Republic of the Philippines vs. Bartolome

The summary procedure under Article 412 of the Civil Code and Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is limited to clerical, harmless, or innocuous corrections of civil-registry entries; it cannot be used to effect substantial and controversial alterations, such as a change of name and the declaration of paternity or filiation, which must be established in a proper proceeding.

Dominador P. Dizon is the registered subject of a birth record in Arayat, Pampanga, which he later sought to correct. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga, is the petitioner in this review proceeding, while Judge Fernando M. Bartolome of the Court of First Instance of Pampanga and the Civil Registrar of Arayat are the other respondents. The governing backdrop is Article 412 of the Civil Code and Rules 108 and 103 of the Rules of Court, which prescribe different procedures and requirements for correcting civil-registry entries and for changing a person’s name.

On September 7, 1973, Dominador P. Dizon filed a petition for correction and/or cancellation of entries in the Civil Registry before the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, docketed as Special Proceedings Case No. 2350, pursuant to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court in relation to Article 412 of the Civil Code. He alleged that he is a Filipino, of legal age, widower, with residence and postal address at 717 I. Tolentino, Grace Park, Caloocan City; that he was born on September 15, 1908 in Arayat, Pampanga, of the late spouses Policarpio Dizon of Bacolor, Pampanga and Anselma Patawaran of Arayat, Pampanga; that on July 22, 1962, when he secured his certificate of birth from the local civil registrar of Arayat, Pampanga, he discovered that his name appears therein as “Domingo Patawaran” and after the column “Name of Father” is typewritten the word “Unknown,” both entries being incorrect; that his real name is Dominador P. Dizon, by which he is known since childhood up to the present; that on September 16, 1939, he was baptized at the Parish Church of Espiritu Santo in Manila with the name Dominador P. Dizon and his father’s name Policarpio Dizon; and that the inaccurate entries would cause him inconvenience in securing passport and visas in going abroad. He prayed that the local civil registrar of Arayat, Pampanga, be authorized to change his name in his record of birth from “Domingo Patawaran” to “Dominador P. Dizon” and to delete the word “Unknown” after the column “Name of Father” and place “Policarpio Dizon” in lieu thereof.

Finding the petition sufficient in form and substance, the trial court issued an order setting the same for hearing on October 4, 1973, and caused the order to be published once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province of Pampanga. The hearing set on October 4 was postponed to October 27, 1973. When the petition was called on that day, nobody interposed an objection. The trial court appointed Atty. Pedro Lagman as special counsel to represent the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Arayat, Pampanga, whose only objection was that if the petition were considered one for a change of name, it should be denied because the publication of the notice of hearing was not properly made for such an action; if, however, it were considered a petition for correction of entries in the civil registry, he withdrew his objection.

On November 2, 1973, after due hearing, the lower court issued an order directing the local civil registrar of Arayat, Pampanga, to make the necessary correction of entries in the record of birth of Dizon. The dispositive portion of the order granted the petition and ordered the correction of the entries from the name “Domingo Patawaran” to “Dominador P. Dizon” and, opposite the words “Name of Father,” from “Unknown” to “Policarpio Dizon.”

On November 9, 1973, the State, through the Provincial Fiscal of Pampanga, filed a motion for reconsideration on the grounds that the lower court did not acquire jurisdiction over the petition and that the errors sought to be corrected are substantial and therefore not in the contemplation of Article 412 of the Civil Code in relation to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. On December 11, 1973, the respondent Judge issued an order denying the motion for reconsideration. Hence, the State filed this petition for review on certiorari.

In his answer, Dominador P. Dizon admitted that he was born on September 15, 1908 as an illegitimate son of the late Policarpio Dizon, married, of Bacolor, Pampanga, and the late Anselma Patawaran, single, of Arayat, Pampanga.

