G.R. No. L-32600 February 26, 1988
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. FELICIANO BELMONTE, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Baguio and Benguet and ANITA PO alias VERONICA PAO, assisted by her mother HELEN POA, respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Anita Po, a minor assisted by her mother, filed a petition with the Court of First Instance seeking to change her name to Veronica Pao. Concurrently, she sought the correction of her birth records, specifically to change her father’s name from “Po Yu” to “Pao Yu” and her mother’s name from “Pakiat Chan” to “Helen Chan.” She alleged these entries were errors due to a common misunderstanding of Chinese names and that she had always been known as Veronica Pao.
The Office of the Solicitor General opposed the petition, arguing that a petition for change of name under Rule 103 and a petition for correction of entries under Rule 108 are distinct remedies with different procedural requirements. It contended that the petition failed to comply with Rule 108, as the local civil registrar and other affected parties were not impleaded, and the corrections sought were not mere clerical errors. The trial court, however, granted the petition, allowing both the change of name and the corrections.

ISSUE

Whether a petition for a change of name and a petition for the correction of entries in the civil registry can be jointly granted in a single proceeding despite non-compliance with the specific procedural requirements for each remedy.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in the negative and set aside the trial court’s decision. The legal logic is anchored on the distinct nature and procedural mandates of Rule 103 (Change of Name) and Rule 108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry). These rules provide separate remedies and may not be conflated for mere expediency. For a joint petition to be valid, it must strictly satisfy all requirements of both rules.
The Court held that the corrections sought by the respondent were not merely clerical. A clerical error must be apparent on the face of the record and correctable by reference to the record alone. Changing “Po Yu” to “Pao Yu” and “Pakiat Chan” to “Helen Chan” involves substantial alterations to the identities of the parents, constituting a material change beyond the scope of a summary proceeding under Rule 108. Moreover, Section 3 of Rule 108 mandates that the civil registrar and all persons with an interest that would be affected must be made parties. The failure to implead the local civil registrar as an indispensable party rendered the proceeding fatally defective for the correction aspect. Consequently, the petition was insufficient in form and substance and should have been dismissed.