PETITION FOR THE CORRECTION OF ENTRIES IN THE CIVIL REGISTER. LEONCIO TAN, petitioner-appellee, vs. THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF CEBU CITY, respondent. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent-appellant.

FACTS

Petitioner Leoncio Tan filed a petition under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, seeking to correct his birth record. He sought to change his registered surname from “Ti” to “Tan” and to correct his father’s name from “Ti Tiao Hack” to “Tan Tiao Hock.” He alleged that a neighbor erroneously reported his birth, using an alias of his father. To support his petition, Tan presented evidence that he had always used “Leoncio Tan” in his school records, marriage certificate, and alien registration. He also presented the birth record of a sister, Cresencia Tan, which correctly listed their parents as Tan Tiao Hock and Yap Chin.
The State, through the Solicitor General, opposed the petition, arguing that the changes sought were substantial and not merely clerical, and that the proper remedy was a petition for change of name under Rule 103. The trial court granted Tan’s petition, finding his evidence sufficient. The Republic appealed, contending the decision was contrary to law and evidence.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly granted the petition for correction of entries under Rule 108, or whether the changes sought are substantial, requiring a petition for change of name under Rule 103.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court and dismissed the petition. The legal logic is anchored on the limited scope of Rule 108 proceedings. The Court held that the summary correction procedure under Rule 108 and Article 412 of the Civil Code is confined to the rectification of innocuous or clerical errors. A clerical error is one that is visible to the eyes or obvious from the record, not one that requires adjudication of substantial matters.
The Court found Tan’s evidence insufficient to prove that a clerical error occurred. He failed to conclusively establish that his father’s true name was Tan Tiao Hock. Critical documentary evidence, such as his father’s own birth or alien certificate, was not presented. The school records he submitted were inconsistent, with one listing his father as “Tan Tiao Ho” and another omitting the name entirely. His sister, whose birth record he relied upon, did not testify to corroborate their familial relationship. The evidence merely showed a discrepancy between the name he used (“Tan”) and his registered name (“Ti”), which are distinct Chinese surnames.
Since the petition aimed to change his surname and his father’s identity—matters affecting citizenship and filiation—the alterations were substantial. The proper remedy for such a change of identity is a petition for change of name under Rule 103, which requires a more rigorous adversarial proceeding. The Court thus dismissed the Rule 108 petition for lack of sufficient evidentiary basis to characterize the errors as clerical.