MATRON M. OHOMA (MATIORICO M. OHOMNA), PETITIONER, v. OFFICE OF THE MUNICIPAL LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF AGUINALDO, IFUGAO AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 239584, June 17, 2019
MATRON M. OHOMA (MATIORICO M. OHOMNA), PETITIONER, v. OFFICE OF

THE MUNICIPAL LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF AGUINALDO, IFUGAO AND
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Decision2 dated February 1,
2018 and the Resolution3 dated May 16, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
CV No. 105591, which annulled and set aside the Resolution 4 dated June 9, 2015 of the
Regional Trial Court of Alfonso Lista, Ifugao, Branch 15 (RTC) in Special Proceedings
Case No. 142-14.
The Facts
This case stemmed from a petition5 filed by petitioner Matron M. Ohoma (Matiorico M.
Ohomna; petitioner) before the RTC on March 26, 2014, seeking the cancellation of his
Certificate of Live Birth with Registry Number 45-866 (first birth certificate). He averred
that: (a) he was born on May 13, 1986 in Aguinaldo, Ifugao; (b) his birth was belatedly
recorded with the Local Civil Registrar of Aguinaldo, Ifugao (LCR-Aguinaldo) on
February 8, 2000 under Certificate of Live Birth with Registry Number 2000-
247 (second birth certificate); (c) unknown to him, his birth had been previously
registered with the LCR-Aguinaldo on June 13, 1986 under the first birth certificate;
(d) the first birth certificate contained erroneous entries, i.e., (i) his first name was
erroneously recorded as Matron instead of Matiorico and (ii) his last name was
erroneously recorded as Ohoma instead of Ohomna; (e) he has been using the first
name Matiorico and the last name Ohomna, and has been known by such first and last
names both in his public and private transactions; and (f) the second birth certificate
reflects the true and correct data of petitioner; hence, must be the one retained. 8 The
petition, which was docketed as Special Proceedings Case No. 142-14, likewise included
a prayer for"[o]ther reliefs just and equitable x x x."9
On May 14, 2014, the RTC issued an Order10 finding the petition to be sufficient in form
and substance, and consequently, gave due course thereon by setting the case for
hearing. It further directed that the concerned government offices be furnished a copy
of the said Order and the same be published in a newspaper of general circulation for
three (3) consecutive weeks at the expense of petitioner. 11
During the scheduled hearing, petitioner established the jurisdictional requirement of

publication, which was admitted by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Ifugao, the
office duly deputized to assist the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) in the
proceedings.12 An order of general default was issued and petitioner was then allowed
to present his evidence ex-parte before the Clerk of Court of the RTC. In support of his
petition, petitioner presented his two (2) birth certificates, his Elementary School
Permanent Record,13 a copy of his Passport Application Form, 14
and his Professional
Driver's License.15
The RTC Ruling
In a Resolution16 dated June 9, 2015, the RTC granted the petition and ordered the
LCR-Aguinaldo and the National Statistics Office (NSO; now Philippine Statistics
Authority) to cancel petitioner's first birth certificate, finding that the same contains
errors that caused confusion as to the identity of
petitioner.17 ·
Dissatisfied, the Republic of the Philippines appealed18 to the CA, challenging the
validity of petitioner's second birth certificate on the ground that his birth could no
longer be the subject of a second or another registration as the same had already been
validly registered. Assuming that his original or first registration contains several errors,
such do not constitute valid grounds for the cancellation thereof, and the proper
remedy is to file a petition for correction of entries in the first registration under Rule
108 of the Rules of Court (Rule 108).19
The CA Ruling
In a Decision20 dated February 1, 2018, the CA annulled and set aside the RTC
ruling.21 It ruled that there can be no valid late registration of petitioner's birth
considering that the same had already been lawfully registered with the LCR-Aguinaldo
within thirty (30) days from the time of his birth,22 as required under Office of the Civil
Registrar-General Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1983.23 Thus, it held that the
RTC should have upheld the validity of petitioner's first birth certificate instead of
his second birth certificate, which should have been the.one nullified and cancelled. It
declared that the proper remedy was to file a petition for correction of entries in
petitioner's first birth certificate pursuant to Rule 108.24
Petitioner moved for reconsideration25 which was denied in a Resolution26 dated May
16, 2018; hence, this petition.
The Issue Before the Court
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA committed reversible
error when it annulled and set aside the RTC ruling ordering the cancellation of
petitioner's first birth certificate.
The Court's Ruling
Under Office of the Civil Registrar-General Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1983,
as amended, the birth of a child shall be registered within 30 days from the time of
birth in the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of the city/municipality where it occurred.
In this case, petitioner's birth had already been reported by his mother, Antonia Maingit
(Antonia), and duly recorded in the civil register of the LCR-Aguinaldo on June 13,
1986. Thus, as correctly pointed out by the CA, there can be no valid late registration of
petitioner's birth as the same had already been lawfully registered within 30 days from
his birth under the first birth certificate.27 Consequently, it is the second birth
certificate that should be declared void and correspondingly cancelled even if the
entries therein are claimed to be the correct ones.
However, while the petition specifically prayed for the cancellation of

