COMPARATIVE

ANALYSIS OF
RULE 103 vs.
RULE 108
 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF RULE 103 AND RULE 108
These Rules concern the correction of entries in public document
where there are minor to substantial mistake/s needed to address. However,
there is a thin line separating these rules in terms of their applicability in
cases.

A person seeking 1) to change his or her surname or 2) to change

both his or her first name and surname may file a petition for change of
name under Rule 103, provided that the jurisprudential grounds discussed
in Republic v. Hernandez are present i.e., 1) name is ridiculous,
dishonorable, or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; 2) change results
as a legal consequence, as in legitimation; 3) change will avoid confusion; 4)
When one has continuously used and been known since childhood by a
Filipino name, and was unaware of alien parentage; 5) Sincere desire to
adopt Filipino name to erase signs of former alienage, all in good faith and
without prejudicing anybody; 6) Surname causes embarrassment and there
is no showing that the desired change of name was for a fraudulent purpose
or that the change of name would prejudice public interest. In short, before
a person can be allowed to change his name, he must show a proper or
reasonable cause to allow such change.

On the other hand, a person seeking substantial cancellations or

corrections of entries in the civil registry may file a petition for cancellation
or correction of entries under Rule 108. Rule 108 applies when a petition for
cancellation or correction of an entry in then civil register involves
substantial and controversial alterations such as citizenship, legitimacy of
paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage. To note, R.A. 9048 "removed
from the ambit of Rule 108 of the correction of such errors. Rule 108 now
applies only to substantial changes and corrections in entries in the civil
register."

A person seeking 1) to change his or her first name, 2) to correct

clerical or typographical errors in the civil register, 3) to change/correct
the day and/or month of his or her date of birth, and/or 4) to change/correct
his or her sex, where it is patently clear that there was a clerical or
typographical error or mistake, must first file a verified petition with the local
civil registry office of the city or municipality where the record being sought
to be corrected or changed is kept, in accordance with the administrative
proceeding provided under R.A. 9048 in relation to R.A. 10172. A person
may only avail of the appropriate judicial remedies under Rule 103 or Rule
108 in the aforementioned entries after the petition in the administrative
proceedings is filed and later denied.

RULE 103
CHANGE OF NAME

PURPOSE

This rule procedurally governs judicial petitions regarding the change

of name or surname, or both. The objective of this rule is to prevent fraud,
since the rule involves substantial changes in a person’s name.

This rule provides the procedure for an independent special proceeding

in court to establish the status of a person involving his relations with
others, that is, his legal position in, or with regard to, the rest of the
community. In petitions for change of name, a person avails of a remedy to
alter the “designation by which he is known and called in the community in
which he lives and is best known.” When granted, a person’s identity and
interactions are affected as he bears new “label or appellation for the
convenience of the world at large in addressing him. Judicial permission for a
change of name aims to prevent fraud and to ensure a record of the change
by virtue of a court decree (Republic vs Mercadera).

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS

Rule 103 is an action in rem which requires publication of the order

issued by the court. Which means that the decision binds not only the
parties impleaded but the whole world.

RATIONALE OF PUBLICATION
 To afford the State and all other interested parties to present their
opposition to the petition.

OFFICIAL NAME

It is the name recorded in the civil register. The only name that may
be changed.

VENUE

Section 1— A person desiring to change his name shall present the

petition to the Court of First Instance of the province in which he
resides, or, in the City of Manila, to the Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court.

A petition for a change of name may be filed by any person. It includes

natural persons regardless of his/her nationality.

The petition may be filed in the regional trial court of the place where
the petitioner resides.

CONTENTS OF THE PETITION

Section 2 — A petition for change of name shall be signed and

verified by the person desiring his name changed, or some other
person on his behalf, and shall set forth:

(a) That the petitioner has been a bona fide resident of the

province where the petition is filed for at least three (3) years
prior to the date of such filing;

(b) The cause for which the change of the petitioner's name is
sought;

(c) The name asked for.

Things included in the title of petition:

1) applicant’s real name;

2) his aliases or other names, if any; and
 3) the name sought to be adopted even if these data are found in the
body of the petition.

The Court held that the petitioner must include both his true name and
the name prayed for in his petition. If the petitioner failed to include both,
the court will not acquire jurisdiction over the petition.

Information needed for valid publication:

1) the name or names of the applicant;

2) the cause for the changed name; and
3) the new name asked for.

NOTE: The petition for change of name must be filed by the person desiring
to change his/her name.

ORDER FOR HEARING

Section 3— If the petition filed is sufficient in form and substance,

the court, by an order reciting the purpose of the petition, shall fix a
date and place for the hearing thereof, and shall direct that a copy of
the order be published before the hearing at least once a week for
three (3) successive weeks in some newspaper of general circulation
published in the province, as the court shall deem best. The date set
for the hearing shall not be within thirty (30) days prior to an
election nor within four (4) month after the last publication of the
notice.

Valid reasons to change the petitioner’s name:

1) Name is ridiculous, dishonorable, or extremely difficult to write or

pronounce;
2) change results as a legal consequence, as in legitimation;
3) change will avoid confusion;
4) When one has continuously used and been known since childhood
by a Filipino name, and was unaware of alien parentage;
5) Sincere desire to adopt Filipino name to erase signs of former
alienage, all in good faith and without prejudicing anybody;
6) Surname causes embarrassment and there is no showing that the
desired change of name was for a fraudulent purpose or that the change of
name would prejudice public interest. (REPUBLIC VS. HERNANDEZ).
HEARING

Section 4— Any interested person may appear at the hearing and

oppose the petition. The Solicitor General or the proper provincial or
city fiscal shall appear on behalf of the Government of the Republic.

JUDGMENT

Section 5— Upon satisfactory proof in open court on the date fixed in

the order that such order has been published as directed and that
the allegations of the petition are true, the court shall, if proper and
reasonable cause appears for changing the name of the petitioner,
adjudge that such name be changed in accordance with the prayer of
the petition.

SERVICE OF JUDGMENTS

Section 6— Judgments or orders rendered in connection with this

rule shall be furnished the civil registrar of the municipality or city
where the court issuing the same is situated, who shall forthwith
enter the same in the civil register.

APPRECIATION OF RULE 103 IN THE CASE OF

REPUBLIC vs. CAGANDAHAN

In this case, respondent alleged that she was born on January 13,
1981 and was registered as a female in the Certificate of Live Birth but while
growing up, she developed secondary male characteristics and was
diagnosed to have Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) which is a condition
where persons thus afflicted possess both male and female characteristics.
The respondent further alleged that she was diagnosed to have clitoral
hypertrophy in her early years and at age six, underwent an ultrasound
where it was discovered that she has small ovaries. At age thirteen, tests
revealed that her ovarian structures had minimized, she has stopped
growing and she has no breast or menstrual development. She then alleged
that for all interests and appearances as well as in mind and emotion, she
has become a male person. Thus, she prayed that her birth certificate be
corrected such that her gender be changed from female to male and her first
name be changed from Jennifer to Jeff.

The Court, as for respondent’s change of name under Rule 103, has
held that a change of name is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion,
to be exercised in the light of the reasons adduced and the consequences
that will follow. The trial court’s grant of respondent’s change of name from
Jennifer to Jeff implies a change of a feminine name to a masculine name.
Considering the consequence that respondent’s change of name merely
recognizes his preferred gender, the court find merit in respondent’s change
of name. Such a change will conform with the change of the entry in his
birth certificate from female to male.

