Bartolome vs. Republic of the Philippines

A person seeking to change his or her first name, to correct clerical or typographical errors in the civil register, to change or correct the day and/or month of birth, or to change or correct his or her sex where it is patently clear that there was a clerical or typographical error must first file a verified petition with the local civil registry office where the record 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. Judicial remedies under Rule 103 or Rule 108 may only be availed after the administrative petition is filed and denied.

Petitioner Dr. Ruben C. Bartolome is a resident of Parañaque City who sought to correct his name as it appears in his birth certificate. The governing law on changes of first name and correction of clerical and typographical errors in the civil register is R.A. 9048, as amended by R.A. 10172, which amended Articles 376 and 412 of the Civil Code. Prior to these laws, a person desiring to change his or her name altogether had to file a petition under Rule 103 with the Regional Trial Court, while Rule 108 applied to corrections of clerical and innocuous mistakes in civil register documents. R.A. 9048 effectively removed clerical errors and changes of first name from the ambit of Rules 103 and 108, vesting primary jurisdiction over such matters with the city or municipal civil registrar or consul general concerned.

Petitioner Dr. Ruben C. Bartolome, a resident of Parañaque City, filed in 2014 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 to "Ruben Cruz Bartolome." He stated that he had been using the name "Ruben [Cruz] Bartolome" since his childhood. After posting and publication, petitioner presented several documents to support his claim, including his Doctor of Medicine Diploma dated May 18, 1965; CSC Certificate for Medical Examiners Physician dated December 6, 1965; PRC ID No. 0030981 dated December 6, 1968; Marriage Contract No. 894-2-68 dated May 18, 1968; Philippine Passport No. EB 1611302 dated December 23, 2010; Senior Citizens ID Card No. 2006661 dated December 11, 2002; and NBI Clearance No. 15050159 dated November 25, 2011, all of which bore the name "Ruben C. Bartolome."

The Office of the Solicitor General was notified and the Office of the City Prosecutor of Parañaque City was deputized to appear on behalf of the State, but no motion to dismiss was filed questioning the jurisdiction of the court or the venue of the petition. The State did not present any controverting evidence nor file any comment or opposition. Petitioner's father and siblings were never impleaded in the proceedings.

After trial, the RTC denied the petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, insufficiency of evidence, and improper venue. As regards the first name, the RTC held that petitioner availed of the wrong procedure, since a petition for change of first name should have been filed in accordance with R.A. 9048, which vested the power and authority to entertain such petitions with the city or municipal registrar or consul general concerned. As regards the prayer for correction of the surname, the RTC denied the petition for improper venue, holding that the Regional Trial Court of Manila where the corresponding civil registry is located was the proper venue pursuant to Section 1, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. In either case, the RTC found that the evidence adduced was not sufficient to support petitioner's claim that he had been habitually and continuously using the name "Ruben C. Bartolome" since childhood.

Petitioner appealed to the CA, claiming that Rule 103 was the applicable remedy. The CA denied the appeal, noting that petitioner was seeking to change his first name and to correct his surname as indicated in his birth certificate, and thus should have filed a petition for correction of entries under R.A. 9048 instead of a Rule 103 petition. The CA likewise held that petitioner failed to adduce sufficient evidence to show that his father's and siblings' last name was actually spelled "Bartolome." Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting him to file the instant Petition before the Supreme Court.

• Applicability of Rule 103: Petitioner insisted that Rule 103 is the proper remedy, arguing that R.A. 9048 covers changes in the "first name or nickname [only]" and does not cover petitions to "correct [his] surname."
• Splitting of Cause of Action: Petitioner claimed 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.
• Substantial Justice: Petitioner alleged that he is now 76 years old and prayed that his petition be granted, given that the "government messed-up his birth certificate when he was an infant and is now giving him a hard time," and that he just wants to fix the problem "before he dies for the sake of and love for his children and grandchildren."

• Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: The OSG argued that the CA correctly denied the appeal, claiming that petitioner should have first filed a petition before the local civil registrar pursuant to R.A. 9048 in order to change his first name and to correct the spelling of his last name.
• No Splitting of Cause of Action: The OSG claimed that there was no splitting of cause of action as both reliefs are covered by R.A. 9048.

• Proper Remedy for Change of First Name: Whether the change of petitioner's first name from "Feliciano" to "Ruben" should be filed under R.A. 9048, Rule 103, or Rule 108 of the Rules.
• Inclusion of Middle Name: Whether the inclusion of petitioner's middle name "Cruz" in his birth certificate is a clerical correction covered by R.A. 9048, as amended.
• Correction of Misspelled Surname: Whether the correction in the spelling of petitioner's surname from "Bartholome" to "Bartolome" is covered by R.A. 9048, as amended, or should be filed under Rule 103 or Rule 108.