• Jurisdiction: Petitioner argued that the lower court did not acquire jurisdiction over the petition.
• Substantial Corrections: Petitioner argued that the errors sought to be corrected are substantial and therefore not in the contemplation of Article 412 of the Civil Code in relation to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

• Correction of Entries: Respondent Dominador P. Dizon maintained that the entries “Domingo Patawaran” and “Unknown” in his birth record were incorrect, that his real name is Dominador P. Dizon, and that his father is Policarpio Dizon, as shown by his baptismal record; he sought correction under Rule 108 in relation to Article 412 of the Civil Code.
• Inconvenience: Dizon claimed that the inaccurate entries would cause him inconvenience in securing passport and visas abroad.
• Change of Name Publication: The Local Civil Registrar of Arayat, through special counsel, objected that if the petition were considered one for change of name, it should be denied because the publication of the notice of hearing was not properly made for such an action; if considered a petition for correction of entries, the objection was withdrawn.

• Nature of Correction under Rule 108 and Article 412: Whether the correction sought—changing the name from “Domingo Patawaran” to “Dominador P. Dizon” and the father’s name from “Unknown” to “Policarpio Dizon”—is a substantial and controversial alteration that cannot be made under the summary procedure of Article 412 of the Civil Code in relation to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
• Change of Name under Rule 103: Whether, even if treated as a petition for change of name under Rule 103, the petition may be granted despite non-compliance with the required publication and notice requirements.
• Paternity and Filiation: Whether the petition is an indirect attempt to establish paternity and filiation and the right to inherit, which cannot be accomplished through a civil-registry correction or change of name.

• Nature of Correction under Rule 108 and Article 412: No. The alteration is substantial and controversial, not clerical, harmless, or innocuous, and therefore cannot be made under the summary procedure of Article 412 of the Civil Code in relation to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
• Change of Name under Rule 103: No. Even if treated as a petition for change of name, the alteration cannot be granted because publication was not properly made; the Provincial Fiscal and all heirs of the late Policarpio Dizon should have been notified, and the Solicitor General was not notified as required.
• Paternity and Filiation: No. The change of name and father’s name principally involves paternity and filiation and is an indirect attempt to establish filiation with the late Policarpio Dizon and the right to inherit, which cannot be done in this proceeding.

• Nature of Correction under Rule 108 and Article 412: Under the summary procedure contemplated in Article 412 of the Civil Code, as implemented by Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, entries that can be corrected refer to mistakes clerical in nature or changes harmless and innocuous, such as the correction of a misspelled name or occupation of the parents, or those visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding, or errors made by a clerk or transcriber, a mistake in copying or writing. This doctrine was settled in a long line of decisions from Ty Kong vs. Republic to Rosales vs. Castillo Rosales. The alteration sought by Dizon—changing his name from “Domingo Patawaran” to “Dominador P. Dizon” and his father’s name from “Unknown” to “Policarpio Dizon”—is not legally possible under Rule 108 in relation to Article 412 because it is substantial and controversial in nature.
• Change of Name under Rule 103: Even granting that the petition is one for change of name under Rule 103, the alteration sought cannot be granted because publication as required by law was not properly made. Section 3 of Rule 103 requires that the court direct that its order fixing the date and place for the hearing of the petition be published before the hearing at least once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation published in the province. The date set for hearing shall not be within thirty days prior to an election nor within four months after the last publication of the notice. The Provincial Fiscal as well as all the heirs of the late Policarpio Dizon should be notified. Moreover, in a petition for change of name, the Solicitor General must be notified by service of a copy of the petition, which in this case was not done.
• Paternity and Filiation: A change in the entry from “Domingo Patawaran” to “Dominador P. Dizon,” and the alteration of the word “Unknown” after the column “Name of Father” to “Policarpio Dizon,” do not only partake of the nature of a change of name but also principally involve the issue of paternity and filiation. Dizon admitted in his answer that he was born on September 15, 1908 as an illegitimate son of the late Policarpio Dizon, married, of Bacolor, Pampanga, and the late Anselma Patawaran, single, of Arayat, Pampanga. From this fact, it is obvious that his purpose in filing the proceeding on September 7, 1973—after about 65 years—was an audacious indirect attempt to establish his filiation with the late Policarpio Dizon through the simple expedient of changing the entries in his record of birth and his right to inherit. This is plainly not possible.