RULE 108
CANCELLATION OR CORRECTION OF ENTRIES IN THE
CIVIL REGISTRY

NATURE/PURPOSE

Rule 108 implements judicial proceedings for the correction or

cancellation of entries in the civil registry pursuant to Article 412 of the Civil
Code. Entries in the civil register refer to "acts, events and judicial decrees
concerning the civil status of persons," also as enumerated in Article 408 of
the same law. Before, only mistakes or errors of a harmless and innocuous
nature in the entries in the civil registry may be corrected under Rule 108
and substantial errors affecting the civil status, citizenship or nationality of a
party are beyond the ambit of the rule.

CORRECTION UNDER RULE 108

Substantial corrections or cancellation of entries in civil registry

records affecting the status or legitimacy of a person may be effected
through the institution of a petition under Rule 108 of the Revised Rules of
Court, with the proper Regional Trial Court. Being a proceeding in rem,
acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of petitioner is therefore not
required.

The publication of the order of notice to all indispensable parties which

binds the whole world to the judgment that may be rendered in the petition.
WHO MAY FILE THE PETITION

Section 1. Any person interested in any act, event, order or decree

concerning the civil status of persons which has been recorded in
the civil register, may file a verified petition for the cancellation or
correction of any entry relating thereto, with the Court of First
Instance of the province where the corresponding civil registry is
located.

(1) The petition under Rule 108 may be filed by any person:

(2) Interested in any act, event, order, or decree;

(3) Concerning the civil status of persons;

(4) Which has been recorded in the civil register.

The verified petition must be filed in the regional trial court of the
province where the civil registry is located.

ENTRIES SUBJECT TO CANCELLATION OR CORRECTION

Section 2.  Upon good and valid grounds, the following entries in the
civil register may be cancelled or corrected: (a) births: (b) marriage;
(c) deaths; (d) legal separations; (e) judgments of annulments of
marriage; (f) judgments declaring marriages void from the
beginning; (g) legitimations; (h) adoptions; (i) acknowledgments of
natural children; (j) naturalization; (k) election, loss or recovery of
citizenship; (l) civil interdiction; (m) judicial determination of
filiation; (n) voluntary emancipation of a minor; and (o) changes of
name.

PARTIES

Section 3. When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil

register is sought, the civil registrar and all persons who have or
claim any interest which would be affected thereby shall be made
parties to the proceeding.
NOTICE AND PUBLICATION

Section 4.  Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall, by an
order, fix the time and place for the hearing of the same, and cause
reasonable notice thereof to be given to the persons named in the
petition. The court shall also cause the order to be published once a
week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
circulation in the province.

OPPOSITION

Section 5.  The civil registrar and any person having or claiming any
interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought
may, within fifteen (15) days from notice of the petition, or from the
last date of publication of such notice, file his opposition thereto.

EXPEDITING PROCEEDINGS

Section 6.  The court in which the proceeding is brought may make
orders expediting the proceedings, and may also grant preliminary
injunction for the preservation of the rights of the parties pending
such proceedings.

ORDER

Section 7. After hearing, the court may either dismiss the petition or
issue an order granting the cancellation or correction prayed for. In
either case, a certified copy of the judgment shall be served upon
the civil registrar concerned who shall annotated the same in his
record.

RULE 103 vs. RULE 108 of the Rules of Court

Republic v. Vergara
G.R. No. 195873, February 23, 2015
 Facts: Subject of the instant petition is the "Petition for Correction of
the Entries in the Certificate of Live Birth" filed with the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Pasig by herein respondent Kris Anne Dela Vega Vergara seeking
the correction of her name from, "Ronald" to "Kris Anne," and her sex from
"Male" to "Female," as appearing in her Certificate of Live Birth.
Respondent alleged that she was born on November 7, 1983 in Pasig City
and was baptized in accordance with the rites of the Roman Catholic Church;
that since her childhood, she has been using and still is using the name KRIS
ANNE DELA VEGA VERGARA as shown by her baptismal, school and
employment records; that, subsequently, upon securing a copy of her
Certificate of Live Birth from the National Statistics Office (NSO), she learned
that the name appearing on the entry with respect to the name of the child
is "RONALD" while the entry for her sex is "M", referring to a male; that she
alleged that the erroneous entries might have been caused by inadvertence
on the part of the midwife who assisted her mother when she gave birth.
The RTC took cognizance of the case, set it for hearing and directed
respondent to cause the publication of the Notice of Hearing of the petition
and to send a copy thereof, together with a copy of the petition, to the Office
of the Local Civil Registrar of Pasig City, Office of the Civil Registrar-General
and Office of the Solicitor General. On the day set for hearing, no opposition
was registered against the petition. Hence, upon her motion, respondent
was allowed to present evidence ex parte.
On February 12, 2008, the RTC issued an Order granting respondent's
petition.
Thereafter, the Republic of the Philippines (Republic), through the Office of
the Solicitor General (OSG), filed an appeal with the CA contending that the
RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the proceedings, since the title of the
petition did not contain respondent's aliases as required by Rule 103 of the
Rules of Court.
On February 28, 2011, the CA promulgated its assailed Decision which
dismissed the Republic's appeal.
Hence, the instant petition which the Court finds to be without merit.
Petitioner's argument is anchored on the supposition that the proper Rule to
be used is Rule 103, not Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

Issue: Whether or not the proper Rule to be used is Rule 103 and not
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

Ruling: The proper Rule to be used is Rule 108. What respondent

seeks is the correction of clerical errors which were committed in the
recording of her name and sex. This Court has held that not all alterations
allowed in one's name are confined under Rule 103 and that corrections for
clerical errors may be set right under Rule 108.
The evidence presented by respondent, to wit: baptismal certificate,
certificate of confirmation, school and employment records as well as NBI
clearance, indeed shows that, since birth, she has been using the name "Kris
Anne." As to her sex, she presented medical and laboratory reports to show
that she is, biologically, a female. Respondent's mother also testified that
she and her husband do not have any son by the name of "Ronald" and that
they only have two children — herein respondent and Christian Gregor who
was born on April 17, 1986. Thus, it is evident from the foregoing that
respondent never had any intention to change her name and sex. What she
seeks is simply the removal of the clerical fault or error in her registered sex
and given name, and to set aright the same to conform to her real sex and
the name she grew up with.
In any event, even granting that Rule 103 applies to this case, it still cannot
be denied that respondent complied with the requirements for an adversarial
proceeding before the RTC. The publication and posting of the notice of
hearing in a newspaper of general circulation and the notices sent to the
OSG, the Civil Registrar-General and the Local Civil Registrar of Pasig City
are sufficient indicia of an adverse proceeding. The fact that no one opposed
the petition, including the OSG, did not deprive the court of its jurisdiction to
hear the same and did not make the proceedings less adversarial in nature.
Considering that the OSG did not oppose the petition and the motion to
present respondent's evidence ex parte when it had the opportunity to do
so, it cannot now complain that the proceedings in the lower court were
defective. In this regard, this Court adheres to the principle that even
substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected and the true facts
established under Rule 108 provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail
themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding ."
 REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9048
AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OR MUNICIPAL CIVIL
REGISTRAR OR THE CONSUL GENERAL TO CORRECT A
CLERICAL OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN AN ENTRY
AND/OR CHANGE OF FIRST NAME OR NICKNAME IN THE
CIVIL REGISTER WITHOUT THE NEED OF A JUDICIAL
ORDER

REPUBLIC ACT 9048

RA 9048 amends Articles 376 and 412 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, which prohibit the change of name or surname of a person, or
any correction or change of entry in a civil register without a judicial order.

ALLOWED CORRECTIONS 

   (1) correction of clerical or typographical errors in any entry in civil

registry documents, except corrections involving the change in sex, age,
nationality and status of a person;

   (2) change of a person's first name in his/her civil registry document

under certain grounds specified under the law through administrative
process.

