Republic of the Philippines vs. Carlito I. Kho, et al.

Even substantial and controversial corrections to entries in the civil registry may be effected through a petition under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, provided the procedural requirements of that Rule—including notice and publication—are observed, which satisfies the requirement of an appropriate adversary proceeding and cures the failure to implead persons who should have been made parties under Section 3. A change of name may likewise be corrected under Section 2(o), Rule 108, without complying with the jurisdictional requirements of Rule 103.

Carlito I. Kho, his siblings Michael, Mercy Nona, and Heddy Moira, and Carlito’s minor children Kevin and Kelly are the respondents in a petition concerning entries in the civil registry of Butuan City. The Local Civil Registrar of Butuan City was impleaded as respondent. The governing framework includes Rule 108 of the Rules of Court on cancellation or correction of civil registry entries, Rule 103 on change of name, and Republic Act No. 9048 on administrative correction of clerical or typographical errors and change of first name or nickname.

On February 12, 2001, Carlito I. Kho and his siblings Michael Kho, Mercy Nona Kho-Fortun, and Heddy Moira Kho-Serrano filed before the Regional Trial Court of Butuan City a verified petition for correction of entries in the civil registry of Butuan City to effect changes in their respective birth certificates. Carlito also asked the court, on behalf of his minor children Kevin and Kelly Dogmoc Kho, to order the correction of some entries in their birth certificates. The Local Civil Registrar of Butuan City was impleaded as respondent.

In Carlito’s case, he requested the correction in his birth certificate of the citizenship of his mother from “Chinese” to “Filipino,” as well as the deletion of the word “married” opposite the phrase “Date of marriage of parents” because his parents, Juan Kho and Epifania Inchoco, were allegedly not legally married. The same request to delete the “married” status of their parents from their respective birth certificates was made by Carlito’s siblings Michael, Mercy Nona, and Heddy Moira. With respect to the birth certificates of Carlito’s children, he prayed that the date of his and his wife’s marriage be corrected from April 27, 1989 to January 21, 2000, the date appearing in their marriage certificate.

On April 23, 2001, Carlito and the others filed an Amended Petition in which it was additionally prayed that Carlito’s second name “John” be deleted from his record of birth, and that the name and citizenship of Carlito’s father in his marriage certificate be corrected from “John Kho” to “Juan Kho” and “Filipino” to “Chinese,” respectively. The petition was published for three consecutive weeks in Mindanao Daily Patrol-CARAGA, a newspaper of general circulation, after which it was set for hearing on August 9, 2001. In a letter of June 18, 2001 addressed to the trial court, the city civil registrar stated her observations and suggestions to the proposed corrections in the birth records of Carlito and his siblings but interposed no objections to the other amendments.

At the scheduled hearing on August 9, 2001, only counsel for respondents appeared because the Office of the Solicitor General had yet to enter its appearance for the city civil registrar; the trial court reset the hearing to October 9, 2001. On September 14, 2001, the OSG entered its appearance with an authorization to the city prosecutor of Butuan City to appear in the case and render assistance to it. On January 31, 2002, respondents presented documentary evidence showing compliance with the jurisdictional requirements of the petition and testimonial evidence consisting of the testimonies of Carlito and his mother, Epifania. During the same hearing, an additional correction in the birth certificates of Carlito’s children was requested to the effect that the first name of their mother be rectified from “Maribel” to “Marivel.”

By Decision of September 4, 2002, the trial court directed the local civil registrar of Butuan City to correct the entries in Carlito’s record of birth by changing the citizenship of his mother from “Chinese” to “Filipino,” deleting “John” from his name, and deleting the word “married” opposite the date of marriage of his parents; the last correction was ordered to be effected likewise in the birth certificates of Michael, Mercy Nona, and Heddy Moira. The trial court also ordered the correction of the birth certificates of Carlito’s minor children to reflect the date of marriage of Carlito and Marivel Dogmoc as January 21, 2000 instead of April 27, 1989, and the name “Maribel” as “Marivel.” With respect to the marriage certificate of Carlito and Marivel, the corrections ordered pertained to the alteration of the name of Carlito’s father from “John Kho” to “Juan Kho” and the latter’s citizenship from “Filipino” to “Chinese.”