petitioner's first birth certificate and the retention of his second birth certificate,
the ultimate objective was to correct the erroneous entries pertaining to petitioner's
first and last names, i.e., from Matron Ohoma to Matiorico Ohomna, as he claimed that
people in the community know him by the latter name rather than the former.28 Rule
108 implements judicial proceedings for the correction or cancellation of entries in the
civil registry pursuant to Article 41229 of the Civil Code. The role of the Court under
Rule 108 is to ascertain the truth about the facts recorded therein.30
The action filed by petitioner before the RTC seeks to correct a supposedly misspelled
name, and thus, properly falls under Rule 108. To correct simply means "to make or set
aright; to remove the faults or error from."31 Considering that petitioner complied with
the procedural requirements32 under Rule 108, the RTC had the jurisdiction to resolve
the petition which included a prayer for "[o]ther reliefs just and equitable x x x."33 A
general prayer for "other reliefs just and equitable" appearing on a petition enables the
court to award reliefs supported by the complaint or other pleadings, by the facts
admitted at the trial, and by the evidence adduced by the parties, even if these reliefs
are not specifically prayed for in the complaint.34 Consequently, the CA erred in holding
that petitioner has to refile another petition before the trial court could resolve his
claim.
Nonetheless, the Court finds that petitioner failed to sufficiently establish that his
father's last name was Ohomna and not Ohoma through competent evidence, i.e., the
latter's birth certificate, the certificate of his marriage to petitioner's mother, Antonia,
on January 30, 1986, or a government-issued identification card or record. On this
score alone, the correction of petitioner's first and last names should be denied. While
the first name may be freely selected by the parents for the child, the last name to
which the child is entitled is fixed by law.35 Although petitioner's Elementary School
Permanent Record36 and Professional Driver's License37 identify him as Matiorico
Ohomna, the same are insufficient to grant the petition. It pears stressing that the real
name of a person is that given him in the Civil Register, not the name by which he was
baptized in his Church or by which he was known in the community, or which he has
adopted.38
In addition, the Court notes that Antonia was the informant in both instances and the
one who signed both birth certificates. However, a perusal of Antonia's signatures on
petitioner's two (2) birth certificates shows that the same are materially different from
each other. Further, petitioner failed to show any plausible explanation why she signed
as Antonia Ohoma39 on the first birth certificate and as Antonia Ohomna40 on the
second birth certificate.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated February 1, 2018 and the
Resolution dated May 16, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 105591 are
hereby SET ASIDE. A new judgment is entered ORDERING the Local Civil Registrar of
Aguinaldo, Ifugao and the Philippine Statistics Authority to cancel petitioner Matron M.
Ohoma's Certificate of Live Birth with Registry Number 2000-24.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Caguioa, J. Reyes, Jr. and Lazaro-Javier, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:

MATRON M. OHOMA (MATIORICO M. OHOMNA), PETITIONER, v. OFFICE OF THE MUNICIPAL LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF AGUINALDO, IFUGAO AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MATRON M. OHOMA (MATIORICO M. OHOMNA), PETITIONER, v. OFFICE OF THE MUNICIPAL LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF AGUINALDO, IFUGAO AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MATRON M. OHOMA (MATIORICO M. OHOMNA), PETITIONER, v. OFFICE OF THE MUNICIPAL LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF AGUINALDO, IFUGAO AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 239584, June 17, 2019

MATRON M. OHOMA (MATIORICO M. OHOMNA), PETITIONER, v. OFFICE OF

During the scheduled hearing, petitioner established the jurisdictional requirement of

The RTC Ruling

The Issue Before the Court

The Court's Ruling

However, while the petition specifically prayed for the cancellation of

You might also like