VALID GROUNDS 
 (1) The petitioner finds the first name or nickname to be ridiculous,
tainted with dishonor or extremely difficult to write or pronounce;

(2) The new first name or nickname has been habitually and
continuously used by the petitioner and he has been publicly known by that
first name or nickname in the community; or

(3) The change will avoid confusion.

WHO MAY FILE PETITION

The petition may be filed by a person of legal age who must have a
direct and personal interest in the correction of the error or in the change of
first name in the civil register.

PERSONS WITH DIRECT AND PERSONAL INTEREST

    (1) Owner of the record that contains the error to be corrected or first
name to be changed;
    (2) Owner's spouse, children, parents, brothers, sisters, grandparents,
guardian, or any other person duly authorized by law or by the owner of the
document sought to be corrected.

FORM AND CONTENT OF THE PETITION

The petition, whether it is for correction of clerical error or for a

change of first name, should be accomplished properly and in the prescribed
form. Section 5 of RA 9048 and Rule 8 of Administrative Order No. 1, S.
2001 require that the petition should be in the form of an affidavit, hence, it
should be subscribed and sworn to before a person authorized to administer
oath.

The petition must contain the following facts or information:

   1. Merits of the petition;

   2. Competency of the petitioner;
   3. Erroneous entry to be corrected and proposed correction; first name to
be changed and the proposed new first name.

 
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

(1) Certified machine copy of the certificate containing the alleged

erroneous entry or entries;

(2) At least two (2) public or private documents showing the correct
entry or entries upon which the correction or change shall be based; 

(3) Other documents as may be required by the City/Municipal Civil

Registrar (C/MCR).

SUPPORTING PAPERS FOR CHANGE OF FIRST NAME

Other than the supporting documents mentioned above, the following

are other requirements:

(1) Publication of such petition at least once a week for two

consecutive weeks in newspaper of general circulation;

(2) Certification from appropriate law enforcement agencies that he

has no pending case or criminal record.

The petition and its supporting papers shall be filed in three copies to
be distributed as follows: first copy to the concerned city or municipal civil
registrar, or the consul general; second copy to the office of the Civil
Registrar general; and third copy to the petitioner.  

WHERE TO FILE

The verified petition shall be filed, in person, with the Local Civil
Registry Office (LCRO) where the record containing the clerical error to be
corrected or first name to be changed is kept. Included in this general rule is
the case of the Office of the Clerk of Shari'a Court where records of divorces,
revocations of divorces, conversions to Islam are kept and where some
Muslim marriages are registered.

However, in case the petitioner is a migrant within or outside the Philippines,

meaning his present residence or domicile is different from where his civil
registry record or records are registered, he may file the petition in the
nearest PRCR in his area. His petition will be treated as a migrant petition.
 COMPARATIVE
ANALYSIS OF
DOMESTIC vs.
ADOPTION INTER-
COUNTRY
ADOPTION
 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DOMESTIC vs. ADOPTION
INTER-COUNTRY ADOPTION

Adoption is defined as the process of making a child, whether related

or not to the adopter, possess in general, the rights accorded to a legitimate
child. It is a juridical act, a proceeding in rem which creates between two
persons a relationship similar to that which results from legitimate paternity
and filiation. The modern trend is to consider adoption not merely as an act
to establish a relationship of paternity and filiation, but also as an act which
endows the child with a legitimate status. (In the Matter of Adoption of
Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia)

Under the Domestic Adoption, any Filipino citizen, whether individual

or married, may adopt judicially provided that the adopter/s has not
convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude, emotionally and
psychologically capable of caring a child. To note, the adopter must be at
least sixteen years older than the adoptee. However, such age minimum age
gap may no longer required if the adopter is the biological parent of the
adoptee. A foreign national may also adopt under the same law provided
that adopter possessed all the qualifications given to a Filipino citizen in
adoption and the adopter’s country has diplomatic relations with the republic
of the Philippines: Provided, Further, That the adopter has been living in the
Philippines for at least three (3) continuous years prior to the filing of the
adoption and maintain such residence until the adoption decree is entered.
The residency requirement is not required in certain situation.

The prospective adoptive parent/s, under the Domestic Adoption, may

file the adoption proceedings in the Family Court where he/she resides. The
adopter may adopt any person that is: (1) below eighteen (18) years of age
who has been voluntarily committed to the Department under Articles 154,
155 and 156 of P.D. No. 603 or judicially declared available for adoption; (2)
the legitimate child of one spouse, by the other spouse; (3) an illegitimate
child, by a qualified adopter to raise the status of the former to that of
legitimacy; (4) of legal age regardless of civil status, if, prior to the
adoption, said person has been consistently considered and treated by the
adopters as their own child since minority; (5) a child whose adoption has
been previously rescinded; or (6) a child whose biological or adoptive
parents have died: Provided, that no proceedings shall be initiated within six
(6) months from the time of death of said parents. (7) A child not otherwise
disqualified by law or these rules.

Inter-country Adoption, as governed by Republic Act No. 8043, allows

foreign nationals and Filipino citizens permanently residing abroad to
extrajudicially adopt A Filipino child below fifteen (15) years of age. In the
said Act, a legally free child may be adopted by an alien or by any Filipino
citizens permanently residing abroad. A legally free child refers to any child
who has been voluntarily or involuntarily committed to the Department of
Social Welfare and Development as dependent, abandoned, or neglected
pursuant to the provisions of the Child and Youth Welfare Code and may be
the subject of the Inter-Country Adoption. To note, a child that is voluntarily
committed, the physical transfer shall not be made earlier than six months
from the date of execution of the Deed of Voluntary Commitment by the
child’s biological parent/s or guardian. This transfer shall not apply to
children being adopted by a relative or to children with special medical
conditions.

The adoption proceedings may be filed to the Family Court where the
adoptee resides or may be found, or Inter-Country Adoption Board, through
an intermediate agency, whether governmental or an authorized and
accredited agency, in the country of the prospective parents.
 DOMESTIC ADOPTION
APPLICABILITY

It covers all domestic adoption of Filipino children.

OBJECTIVES

The Rule on Adoption has two main objectives, to wit:

(a) the best interests shall be the paramount consideration in all matters
relating to the care, custody and adoption of the child;

(b) that the State shall provide alternative protection and assistance through
foster care or adoption for every child who is a foundling, neglected,
orphaned, or abandoned.

Who may Adopt

(1) Any Filipino citizen of legal age, in possession of full civil capacity
and legal rights, of good moral character, has not been convicted of any
crime involving moral turpitude; who is emotionally and psychologically
capable of caring for children, at least sixteen (16) years older than the
adoptee, and who is in a position to support and care for his children in
keeping with the means of the family. The requirement of a 16-year
difference between the age of the adopter and adoptee may be waived when
the adopter is the biological parent of the adoptee or is the spouse of the
adoptee’s parent;

(2) Any alien possessing the same qualifications as above-stated for

Filipino nationals: Provided, That his country has diplomatic relations with
the Republic of the Philippines, that he has been living in the Philippines for
at least three (3) continuous years prior to the filing of the petition for
adoption and maintains such residence until the adoption decree is entered,
that he has been certified by his diplomatic or consular office or any
appropriate government agency to have the legal capacity to adopt in his
country, and that his government allows the adoptee to enter his country as
his adopted child. Provided, further, That the requirements on residency and
certification of the alien’s qualification to adopt in his country may be waived
for the following:
(i) a former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative within the
fourth (4th) degree of consanguinity or affinity; or
(ii) one who seeks to adopt the legitimate child of his Filipino spouse;
(iii) one who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly
with his spouse a relative within the fourth (4th) degree of consanguinity or
affinity of the Filipino spouse.