• Proper Remedy for Change of First Name: The change of petitioner's first name is covered by R.A. 9048, as amended, 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, pursuant to Section 3 of R.A. 9048.
• Inclusion of Middle Name: The inclusion of petitioner's middle name "Cruz" is a mere clerical correction, and must be undertaken through the administrative proceeding provided under R.A. 9048, as amended, consistent with the ruling in Republic vs. Gallo.
• Correction of Misspelled Surname: Typographical or clerical errors in a person's surname must likewise be corrected through the administrative proceeding under R.A. 9048, as amended, and the petition should have been filed with the local civil registry office where the record is kept, not under Rule 103.

• Proper Remedy for Change of First Name: The Court applied the summary of rules outlined in Republic vs. Gallo, which distinguished Rule 103 and Rule 108 and the effects of R.A. 9048, as amended by R.A. 10172. Under R.A. 9048, Section 1, the authority to correct clerical or typographical errors and change of first name or nickname is vested in the city or municipal civil registrar or consul general. Section 4 of R.A. 9048 expressly provides the grounds for change of first name, including when the new first name has been habitually and continuously used by the petitioner and he has been publicly known by that first name in the community. Citing Republic vs. Sali, the Court held that a change of first name is primarily administrative in nature and should be filed under the procedure provided in R.A. 9048. Since petitioner sought to change his first name from "Feliciano" to "Ruben" on the ground that he has been using the latter since childhood, the change sought is covered by R.A. 9048 and should have been filed with the local civil registry.

• Inclusion of Middle Name: The Court noted that Section 2(3) of R.A. 9048 defines clerical or typographical errors as mistakes committed in the performance of clerical work that are harmless and innocuous, such as misspelled names, which are visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding and can be corrected or changed only by reference to other existing records. The test for whether a correction is clerical or substantial is found in the provision itself: misspelled names or missing entries are clerical corrections if they are visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding and if they may be readily verified by referring to existing records in the civil register, provided they do not involve any change in nationality, age, or status. In Republic vs. Gallo, the Court 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. Applying this ruling, petitioner's prayer that his middle name "Cruz" be entered is a mere clerical correction and must be undertaken through the administrative proceeding under R.A. 9048.

• Correction of Misspelled Surname: The Court cited Labayo-Rowe vs. Republic, which held that a correction in the spelling of a surname was a mere clerical error that could be corrected through a summary proceeding under Rule 108, defining clerical errors as "those harmless and innocuous changes such as the correction of names clearly misspelled, occupation of parents, errors that are visible to the eye or obvious to the understanding, errors made by a clerk or transcriber, or a mistake in copying or writing." The Court noted that this jurisprudential definition was expressly incorporated into R.A. 9048, which expressly removed the correction of clerical or typographical errors from the ambit of Rule 108. The Court categorically held that typographical or clerical errors in a person's surname must likewise be corrected through the administrative proceeding under R.A. 9048. Since 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, and with the local civil registry office where the record is kept.

The Court further held that petitioner may only avail of the appropriate judicial remedies when the changes or corrections sought through the administrative proceeding are denied. If the prayer to administratively change petitioner's first name is denied, the same may be brought under Rule 103. If the prayers to administratively correct petitioner's middle name and surname are denied, the same may be brought under Rule 108. The Court also noted that even if it were inclined to give due course to the Rule 103 petition in the interest of substantial justice, both the RTC and the CA identically found that the evidence adduced by petitioner was insufficient to support his claim that he has been habitually and continuously using the name "Ruben Cruz Bartolome" since childhood, and petitioner did not adduce evidence to show that his father's or siblings' surnames were actually spelled "Bartolome." The resolution of factual issues is the function of lower courts, whose findings are generally binding on the Court, and none of the recognized exceptions applied.

• Administrative Exhaustion for Change of First Name — Under R.A. 9048, as amended by R.A. 10172, the power and authority to entertain petitions for change of first name is vested with the city or municipal civil registrar or consul general concerned. The intent and effect of the law is to exclude the change of first name from the coverage of Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court, until and unless an administrative petition for change of name is first filed and subsequently denied. The remedy and the proceedings regulating change of first name are primarily administrative in nature, not judicial.

• Clerical or Typographical Error Defined — Under Section 2(3) of R.A. 9048, as amended, a 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 a misspelled name or misspelled place of birth, which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding, and can be corrected or changed only by reference to other existing records, provided that no correction must involve the change of nationality, age, or status of the petitioner. The test is whether the correction is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding and may be readily verified by referring to existing records in the civil register.

• Summary of Applicable Remedies — The Court summarized the governing rules: (1) a person seeking to change his or her first name, correct clerical or typographical errors, change or correct the day and/or month of birth, or change or correct sex where patently a clerical error must first file a verified petition with the local civil registry office under R.A. 9048 in relation to R.A. 10172, and may only avail of judicial remedies under Rule 103 or Rule 108 after the administrative petition is filed and denied; (2) a person seeking to change his or her surname or to change both first name and surname may file a petition for change of name under Rule 103, provided the jurisprudential grounds are present; and (3) a person seeking substantial cancellations or corrections of entries in the civil registry may file a petition under Rule 108.