The Republic appealed to the Court of Appeals, faulting the trial court for granting the petition despite the failure of respondents to implead the minors’ mother, Marivel, as an indispensable party and to offer sufficient evidence to warrant the corrections with regard to the questioned “married” status of Carlito and his siblings’ parents and the latter’s citizenship. The Republic also faulted the trial court for ordering the change of the name “Carlito John Kho” to “Carlito Kho” for non-compliance with jurisdictional requirements for a change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court. The Court of Appeals denied the appeal and affirmed the trial court, finding that Rule 108 was observed, that the correction of the mother’s first name was innocuous, and that the date of marriage correction would not affect the minors’ filiation because at the time of their births in 1991 and 1993, Carlito’s first marriage was still subsisting as it had been annulled only in 1999.

• Substantial Changes Require Adversarial Proceeding: Petitioner contended that since the changes sought by respondents were substantial in nature, they could only be granted through an adversarial proceeding in which indispensable parties, such as Marivel and respondents’ parents, should have been notified or impleaded.
• Failure to Implead Indispensable Parties: Petitioner maintained that the failure to implead Marivel and respondents’ parents rendered the trial short of the required adversary proceeding and the trial court’s judgment void.
• Non-Compliance with Rule 103: Petitioner further contended that the jurisdictional requirements to change Carlito’s name under Section 2 of Rule 103 of the Rules of Court were not satisfied because the Amended Petition failed to allege Carlito’s prior three-year bona fide residence in Butuan City, and that the title of the petition did not state Carlito’s aliases and his true name as “Carlito John I. Kho.” Petitioner concluded that the same jurisdictional defects attached to the change of name of Carlito’s father.

• Substantial Corrections and Adversarial Proceeding: Whether substantial and controversial corrections to entries in the civil registry—such as change of citizenship, deletion of “married” status, and change of date of marriage—may be granted through a petition under Rule 108.
• Indispensable Parties and Publication: Whether the failure to implead Marivel and Carlito’s parents as indispensable parties rendered the proceeding defective and the trial court’s judgment void.
• Change of Name under Rule 103 or Rule 108: Whether the correction of Carlito’s name from “Carlito John Kho” to “Carlito Kho” required compliance with Rule 103, and whether non-compliance with its jurisdictional requirements barred the correction.
• Evidentiary Basis for Corrections: Whether the corrections of the mother’s citizenship, the parents’ “married” status, the date of marriage, the mother’s first name, and the father’s name were supported by evidence and proper under Rule 108.

• Substantial Corrections and Adversarial Proceeding: Yes. Even substantial errors in the civil registry may be corrected under Rule 108, provided the parties avail themselves of an appropriate adversary proceeding; the trial court complied with the Rule’s requirements.
• Indispensable Parties and Publication: No. Publication under Section 4, Rule 108 cured the failure to implead Marivel and Carlito’s parents because a correction petition is an action in rem and binds the whole world.
• Change of Name under Rule 103 or Rule 108: Yes. Changes of name fall under Section 2(o), Rule 108; compliance with Rule 108 sufficed despite non-compliance with Rule 103.
• Evidentiary Basis for Corrections: Yes. The marriage certificate, testimonies, certifications, and other records supported the corrections, and the clerical error “Maribel” to “Marivel” was properly corrected.

