Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 68 views

    Almojuela V Republic

    Uploaded by

    Elvis Jagger Abdul Jabhar
    This case involved a petition by Felipe Almojuela to correct the surname on his birth certificate from "Condeno" to "Almojuela". The Regional Trial Court initially dismissed the petition but later granted the correction. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the petitioner did not meet the procedural requirements to correct the birth record. Specifically, he failed to implead and notify the local civil registrar and his half-siblings, whose interests would be affected by the change. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, agreeing that the petitioner did not fulfill the necessary requirements under the Rules of Court to validly correct the entry on his birth certificate.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Almojuela V Republic

    Uploaded by

    Elvis Jagger Abdul Jabhar
    68 views2 pages
    This case involved a petition by Felipe Almojuela to correct the surname on his birth certificate from "Condeno" to "Almojuela". The Regional Trial Court initially dismissed the petition but later granted the correction. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the petitioner did not meet the procedural requirements to correct the birth record. Specifically, he failed to implead and notify the local civil registrar and his half-siblings, whose interests would be affected by the change. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, agreeing that the petitioner did not fulfill the necessary requirements under the Rules of Court to validly correct the entry on his birth certificate.

    Original Title

    Almojuela v Republic

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a petition by Felipe Almojuela to correct the surname on his birth certificate from "Condeno" to "Almojuela". The Regional Trial Court initially dismissed the petition but later granted the correction. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the petitioner did not meet the procedural requirements to correct the birth record. Specifically, he failed to implead and notify the local civil registrar and his half-siblings, whose interests would be affected by the change. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, agreeing that the petitioner did not fulfill the necessary requirements under the Rules of Court to validly correct the entry on his birth certificate.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    68 views2 pages

    Almojuela V Republic

    Uploaded by

    Elvis Jagger Abdul Jabhar
    This case involved a petition by Felipe Almojuela to correct the surname on his birth certificate from "Condeno" to "Almojuela". The Regional Trial Court initially dismissed the petition but later granted the correction. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the petitioner did not meet the procedural requirements to correct the birth record. Specifically, he failed to implead and notify the local civil registrar and his half-siblings, whose interests would be affected by the change. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, agreeing that the petitioner did not fulfill the necessary requirements under the Rules of Court to validly correct the entry on his birth certificate.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Almojuela v.

    Republic
    G.R. No. 211724, 24 August 2016 (Decision)
    PERLAS, BERNABE J. ;

    FACTS:
    - For the length of sixty (60) years, the petitioner has been using the surname “Almojuela”, but
    when he requested a copy of his birth certificate he learned that he was registered under a different
    surname, instead of “Felipe Almojuela” he was registered as “Felipe Condeno”, seeing this the petitioner
    filed for a Correction of Entry in his NSO birth certificate.

    The petitioner alleged that he was born February 25 1950 in Pandan, Catanduanes, of both Jorge
    V. Almojuela and Francisca B. Condeno, and that he is known to his friends and family as “Felipe
    Almojuela”, and has that he’s been using the name in his records and documents; to prove this he
    presented a copy of his Birth certificate issued by the Local Civil Registrar of Pandan that “Felipe
    Almojuela” was his registered name.

    In the RTC’s first order date January 10 2011, dismissed the petition on the ground that the
    petitioner’s recourse to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court was improper, that the petition involves a matter
    of filiation not just correction; petitioner filed for reconsideration as the petitioner was only seeking a
    correction of entry and that the issue of filiation is immaterial, though, when checked in the Book of
    Births in the Municipal Civil Registrar in Pandan it was found that his name was registered as “Felipe
    Condeno” not “Felipe Almojuela” as the petitioner had alleged.

    In a Decision dated October 6, 2011, reconsideration was granted and the RTC directed the
    Municipal Civil Registrar of Pandan the correction of entry of the petitioner’s birth by changing his
    surname from “Condeno” to “Almojuela”; The Republic of the Philippines through the Office of the
    Solicitor General (OSG) moved for reconsideration; in its order in November 14, 2011 the RTC denied the
    OSG’s motion; dissatisfied, the OSG appealed to the Court of Appeales (CA).

    In a Decision dated February 27, 2011, the CA reversed and set aside the assailed the RTC
    Decision and Order and nullified the correction of entry in the petitioner’s birth certificate.

    ISSUE:

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

    2. (Procedural) Whether or not the petitioner lacks the necessary requirements provided in Sections 3,
    4, and 5?

    RULING:

    1. No. The petition lacks merit; the Court of Appeals had the jurisdiction to stop and nullify the RTC’s
    decision due to the petitioner lacking the necessary requirement in order to proceed with the correction
    of entry on the birth certificate.
    2. Yes. The petitioner does or have not fulfilled the necessary requirements for the correction of entry
    Rule 108 of the Rules of Court SEC 3 provides: “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.”; in this case the CA correctly found that the
    petitioner failed to implead and notify both the Local Civil Registrar and his half siblings as the parties
    who have interest and are affected by the changes.

    DISPOSITION:

    -In the decision dated February 27 2014 by the Court of Appeals is affirmed, in that the
    petitioner did not meet the requirements needed for the corrections of entry for his birth certificate.

    QUICK DIGEST:

    - In applying for change in one’s name registered in the Local or Municipal Civil Registrar,
    requirements must be met, in that the parties affected or who have interest in the matter be notified
    and be made parties to the proceeding for the reason that the change can also have an effect to them as
    well, failure to do so will result to the dismissal of the petition.

    You might also like