(3) The guardian with respect to the ward after the termination of the
guardianship and clearance of his financial accountabilities.
Husband and wife shall jointly adopt, except in the following cases:
(i) if one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate child of one spouse by
the other spouse; or
(ii) if one spouse seeks to adopt his own illegitimate child: Provided,
however, That the other spouse has signified his consent thereto; or
(iii) if the spouses are legally separated from each other.

In case husband and wife jointly adopt or one spouse adopts the illegitimate
child of the other, joint parental authority shall be exercised by the spouses.

Who may be Adopted

Under the Domestic Adoption Act, the following may be adopted:

(1) any person below eighteen (18) years of age who has been voluntarily
committed to the Department under Articles 154, 155 and 156 of P.D. No.
603 or judicially declared available for adoption;
(2) the legitimate child of one spouse, by the other spouse;
(3) an illegitimate child, by a qualified adopter to raise the status of the
former to that of legitimacy;
(4) a person of legal age regardless of civil status, if, prior to the adoption,
said person has been consistently considered and treated by the adopters as
their own child since minority;
(5) a child whose adoption has been previously rescinded; or
(6) a child whose biological or adoptive parents have died: Provided, that no
proceedings shall be initiated within six (6) months from the time of death of
said parents.
(7) a child not otherwise disqualified by law or these rules.

Consent Necessary for the Adoption

The written consent of the following to the adoption is hereby required:

(a) The adoptee, if ten (10) years of age or over;
(b) The biological parent(s) of the child, if known, or the legal
guardian, or the proper government instrumentality which has legal custody
of the child;
(c) The legitimate and adopted sons/daughters, ten (10) years of age
or over, of the adopter(s) and adoptee, if any;
(d) The illegitimate sons/daughters, ten (10) years of age or over, of
the adopter if living with said adopter and the latter's spouse, if any; and
(e) The spouse, if any, of the person adopting or to be adopted.
Venue

The petition for adoption shall be filed with the Family Court of the
province or city where the prospective adoptive parents reside.

Decree of Adoption

The Court that issues the dree of Adoption is the Family Court.

Domestic Adoption by Foreign Nationals residing at least three (3)

years in the Philippines

Spouses Park vs. Hon. Liwanag

G.R. No. 248035, November 27, 2019

Facts: Petitioners Spouses Joon Hyung Park and Kyung Ah Lee are
American citizens residing in the Philippines, particularly in Makati City. They
are the petitioners in the Petition for Adoption with Change of Name of the
minor "Mayca Alegado" a.k.a. "Innah A1egado" (Innah) before the RTC of
Makati City. Petitioners have been residing in the Philippines since 2007 (in
the case of petitioner Park) and since 2009 (in the case of petitioner Lee).
They have been gainfully employed in the Philippines for almost the same
length of time that they have been residing in the country.
Innah was born on December 13, 2012 in Tuguegarao City. She was barely
22 days old when rescued by a non-government organization from
trafficking and referred to the Department of Social Welfare and
Development (DSWD) Field Office in Cagayan. Innah's biological mother
attempted to give her away in exchange for transportation fare. Innah is now
six years old. She was a little over one year old when her care and custody
was officially bestowed by the DSWD upon petitioners on January 18, 2014,
through a Pre-Adoption Placement Authority.

Petitioners have also adopted another girl, Hannah, through domestic

adoption. The RTC of Makati City, Branch 144, granted Hannah's adoption on
August 30, 2016. Hannah is now 10 years old, and Innah considers her as
her older sister. The DSWD processed petitioners' application for adoption of
Innah, and issued on May 30, 2016 its Affidavit of Consent. The DSWD's
Affidavit of Consent instructed petitioners to file a petition for domestic
adoption.
However, the RTC directs the transmittal of a copy of the petition and its
annexes to the Inter-Country Adoption Board for appropriate action.

Issue: Whether or not the RTC is correct.

Ruling: No. The SC finds that petitioners' Petition for Adoption was
appropriately filed under the Domestic Adoption Act in order for the
appropriate Family Court or RTC to take cognizance thereof.

Under the Section 4 of the Domestic Adoption Act:

XXXXXXXXXXX
Section 4. Who may adopt- The following may adopt:

(2) Any alien possessing the same qualifications as above-stated for

Filipino nationals: Provided, that his country has diplomatic relations
with the Republic of the Philippines, that he has been living in the
Philippines for at least three (3) continuous years prior to the filing
of the petition for adoption and maintains such residence until the
adoption decree is entered. 

The petitioners, who are both American citizens, have been residing
and have been gainfully employed in the Philippines since the year 2007 (in
the case of petitioner Park) and since 2009 (in the case of petitioner Lee),
and are thus living in the Philippines for at least three continuous years prior
to the filing of the petition for adoption, as required by the Domestic
Adoption Act.
Rule regarding Joint Adoption

General Rule: the husband and wife must adopt jointly

Exceptions
The following are the exceptions to the rule that husband and wife
must adopt jointly.
1. One spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate child of one spouse by the other
spouse; or
2. One spouse seeks to adopt his own illegitimate child: Provided, however,
that the other spouse has signified his consent thereto; or
3. The spouse are legally separated from each other.

Effects of Adoption
The following are the effects of adoption:
(1) sever all ties between the biological parent/s and the adoptee, except
when the biological parent is the spouse of the adopter;
(2) deem the adoptee as the legitimate child of the adopter; and
(3) give adopter and adoptee reciprocal rights and obligations arising from
the relationship of parent and child, including but not limited to: (a) the right
of the adopter to chose the name the child is to be known; and (b) the right
of the adopter and the adoptee to be legal and compulsory heirs of each
other.

Rescission of Adoption

Domestic Adoption act provides that the adopter is barred from

severing the legal ties of adoption, however, such adopter may cause the
forfeiture of certain benefits otherwise accruing to an undeserving adoptee.

Who may File

The following are allowed to file petition for the rescission of adoption:
(1) the adopted who is at least 18 years of age;
(2) with the assistance of the Department of Social Welfare and
Development, if the adopted child is still a minor; or
(3) the legal guardian or counsel if the adopted is over 18 years of age but is
incapacitated.

Grounds for Rescission

The following are grounds to rescind adoption:

(1) Repeated physical and verbal maltreatment by the adopter despite
having undergone counseling;
(2) Attempt on the life of the adoptee;
(3) Sexual assault or violence; or
(4) Abandonment or failure to comply with the parental obligations.

Effects of Rescission of Adoption

(1) The parental authority of the biological parent of the adoptee, if known,
or the legal custody of the Department of Social Welfare and Development is
restored if the adoptee is still a minor or capacitated;
(2) the reciprocal rights and obligations of the adopter and adoptee to each
other are extinguished;
(3) Succession rights revert to their status prior to adoption, as of the date
of judgment of rescission, but vested rights acquired prior to rescission are
to be respected;
(4) The court shall order adoptee to use the name stated in the original birth
or foundling certificate;
(5) The court shall order the Civil Registrar where the adoption decree was
registered to cancel the new birth certificate of the adoptee and reinstate the
original birth or foundling certificate.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8043

INTER-COUNTRY ADOPTION ACT OF 1995

Inter-country Adoption is a process wherein a foreigner or a Filipino

citizen residing abroad adopts a Filipino child. As defined in the Inter-country
Adoption Act, a child is a person below fifteen years of age.

Inter-country adoption is allowed only when such adoption will give the
child’s best interest.