• Substantial Corrections and Adversarial Proceeding: The petition sought changes that were not merely clerical or innocuous: the citizenship of Carlito’s mother, the deletion of the “married” status of Carlito’s parents, and the change of the date of marriage of Carlito and Marivel. Citizenship is a grave and important matter bearing on the nationality of parents and offspring, while deletion of “married” alters filiation from legitimate to illegitimate with successional and other implications. Under Labayo-Rowe vs. Republic, such changes require an adversary proceeding because civil registry entries are prima facie evidence and summary correction would open the door to fraud. However, Republic vs. Valencia and subsequent cases hold that even substantial errors may be corrected through a Rule 108 petition, provided the parties avail themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding. Republic Act No. 9048 reinforced this by leaving substantial changes to Rule 108 in adversarial proceedings. The trial court complied with Rule 108: the order was posted and published for three consecutive weeks, notices were served on the Solicitor General, city prosecutor, and local civil registrar, and trial was conducted with the public prosecutor actively participating by cross-examining Carlito and Epifania. Thus, the procedural requirements of Rule 108 satisfied the adversary proceeding requirement.
• Indispensable Parties and Publication: Although Section 3, Rule 108 requires the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest affected to be made parties, the failure to implead Marivel and Carlito’s parents did not invalidate the proceeding. Barco vs. Court of Appeals held that publication under Section 4, Rule 108 cures the failure to implead an indispensable party. The purpose of Section 4 is to bind the whole world to the judgment; its sweep covers parties who should have been impleaded under Section 3 but were inadvertently left out. A petition for correction is an action in rem, validated by publication, which is notice to the whole world and vests the court with jurisdiction. Given this, it was unnecessary to rule whether Marivel or respondents’ parents should have been impleaded. The city prosecutor did not object to their non-inclusion, and it was improbable Marivel was unaware because notices, orders, and the decision were sent to the residence she shared with Carlito and the children.
• Change of Name under Rule 103 or Rule 108: The correction of Carlito’s name from “Carlito John” to “Carlito” was properly granted under Rule 108. Section 2(o) of Rule 108 lists “changes of name” as entries subject to cancellation or correction. While the jurisdictional requirements of Rule 103 were not complied with, observance of Rule 108 sufficed. Carlito’s official transcript of record from Urious College in Butuan City, certificate of eligibility from the Civil Service Commission, and voter registration record showed he had been known by his first name only, so no prejudice was likely from dropping the second name. The same Rule 108 framework governed the correction of his father’s name in the marriage certificate from “John Kho” to “Juan Kho,” since “Juan Kho” was uniformly entered in the birth certificates of Carlito and his siblings except in that marriage certificate.
• Evidentiary Basis for Corrections: The date of marriage of Carlito and Marivel was corrected because their certificate of marriage showed they were married on January 21, 2000, not April 27, 1989. Carlito explained that the erroneous date was supplied by his helper and that he was not married to Marivel when his sons were born because his previous marriage was annulled only in 1999; thus the minors were illegitimate at birth and the correction did not change their filiation. The deletion of “Married” opposite the date of marriage of Carlito’s parents was warranted because Epifania testified she was not married to Juan Kho, who died in 1959, and the city prosecutor did not challenge that testimony. Documentary evidence included a November 24, 1973 certification by St. Joseph Parish priest Eugene van Vught that Juan Kho and Epifania had lived together as a common law couple since 1935 but never contracted marriage legally, and a certification from the city registrar that it had no record of marriage between them. The correction of the mother’s citizenship from Chinese to Filipino was proper; the prosecutor did not question Epifania’s citizenship, and the siblings’ birth certificates uniformly stated her citizenship as Filipino, so disallowance would perpetuate an inconsistency. The change of the wife’s first name from “Maribel” to “Marivel” was a clerical or typographical error, visible to the eyes and obvious to the understanding, since the marriage certificate reflected “Marivel”; Yu vs. Republic and Labayo-Rowe vs. Republic treated similar changes as clerical or innocuous.

• Substantial Corrections in Civil Registry Require an Appropriate Adversary Proceeding — Even substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected under Rule 108, provided the parties aggrieved avail themselves of an appropriate adversary proceeding. The Rule 108 requirements—parties under Section 3, notice and publication under Section 4, and opposition under Section 5—satisfy that requirement. The Court applied this to allow corrections of citizenship, “married” status, and date of marriage because the trial court complied with Rule 108.
• Action In Rem and Publication as Cure for Non-Impleader — A petition for correction of entries in the civil registry is an action in rem, not against a person. Publication under Section 4, Rule 108 is notice to the whole world and binds all parties, including those who should have been impleaded under Section 3 but were omitted. The Court applied this to hold that failure to implead Marivel and Carlito’s parents did not invalidate the proceeding.
• Change of Name under Rule 108 — Changes of name are among the entries subject to cancellation or correction under Section 2(o), Rule 108. Compliance with Rule 108 suffices to effect a change of name even if the jurisdictional requirements of Rule 103 are not met. The Court applied this to the deletion of “John” from Carlito’s name.
• Clerical or Typographical Error — A clerical or typographical error is one not only visible to the eyes but also obvious to the understanding. Such errors may be corrected without the full adversarial proceeding required for substantial changes. The Court applied this to the correction of “Maribel” to “Marivel.”
• Role of the Court in Rule 108 Petitions — In hearing a petition to correct entries in the civil registry, the court’s role is to ascertain the truth about the facts recorded therein. The Court relied on this in evaluating the evidence supporting the corrections.