• Summary procedure for correction of civil registry entries — Under Article 412 of the Civil Code and Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, only clerical, harmless, or innocuous corrections may be made, such as a misspelled name or occupation of parents, or errors visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding, or mistakes of a clerk or transcriber in copying or writing. The alteration of Dizon’s name and father’s name was substantial and controversial, and thus outside the summary procedure.
• Change of name under Rule 103 — A petition for change of name must comply with the publication requirement: once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province, with the hearing date not within thirty days prior to an election nor within four months after the last publication; the Solicitor General must be notified, and the Provincial Fiscal and heirs should also be notified. The petition failed these requirements.
• Paternity and filiation cannot be established indirectly — A civil-registry correction or change of name cannot be used as an indirect means to establish paternity, filiation, or inheritance rights. Dizon’s petition, filed after about 65 years, was an attempt to establish his filiation with the late Policarpio Dizon and his right to inherit, which is not permissible in such a proceeding.

• "It is a settled doctrine that under the summary procedure contemplated in Article 412 of the Civil Code, as implemented by Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, entries which can be corrected "... refer to those mistakes that are clerical in nature or changes that are harmless and innocuous, such as the correction of a misspelled name or occupation of the parents (Ansaldo vs. Republic, 102 Phil. 1046), or those that are visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding, or 'errors made by a clerk or transcriber, a mistake in copying or writing' " (Wong vs. Republic, 115 SCRA 500, July 30,1982)." — This passage states the settled doctrine limiting correctible civil-registry entries to clerical, harmless, or obvious mistakes, which is the ratio for rejecting Dizon’s substantial alterations.
• "there is no doubt that the alteration sought by respondent Dominador P. Dizon is not legally possible under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court in relation to Article 412 of the Civil Code, since it is substantial and controversial in nature." — This is the Court’s direct application of the doctrine to the facts, holding that the change of name and father’s name could not be made under the summary procedure.
• "But even granting that the petition is one for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, still the alteration sought cannot be granted because publication as required by law was not properly made." — This alternative holding disposes of the petition even if recharacterized as a change-of-name proceeding under Rule 103.
• "A change in the entry from 'Domingo Patawaran' to 'Dominador P. Dizon', and the alteration of the word 'Unknown' after the column 'Name of Father' to 'Policarpio Dizon', do not only partake of the nature of a change of name, but also principally involve the issue of paternity and filiation." — This passage identifies the substantive controversy underlying the petition and explains why it could not be resolved through a mere correction of civil-registry entries.

• Ty Kong vs. Republic, 94 Phil. 321 (1954) — Cited as the starting point of the long line of decisions holding that substantial corrections or alterations cannot be made in the civil registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court in relation to Article 412 of the Civil Code.
• Rosales vs. Castillo Rosales, 132 SCRA 132 (September 28, 1984) — Cited as the later case in that line, reaffirming the settled doctrine at the time of the decision.
• Ansaldo vs. Republic, 102 Phil. 1046 — Cited to illustrate the kind of corrections allowed under the summary procedure, such as the correction of a misspelled name or occupation of the parents.
• Wong vs. Republic, 115 SCRA 500 (July 30, 1982) — Cited for the definition of correctible entries as those visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding, or errors made by a clerk or transcriber, a mistake in copying or writing.

• Article 412, Civil Code — Provides that no entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order; the text treats it as the source of the summary procedure for correcting civil-registry entries. It was applied to hold that substantial and controversial alterations, such as the change of Dizon’s name and father’s name, are outside its scope.
• Rule 108, Rules of Court — Implements Article 412 of the Civil Code and governs the correction and/or cancellation of entries in the civil registry through a summary proceeding. It was applied to reject Dizon’s petition because the alterations sought were not clerical or innocuous.
• Rule 103, Section 3, Rules of Court — Requires publication of the order fixing the date and place of hearing at least once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation published in the province, and provides that the date set for hearing shall not be within thirty days prior to an election nor within four months after the last publication of the notice. It was applied in the alternative to deny the petition for improper publication; the decision also notes that the Solicitor General must be notified, and the Provincial Fiscal and heirs should be notified.

Concepcion, Jr. (Actg. Chairman), Escolin, Cuevas, and Alampay, JJ.