Who may be Adopted

Only a legally free child may be adopted by an alien or by any Filipino

citizens permanently residing abroad. A legally free child refers to any child
who has been voluntarily or involuntarily committed to the Department of
Social Welfare and Development as dependent, abandoned or neglected
pursuant to the provisions of the Child and Youth Welfare Code and may be
the subject of the Inter-Country Adoption. To note, a child that is voluntarily
committed, the physical transfer shall not be made earlier than six months
from the date of execution of the Deed of Voluntary Commitment by the
child’s biological parent/s or guardian. This transfer shall not apply to
children being adopted by a relative or to children with special medical
conditions.

Terms

Voluntarily committed child is one whose parent(s) knowingly and

willingly relinquishes parental authority to the Department.

Involuntarily committed child is one whose parent(s), known or

unknown, has been permanently and judicially deprived of parental authority
due to abandonment; substantial, continuous, or repeated neglect; abuse;
or incompetence to discharge parental responsibilities.

Dependent Child refers to one who is without a parent, guardian or

custodian or one whose parents, guardian, or other custodian for good cause
desires to be relieved of his care for support.

Abandoned child refers to one who has no proper parental care or

guardianship or whose parent(s) has deserted him/her for a period of at
least six (6) continuous months and has been judicially declared as such.

Neglected child is one whose basic needs have been deliberately not
attended to or inadequately attended to, physically or emotionally by his
parents or guardian.

Who May Adopt

An alien or a Filipino citizen permanently residing abroad may file an

application for inter-country adoption of a Filipino child if he/she:

(a) is at least twenty-seven (27) years of age and at least sixteen (16) years
older than the child to be adopted, at the time of application unless the
adopter is the parent by nature of the child to be adopted or the spouse of
such parent;
(b) if married, his/her spouse must jointly file for the adoption;
(c) has the capacity to act and assume all rights and responsibilities of
parental authority under his national laws, and has undergone the
appropriate counseling from an accredited counselor in his/her country;
(d) has not been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude;
(e) is eligible to adopt under his/her national law;
(f) is in a position to provide the proper care and support and to give the
necessary moral values and example to all his children, including the child to
be adopted;
(g) agrees to uphold the basic rights of the child as embodied under
Philippine laws, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, and to abide
by the rules and regulations issued to implement the provisions of this Act;
(h) comes from a country with whom the Philippines has diplomatic relations
and whose government maintains a similarly authorized and accredited
agency and that adoption is allowed under his/her national laws; and
(i) possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided
herein and in other applicable Philippine laws.

The Inter-Country Adoption Board

There is hereby created the Inter-Country Adoption Board, hereinafter

referred to as the Board to act as the central authority in matters relating to
inter-country adoption. It shall act as the policy-making body for purposes of
carrying out the provisions of this Act, in consultation and coordination with
the Department, the different child-care and placement agencies, adoptive
agencies, as well as non-governmental organizations engaged in child-care
and placement activities. As such, it shall:

(a) Protect the Filipino child from abuse, exploitation, trafficking and/or sale
or any other practice in connection with adoption which is harmful,
detrimental, or prejudicial to the child;
(b) Collect, maintain, and preserve confidential information about the child
and the adoptive parents;
(c) Monitor, follow up, and facilitate completion of adoption of the child
through authorized and accredited agency;
(d) Prevent improper financial or other gain in connection with an adoption
and deter improper practices contrary to this Act;
(e) Promote the development of adoption services including post-legal
adoption;
(f) License and accredit child-caring/placement agencies and collaborate with
them in the placement of Filipino children;
(g) Accredit and authorize foreign adoption agency in the placement of
Filipino children in their own country; and
(h) Cancel the license to operate and blacklist the child-caring and
placement agency or adoptive agency involved from the accreditation list of
the Board upon a finding of violation of any provision under this Act.

Home Study Report

It refers to a study made by the court social worker of the child’s legal
status, placement history, psychological, social, spiritual, medical, ethno-
cultural background and that of his biological family needed in determining
the most appropriate placement for him.
 COMPARATIVE
ANALYSIS OF
WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS vs.
WRIT OF
AMPARO vs.
WRIT OF HABEAS
DATA
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS vs. WRIT OF
AMPARO vs. WRIT OF HABEAS DATA

Special writs are writs issued

by the court when there is violation
of certain constitutional rights.

In a Writ of Habeas Corpus,

it involves a violation of the right
to liberty, or by which the rightful
custody of any person is withheld
from the person entitled thereto. It
may be granted in cases of illegal
confinement or detention any
which any person is derived of
his/her liberty. The same can also
be used in a case of rightful custody of any person is withheld from the
person entitled to such custody.

Writ of Habeas Corpus plays a role somewhat comparable to a

summons, in ordinary civil actions, in that, by service of said writ, the court
acquires jurisdiction over the person of the respondent. Once authority over
the latter has thus been established, the appellate court issuing the writ, or
the court of first instance to which the writ has been made returnable —
acting in place of the appellate court — may render a decision, which — like
other decisions of the Supreme Court and of courts of first instance — may
be enforced anywhere in the Philippines. (Saulo vs. Cruz)

However, there are situations wherein writ of habeas corpus is not

applicable, such as, when the person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is
in the custody of an officer: 1) under process issued by a court or judge; or
2) by virtue of a judgment or order of a court of record; and (3) the court or
judge had jurisdiction to issue the process, render the judgment or make the
order. Also, writ of habeas corpus shall not be granted when a person is: (1)
charged with; (2) convicted of an offense; or (3) suffering imprisonment
under a lawful judgment.

On the other hand, a Writ of Amparo, one of the special writs, is a

remedy to safeguard the right of the people to life, liberty and security. This
writ addresses the concerns of persons safety against extrajudicial killings
and enforced disappearances. The writ of amparo plays both preventative
and curative roles in addressing extrajudicial killings and enforced
disappearances. It is preventative because it breaks the expectation of
impunity in the commission of these offenses. It is curative because it
facilitates the punishment of the perpetrators by inevitably leading to
subsequent investigation and action.

As stated above, Writ of Amparo applies in cases of extrajudicial

killings and enforced disappearances. Extrajudicial killings refer to killings
committed without legal safeguards or judicial proceedings. On the other
side, enforced disappearance, as defined in the case of Razon, Jr vs. Tagitis,
exists when: an arrest, detention or abduction of a person by a government
official or organized groups or private individuals acting with direct or
indirect acquiescence of the government; the refusal of the State to disclose
the fate or whereabouts of the person concerned or a refusal to acknowledge
the deprivation of liberty which places such persons outside the protection of
law.

If a person seeks to find a judicial remedy to protect a person’s right

to control information regarding one’s self, especially information collected
illegally or without the person’s consent, the Writ of Habeas Data is the
proper solution to file. The Writ of Habeas Data is defined as a remedy to
any person whose right to privacy in life, libery or security is violated or
threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or
of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or
storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and
correspondence of the aggrieved party.

In this remedy, if the Court finds that the allegations in the petition
are proven through substantial evidence, the Court may allow access to the
database or information to enjoin the act complained of or in case the
database information contains erroneous data or information, order its
deletion, destruction or rectification.

AVAILABILITY

Writ of Habeas Corpus- It is a writ directed to the person detaining

another, commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at a
designated time and place, with the day and cause of his caption and
detention, to do, submit to, and receive whatever the court or judge
awarding the writ shall consider in that behalf.
Writ of Amparo- It is a remedy available to one whose right to life, liberty,
and security are violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official, or employee, or of a private individual or entity.
The writ covers extralegal killings and enforced disappearances threats
thereof.
Writ of Habeas Data- It is a remedy available to any person whose right to
privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act
or omission of a public official or employee, or a private individual or entity
engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information
regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved
party.