• "even substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected and the true facts established provided the parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding." — From Republic vs. Valencia, this states the controlling rule allowing substantial corrections under Rule 108 and is central to the Court’s rejection of the Republic’s argument that substantial changes cannot be made in a Rule 108 proceeding.
• "The purpose precisely of Section 4, Rule 108 is to bind the whole world to the subsequent judgment on the petition. The sweep of the decision would cover even parties who should have been impleaded under Section 3, Rule 108, but were inadvertently left out." — From Barco vs. Court of Appeals, this explains why publication cures the failure to implead indispensable parties and supports the Court’s holding that the non-inclusion of Marivel and Carlito’s parents did not invalidate the proceeding.
• "Verily, a petition for correction is an action in rem, an action against a thing and not against a person. The decision on the petition binds not only the parties thereto but the whole world." — This defines the in rem character of a Rule 108 correction petition and grounds the Court’s conclusion that publication vested the trial court with jurisdiction over all interested persons.
• "When all the procedural requirements under Rule 108 are thus followed, the appropriate adversary proceeding necessary to effect substantial corrections to the entries of the civil register is satisfied." — This is the ratio decidendi: compliance with Rule 108’s procedural requirements satisfies the adversary proceeding requirement even for substantial corrections.

• Republic vs. Valencia, 225 Phil. 408 (1986) — Controlling precedent; held that even substantial errors in a civil registry may be corrected under Rule 108 provided the parties avail themselves of an appropriate adversary proceeding, and defined “adversary proceeding.”
• Barco vs. Court of Appeals, 465 Phil. 39 (2004) — Followed; held that publication under Section 4, Rule 108 cures the failure to implead an indispensable party and that a correction petition is an action in rem.
• Labayo-Rowe vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-53417, December 8, 1988, 168 SCRA 294 — Cited; explained the philosophy behind the adversary proceeding requirement and treated an innocuous alteration as correctible through summary proceeding.
• Republic vs. Benemerito, G.R. No. 146963, March 15, 2004, 425 SCRA 488 — Cited; observed that Republic Act No. 9048 leaves substantial changes in the civil registry to Rule 108 in appropriate adversarial proceedings.
• Yu vs. Republic, 129 Phil. 248 (1967) — Cited; held that changing a Christian name from “Sincio” to “Sencio” amounted merely to righting a clerical error.
• Lee vs. Court of Appeals, 419 Phil. 392 (2001) — Cited; supported the proposition that compliance with all procedural requirements under Rule 108 satisfies the appropriate adversary proceeding requirement.
• Alba vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164041, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 495 — Cited; reiterated the Barco ruling on publication curing non-impleader.
• Ty Kong Tin vs. Republic, 94 Phil. 321 (1954) — Cited; recognized that a change involving nationality or citizenship is a grave and important matter.

• Section 3, Rule 108, Rules of Court — Requires the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest affected by the cancellation or correction to be made parties. The Court held that although Marivel and Carlito’s parents were not impleaded, the defect was cured by publication.
• Section 4, Rule 108, Rules of Court — Requires the court to fix the time and place of hearing, give reasonable notice to persons named in the petition, and publish the order once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation. Compliance with this provision was undisputed and was held to bind the whole world and vest the court with jurisdiction.
• Section 5, Rule 108, Rules of Court — Allows the civil registrar and any person having or claiming interest to file an opposition within fifteen days from notice or last publication. The city prosecutor, acting for the OSG, participated and cross-examined witnesses without objecting to the non-inclusion of Marivel and Carlito’s parents.
• Section 2, Rule 108, Rules of Court — Lists entries subject to cancellation or correction, including letter (o) “changes of name.” The Court applied this to the correction of Carlito’s name from “Carlito John” to “Carlito.”
• Section 2, Rule 103, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for change of name and imposes jurisdictional requirements. The Court held that non-compliance with Rule 103 did not bar the correction because Rule 108 governed and was complied with.
• Republic Act No. 9048 — Authorizes the city or municipal civil registrar or consul general to correct clerical or typographical errors and/or change first name or nickname without judicial order. The Court considered it a legislative affirmation that substantial corrections may be effected through Rule 108 and that substantial changes remain for adversarial proceedings under Rule 108.

Antonio T. Carpio (Acting Chairperson), Dante O. Tinga, and Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. The decision also lists Leonardo A. Quisumbing as Chairperson but notes that he was on official leave.