• Correction of Misspelled Surname — Typographical or clerical errors in a person's surname must be corrected through the administrative proceeding under R.A. 9048, as amended. A misspelled surname that may be readily corrected by referring to existing records of the civil registrar, such as the surnames of the petitioner's parents and immediate family members, is a clerical error covered by R.A. 9048 and not by Rule 103.

• "The change of petitioner's first name is covered by R.A. 9048, as amended." — This passage states the ratio decidendi with respect to the change of first name, confirming that the administrative remedy under R.A. 9048 governs such changes and that judicial remedies are only available after the administrative petition is filed and denied.

• "Evidently the test for whether a correction is clerical or substantial is found in the provision itself. Misspelled names or missing entries are clerical corrections if they are visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding and if they may be readily verified by referring to the existing records in the civil register." — This passage articulates the controlling test for distinguishing clerical from substantial corrections, which is central to determining whether R.A. 9048 or Rule 108 applies.

• "To obviate any further confusion on the matter, the Court categorically holds that typographical or clerical errors in a person's surname must likewise be corrected through the administrative proceeding under R.A. 9048." — This passage resolves the issue of whether misspelled surnames fall within the ambit of R.A. 9048, extending the administrative remedy to corrections of surnames.

• "In sum, all changes sought by the petitioner fall within the ambit of R.A. 9048. Petitioner may only avail of the appropriate judicial remedies when the changes/corrections sought through the administrative proceeding are denied." — This passage summarizes the Court's holding and clarifies the exhaustion requirement before judicial remedies under Rule 103 or Rule 108 may be pursued.

• Republic vs. Gallo, G.R. No. 207074, January 17, 2018, 851 SCRA 570 — Controlling precedent that outlined the difference between Rule 103 and Rule 108 and the effects of R.A. 9048, as amended by R.A. 10172, on these rules. The Court relied on this case for the proposition that a prayer to enter a person's middle name is a mere clerical error.

• Republic vs. Sali, 808 Phil. 343 (2017) — Followed for the holding that a change of first name is primarily administrative in nature and should be filed under the procedure provided in R.A. 9048.

• Labayo-Rowe vs. Republic, 250 Phil. 300 (1988) — Cited for the definition of clerical errors as "those harmless and innocuous changes such as the correction of names clearly misspelled," which definition was expressly incorporated into R.A. 9048.

• Republic vs. Cagandahan, 586 Phil. 637 (2008) — Cited for the proposition that R.A. 9048 removed from the ambit of Rule 108 the correction of clerical or typographical errors, and that Rule 108 now applies only to substantial changes and corrections in entries in the civil register.

• Silverio vs. Republic — Cited for the proposition that R.A. 9048 now governs the change of first name and vests jurisdiction over applications for change of first name with the city or municipal civil registrar or consul general, excluding the change of first name from the coverage of Rules 103 and 108 until an administrative petition is first filed and denied.

• Republic vs. Hernandez, 323 Phil. 606 (1996) — Cited for the jurisprudential grounds for change of name under Rule 103, including when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable, or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; when the change results as a legal consequence of legitimation or adoption; when the change will avoid confusion; when one has continuously used and been known since childhood by a Filipino name; and when the change is based on a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name.

• Angeles vs. Pascual, 673 Phil. 499 (2011) — Cited for the doctrine that the resolution of factual issues is the function of lower courts, whose findings are generally binding on the Court, subject to recognized exceptions.

• Section 1, R.A. 9048, as amended by R.A. 10172 — Provides the authority to correct clerical or typographical errors and change of first name or nickname in the civil register, vesting such authority with the city or municipal civil registrar or consul general, and covering changes in 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.

• Section 2(3), R.A. 9048, as amended by R.A. 10172 — Defines "clerical or typographical error" as a mistake committed in the performance of clerical work that is harmless and innocuous, such as a misspelled name, which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding and can be corrected or changed only by reference to other existing records, provided no correction involves the change of nationality, age, or status.

• Section 3, R.A. 9048 — Provides the venue for filing the administrative petition, which is with the local civil registry office of the city or municipality where the record being sought to be corrected or changed is kept.

• Section 4, R.A. 9048 — Provides the grounds for change of first name or nickname, including when the petitioner finds the name ridiculous, tainted with dishonor, or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; when the new name has been habitually and continuously used by the petitioner and he has been publicly known by that name in the community; or when the change will avoid confusion.

• Article 376, Civil Code — Provides that no person can change his or her name or surname without judicial authority; amended by R.A. 9048 in so far as clerical or typographical errors and changes of first name are involved.

• Article 412, Civil Code — Provides that no entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order; amended by R.A. 9048 in so far as clerical or typographical errors are involved.

• Rule 103, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for change of name; applies only to changes of surname or changes of both first name and surname, provided the jurisprudential grounds are present, and only after the administrative petition is filed and denied.

• Rule 108, Rules of Court — Governs cancellation or correction of entries in the civil register; applies only to substantial changes and corrections in entries in the civil register, and only after the administrative petition is filed and denied.

Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio (Chairperson), Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr., Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, and Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda concurred.