AVAILABILITE AGAINST

Writ of Habeas Corpus- (1) deprivation of liberty; and (2) withholding the
rightful custody of a person.
Writ of Amparo- A violation or threatened violation by an unlawful act or
omission of: (1) a public official; (2) a public employee; and (3) a private
individual or entity
Writ of Habeas Data- A violation or threatened violation of the right to
privacy in life, liberty, or security by an unlawful act or omission of: (1) a
public official; (2) a public employee; (3) a private individual or entity
engaged in the gathering, collecting, or storing of data or information
regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved
party.

COVERAGE

Writ of Habeas Corpus- (1) all cases of illegal confinement or detention by

which any person is deprived of his liberty; (2) the rightful custody of any
person is withheld from the person entitled thereto.
Writ of Amparo- (1) extrajudicial killings; (2) enforced disappearances.
Writ of Habeas Data- (1) gathering; (2) collecting; (3) storing data or
information. Regarding: (1) person; (2) family; (3) home; and (4)
correspondence

WHO MAY FILE

Writ of Habeas Corpus- Party for whose relief is intended, or by some

other person on his behalf.
Writ of Amparo- Aggrieved party, or any qualified person or entity in the
following order: (1) any member of the immediate family, namely: the
spouse, children and parents of the aggrieved party; (2) any ascendants,
descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party within the fourth civil
degree of consanguinity or affinity, in default of those mentioned above; (3)
any concerned citizen, organization, association or institution, if there is
known no member of the immediate family or relative of the aggrieved
party.
Writ of Habeas Data- Generally, the aggrieved party, except in cases of
extralegal killings and enforced disappearance, the petition may be filed by:
(a) any member of the immediate family of the aggrieved party, namely: the
spouse, children and parents.
CASE DIGESTS

CORPUZ vs STO. TOMAS

G.R. No. 186571, August 11, 2010
Facts: Petitioner Gerbert R. Corpuz was a former Filipino citizen who acquired Canadian
citizenship through naturalization. On January 18, 2005, Gerbert married respondent Daisylyn T.
Sto. Tomas, a Filipina, in Pasig City. Gerbert left for Canada soon after the wedding. He returned
to the Philippines sometime in April 2005 to surprise Daisylyn, but was shocked to discover that
his wife was having an affair with another man. Gerbert returned to Canada and filed a petition
for divorce. The divorce decree took effect a month later, on January 8, 2006.

Two years after the divorce, Gerbert has moved on and has found another Filipina to love.
Desirous of marrying his new Filipina fiancée in the Philippines, Gerbert went to the Pasig City
Civil Registry Office and registered the Canadian divorce decree on his and Daisylyn’s marriage
certificate. Despite the registration of the divorce decree, an official of the NSO informed
Gerbert that the marriage between him and Daisylyn still subsists under Philippine law; to be
enforceable, the foreign divorce decree must first be judicially recognized by a competent
Philippine court, pursuant to NSO Circular No. 4.

Gerbert filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and/or declaration of marriage
as dissolved (petition) with the RTC. Although summoned, Daisylyn did not file any responsive
pleading but submitted instead a notarized letter/manifestation to the trial court. She offered no
opposition to Gerbert’s petition and, in fact, alleged her desire to file a similar case herself but
was prevented by financial and personal circumstances. She, thus, requested that she be
considered as a party-in-interest with a similar prayer to Gerbert’s.

The RTC denied Gerbert’s petition. The RTC concluded that Gerbert was not the proper party to
institute the action for judicial recognition of the foreign divorce decree as he is a naturalized
Canadian citizen. It ruled that only the Filipino spouse can avail of the remedy, under the second
paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code.

Issues: 1. Whether or not the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code extends to
aliens the right to petition a court of this jurisdiction for the recognition of a foreign divorce
decree.

2. Whether or not the Pasig City Civil Registry Office is proper when it recorded the divorce
decree on Gerbert and Daisylyn’s marriage certificate based on the mere presentation of the
decree.

3. Whether or not the recognition that the RTC may extend to the Canadian divorce decree
authorize the cancellation of the entry in the civil registry.

Rulings: 1. No. The Court was correct in limiting the applicability of the provision for the
benefit of the Filipino spouse.

The legislative intent is for the benefit of the Filipino spouse, by clarifying his or her marital
status, settling the doubts created by the divorce decree. Essentially, the second paragraph of
Article 26 of the Family Code provided the Filipino spouse a substantive right to have his or her
marriage to the alien spouse considered as dissolved, capacitating him or her to remarry. Without
the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, the judicial recognition of the foreign
decree of divorce, whether in a proceeding instituted precisely for that purpose or as a related
issue in another proceeding, would be of no significance to the Filipino spouse since our laws do
not recognize divorce as a mode of severing the marital bond; Article 17 of the Civil Code
provides that the policy against absolute divorces cannot be subverted by judgments promulgated
in a foreign country. The inclusion of the second paragraph in Article 26 of the Family Code
provides the direct exception to this rule and serves as basis for recognizing the dissolution of the
marriage between the Filipino spouse and his or her alien spouse.

2. No. While the law requires the entry of the divorce decree in the civil registry, the law and the
submission of the decree by themselves do not ipso facto authorize the decree’s registration. The
law should be read in relation with the requirement of a judicial recognition of the foreign
judgment before it can be given res judicata effect.

3. No. A petition for recognition of a foreign judgment is not the proper proceeding,
contemplated under the Rules of Court, for the cancellation of entries in the civil registry.

Article 412 of the Civil Code declares that "no entry in a civil register shall be changed or
corrected, without judicial order." The Rules of Court supplements Article 412 of the Civil Code
by specifically providing for a special remedial proceeding by which entries in the civil registry
may be judicially cancelled or corrected. Rule 108 of the Rules of Court sets in detail the
jurisdictional and procedural requirements that must be complied with before a judgment,
authorizing the cancellation or correction, may be annotated in the civil registry. It also requires,
among others, that the verified petition must be filed with the RTC of the province where the
corresponding civil registry is located; that the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim
any interest must be made parties to the proceedings; and that the time and place for hearing
must be published in a newspaper of general circulation. As these basic jurisdictional
requirements have not been met in the present case, we cannot consider the petition Gerbert filed
with the RTC as one filed under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

FUJIKI vs.MARINAY
 G.R. No. 196049, June 26, 2013

Facts: Petitioner Minoru Fujiki (Fujiki) is a Japanese national who married respondent Maria
Paz Galela Marinay (Marinay) in the Philippines on 23 January 2004. The marriage did not sit
well with petitioner’s parents. Thus, Fujiki could not bring his wife to Japan where he resides.
Eventually, they lost contact with each other.

In 2008, Marinay met another Japanese, Shinichi Maekara (Maekara). Without the first marriage
being dissolved, Marinay and Maekara were married on 15 May 2008 in Quezon City,
Philippines. Maekara brought Marinay to Japan. However, Marinay allegedly suffered physical
abuse from Maekara. She left Maekara and started to contact Fujiki.

Fujiki and Marinay met in Japan and they were able to reestablish their relationship. In 2010,
Fujiki helped Marinay obtain a judgment from a family court in Japan which declared the
marriage between Marinay and Maekara void on the ground of bigamy. On 14 January 2011,
Fujiki filed a petition in the RTC entitled: "Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment (or Decree
of Absolute Nullity of Marriage)." Fujiki prayed that (1) the Japanese Family Court judgment be
recognized; (2) that the bigamous marriage between Marinay and Maekara be declared void ab
initio under Articles 35(4) and 41 of the Family Code of the Philippines; and (3) for the RTC to
direct the Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City to annotate the Japanese Family Court judgment
on the Certificate of Marriage between Marinay and Maekara and to endorse such annotation to
the Office of the Administrator and Civil Registrar General in the National Statistics Office.
The trial court based its dismissal on Section 5(4) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC which provides that
"[f]ailure to comply with any of the preceding requirements may be a ground for immediate
dismissal of the petition."

Issues: (1) Whether the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and
Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) is applicable.
2. Whether or not a husband or wife of a prior marriage can file a petition to recognize a foreign
judgment nullifying the subsequent marriage between his or her spouse and a foreign citizen on
the ground of bigamy.
3.Whether or not the Court can recognize the foreign judgment in a proceeding for cancellation
or correction of entries in the Civil Registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

Rulings: 1. No. The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment
of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) does not apply in a petition to recognize a
foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of a
foreign country. Also, the rule in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC that only the husband or wife can file a
declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage "does not apply if the reason behind the petition
is bigamy."
To hold that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC applies to a petition for recognition of foreign judgment
would mean that the trial court and the parties should follow its provisions, including the form
and contents of the petition, the service of summons, the investigation of the public
prosecutor, the setting of pre-trial, the trial and the judgment of the trial court. This is absurd
because it will litigate the case anew. It will defeat the purpose of recognizing foreign judgments,
which is "to limit repetitive litigation on claims and issues." The interpretation of the RTC is
tantamount to relitigating the case on the merits. In Mijares v. Rañada, this Court explained that
"[i]f every judgment of a foreign court was reviewable on the merits, the plaintiff would be
forced back on his/her original cause of action, rendering immaterial the previously concluded
litigation."

2. Yes. Fujiki has the personality to file a petition to recognize the Japanese Family Court
judgment nullifying the marriage between Marinay and Maekara on the ground of bigamy
because the judgment concerns his civil status as married to Marinay.
There is no doubt that the prior spouse has a personal and material interest in maintaining the
integrity of the marriage he contracted and the property relations arising from it. There is also no
doubt that he is interested in the cancellation of an entry of a bigamous marriage in the civil
registry, which compromises the public record of his marriage. The interest derives from the
substantive right of the spouse not only to preserve (or dissolve, in limited instances) his most
intimate human relation, but also to protect his property interests that arise by operation of law
the moment he contracts marriage. These property interests in marriage include the right to be
supported "in keeping with the financial capacity of the family" and preserving the property
regime of the marriage.

3. Yes. Philippine courts will only determine (1) whether the foreign judgment is inconsistent
with an overriding public policy in the Philippines; and (2) whether any alleging party is able to
prove an extrinsic ground to repel the foreign judgment, i.e. want of jurisdiction, want of notice
to the party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact. If there is neither inconsistency with
public policy nor adequate proof to repel the judgment, Philippine courts should, by default,
recognize the foreign judgment as part of the comity of nations. Section 48(b), Rule 39 of the
Rules of Court states that the foreign judgment is already "presumptive evidence of a right
between the parties." Upon recognition of the foreign judgment, this right becomes conclusive
and the judgment serves as the basis for the correction or cancellation of entry in the civil
registry. The recognition of the foreign judgment nullifying a bigamous marriage is a subsequent
event that establishes a new status, right and fact that needs to be reflected in the civil registry.
Otherwise, there will be an inconsistency between the recognition of the effectivity of the foreign
judgment and the public records in the Philippines.
 GRANDE vs. ANTONIO
G.R. No. 206248, February 18, 2014

Facts: Petitioner Grace Grande and respondent Patricio Antonio for a period of time lived
together as husband and wife, although Antonio was at that time already married to someone
else. Out of this illicit relationship, two sons were born: Andre Lewis and Jerard Patrick. The
children were not expressly recognized by respondent as his own in the Record of Births of the
children in the Civil Registry. The parties’ relationship, however, eventually turned sour, and
Grande left for the United States with her two children in May 2007. This prompted respondent
Antonio to file a Petition for Judicial Approval of Recognition with Prayer to take Parental
Authority, Parental Physical Custody, Correction/Change of Surname of Minors and for the
Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8 of Aparri,
Cagayan (RTC), appending a notarized Deed of Voluntary Recognition of Paternity of the
children.

RTC rendered a Decision in favor of herein respondent Antonio.

On appeal, CA modified the trial court’s decision. CA gave the custody to Grande however; CA
directed the appropriate offices to enter the surname Antonio to the children in their respective
certificate of live birth.

Issue: Whether or not the father has a right to compel the use of his surname by his illegitimate
children upon his recognition of their filiation.

Ruling: No. Under Art. 176. – Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the
parental authority of their mother, and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this Code.
However, illegitimate children may use the surname of their father if their filiation has been
expressly recognized by their father through the record of birth appearing in the civil register, or
when an admission in a public document or private handwritten instrument is made by the father.
Provided, the father has the right to institute an action before the regular courts to prove non-
filiation during his lifetime. The legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of one-half of the
legitime of a legitimate child.

From the foregoing provisions, it is clear that the general rule is that an illegitimate child shall
use the surname of his or her mother. The exception provided by RA 9255 is, in case his or her
filiation is expressly recognized by the father through the record of birth appearing in the civil
register or when an admission in a public document or private handwritten instrument is made by
the father. In such a situation, the illegitimate child may use the surname of the father.
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FELIX
G.R. No. 203371, June 30, 2020

Facts: In his Petition for Correction of Entries dated July 30, 2007, respondent Charlie Mintas
a.k.a. Shirley Mintas Felix essentially alleged that he was born on October 1, 1976 in Itogon,
Benguet.  His birth was registered with the Local Civil Registrar (LCR)-Itogon, Benguet where
his birth certificate bore the following erroneous entries: his first name "Shirley" instead of
"Charlie," his gender "female" instead of "male," and his father's surname "Filex" instead of
"Felix".  But he has another birth certificate carried the correct entries" his first name as Charlie,
his gender as male, and his father's surname as "Felix".

In all his subsequent official transactions, he used the birth certificate registered with LCR-
Carrangalan, Nueva Ecija.  But when he subsequently requested for authenticated copy of his
birth certificate from the National Statistics Office (NSO), what it officially released to him was
the erroneous birth certificate with LCR-Itogon, Benguet.

He, thus, prayed for correction of his birth certificate with the LCR-Itogon, Benguet and
cancellation of his second birth certificate with the LCR-Carranglan, Nueva Ecija.

The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), prayed for
the dismissal of the petition on ground that the RTC-La Trinidad, Benguet did not have
jurisdiction over the LCR-Carranglan, Nueva Ecija which ought to implement the directive for
cancellation of respondent's second birth certificate, should be the same be granted by the trial
court.

RTC ordered to change and correct from its records the entries in the Certificate of Live Birth of
Charlie Mintas Felix. Furthermore, the Local Civil Registrar of Carranglan, Nueva Ecija is
hereby ordered to cancel from its record the registration of the facts of birth of Charlie Mintas
Felix.

On appeal, the Republic assailed the trial court for taking cognizance of the case, albeit, it had no
jurisdiction to order the LCR-Carranglan, Nueva Ecija to cancel respondent's second birth
registration therewith. CA Affirmed the lower court’s decision.

Issues: 1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals commit reversible error when it rejected the
Republic's challenge against the trial court's jurisdiction to direct the LCR-Carranglan, Nueva
Ecija to cancel respondent's second birth certificate as a consequence of its order to correct
respondent's first birth certificate.

2. Whether or not the Republic Act No. 9048 (RA 9048) as amended by Republic Act No. 10172
(RA 10172) divest the regional trial courts of jurisdiction over petitions for correction of entries
in the civil registry.
Rulings: 1. No. The Court of Appeals correctly upheld the trial court's jurisdiction to order the
LCR-Carranglan, Nueva Ecija to cancel respondent's second birth certificate.

It is settled that jurisdiction over the main case embraces all incidental matters arising therefrom
and connected therewith under the doctrine of ancillary jurisdiction.

Here, the trial court has jurisdiction over respondent's petition for correction of entries in his first
birth certificate on file with the LCR-Itogon, Benguet. The trial court has jurisdiction, as well, to
direct the cancellation of respondent's second birth certificate with the LCR-Carranglan, Nueva
Ecija as an incident or as a necessary consequence of the action to correct the entries sought by
respondent. Indeed, demands, matters, or questions ancillary or incidental to, or growing out of,
the main action, and coming within the above principles, may be taken cognizance of by the
court and determined, since such jurisdiction is in aid of its authority over the principal
matter, even though the court may thus be called on to consider and decide matters which, as
original causes of action, would not be within its cognizance.

2. No. RA 9048, as amended does not divest the regional trial courts of jurisdiction over petitions
for correction of entries in the civil registry.

Under the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, a party must first avail of all
administrative processes available before seeking the courts' intervention. The administrative
officer concerned must be given every opportunity to decide on the matter within his or her
jurisdiction. Failing to exhaust administrative remedies affects the party's cause of action as these
remedies refer to a precedent condition which must be complied with prior to filing a case in
court.

However, failure to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not affect
the court's jurisdiction. Thus, the doctrine may be waived as in Soto v. Jareno:

Failure to observe the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies does not affect the
jurisdiction of the court. We have repeatedly stressed this in a long line of decisions. The only
effect of non-compliance with this rule is that it will deprive the complainant of a cause of
action, which is a ground for a motion to dismiss. If not invoked at the proper time, this ground is
deemed waived and the court can then take cognizance of the case and try it.
 BARTOLOME vs REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 243288, August 28, 2019

Facts: In 2014, petitioner, a resident of Parañaque City, filed a petition for change of name under
Rule 103 of the Rules of Court before the RTC, seeking "to correct the name 'Feliciano
Bartholome' as appearing in his birth certificate x x x. He stated that he has been using the
name 'Ruben [Cruz] Bartolome'  since his childhood."

After posting and publication, petitioner was allowed to present the following documents to
support his claim: 1) Doctor of Medicine Diploma dated May 18, 1965; 2) CSC Certificate for
Medical Examiners Physician dated December 6, 1965; 3) PRC ID No. 0030981 dated
December 6, 1968; 4) Marriage Contract No. 894-2-68 dated May 18, 1968; 5) Philippine
Passport No. EB 1611302 dated December 23, 2010; 6) Senior Citizens ID Card No. 2006661
dated December 11, 2002; and 7) NBI Clearance No. 15050159 dated November 25,
2011, which all bore the name, "Ruben C. Bartolome."

It appears from the records that although the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) was notified
and the Office of the City Prosecutor of Parañaque City was deputized to appear on behalf of the
State, no motion to dismiss was filed questioning the jurisdiction of the court or the venue of the
petition. In fact, the State did not present any controverting evidence nor file any comment or
opposition to the petition. It likewise appears from the records that petitioner's father and siblings
were never impleaded.

The RTC denied the petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, insufficiency of
evidence, and improper venue. CA also denied the appeal.

Hence, petitioner filed the instant Petition insisting that Rule 103 is the proper remedy. Petitioner
argues that, contrary to the ruling of the CA, R.A. 9048 covers changes in the "first name or
nickname [only]" and does not cover petitions to "correct [his] surname." Thus, petitioner claims
that it would be "splitting [his] cause of action" if he were compelled to file separate petitions for
change of name and correction of entries.

Issue: Whether or not the change/correction sought in petitioner's first name, middle name, and
surname, as appearing in his birth certificate, from "Feliciano Bartholome" to "Ruben Cruz
Bartolome" should be filed under Rule 103, or Rule 108 of the Rules.

Ruling: No. A person must first file a verified petition with the local civil registry office of the
city or municipality where the record being sought to be corrected or changed is kept, in
accordance with the administrative proceeding provided under R.A. 9048 in relation to R.A.
10172 seeking: 1) to change his or her first name, 2) to correct clerical or typographical errors in
the civil register, 3) to change/correct the day and/or month of his or her date of birth, and/or 4)
to change/correct his or her sex, where it is patently clear that there was a clerical or
typographical error or mistake.  A person may only avail of the appropriate judicial remedies
under Rule 103 or Rule 108 in the aforementioned entries after the petition in the administrative
proceedings is filed and later denied.

In the instant case, petitioner seeks to change his first name, to include his middle, and to correct
the spelling of his surname,37i.e., from "Feliciano Bartholome" as stated in his birth certificate
to "Ruben Cruz Bartolome"

The Court agrees that the aforementioned changes and corrections are covered by Section 1 of
R.A. 9048 as amended by R.A. 10172, which provides:

Section 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or Typographical Error and Change of First

Name or Nickname. — No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected
without a judicial order, except for clerical or typographical errors and change of first
name or nickname, the day and month in the date of birth or sex of a person where it is
patently clear that there was a clerical or typographical error or mistake in the entry, which
can be corrected or changed by the concerned city or municipal civil registrar or consul
general in accordance with the provisions of this Act and its implementing rules and regulations.

ADDITIONAL EXPLANATIONS

-The change of petitioner's first name is covered by R.A. 9048

SECTION 4. Grounds for Change of First Name or Nickname. — The petition for change of
first name or nickname may be allowed in any of the following cases:

(1) The petitioner finds the first name or nickname to be ridiculous, tainted with dishonor or
extremely difficult to write or pronounce;
(2) The new first name or nickname has been habitually and continuously used by the petitioner
and he has been publicly known by that first name or nickname in the community; or  
(3) The change will avoid confusion.
In the instant case, petitioner seeks to change his first name from "Feliciano " to "Ruben, "  on
the ground that he has been using the latter since childhood. Contrary to petitioner's claims
therefore, the change sought is covered by R.A. 9048 and should have been filed with the local
civil registry of the city or municipality where the record being sought to be corrected or changed
is kept.

-The inclusion of petitioner's middle name is covered by R.A. 9048

While substantial corrections of entries in the civil register are still covered by Rule 108,
typographical or clerical corrections must now be filed under R.A. 9048 as amended. Section 2
of the said law defines clerical or typographical errors as follows:
(3) 'Clerical or typographical error' refers to a mistake committed in the performance of clerical
work in writing, copying, transcribing or typing an entry in the civil register that is harmless and
innocuous, such as misspelled name or misspelled place of birth, mistake in the entry of day and
month in the date of birth or the sex of the person or the like, which is visible to the eyes or
obvious to the understanding, and can be corrected or changed only by reference to other existing
record or records: Provided, however, That no correction must involve the change of nationality,
age, or status of the petitioner.
In Republic v. Gallo, the Court unequivocally held that a prayer to enter a person's middle
name is a mere clerical error, which may be corrected by referring to existing records. Thus, it is
primarily administrative in nature and should be filed pursuant to R.A. 9048 as amended.

Applying the aforementioned ruling to the instant case therefore, petitioner's prayer that his
middle name, "Cruz" be entered, is a mere clerical correction, and must therefore be likewise
undertaken through the administrative proceeding provided under R.A. 9048.

-The correction in the spelling of petitioner's surname is likewise covered by R.A. 9048
As herein petitioner's allegedly misspelled surname, "Bartholome," may be readily corrected by
merely referring to the existing records of the civil registrar, such as the surnames of petitioner's
parents and immediate family members, the petition should have been filed under R.A. 9048 and
not under Rule 103 of the Rules. It likewise follows that the petition should have been filed with
the local civil registry office of the city or municipality where the record being sought to be
corrected or changed is kept, in accordance with Section 3 of R.A. 9048 and not in accordance
with the venue provided in Rule 103.