Republic of the Philippines vs. Coseteng-Magpayo

A petition that seeks to change a person's civil status from legitimate to illegitimate cannot be granted under Rule 103 (Change of Name); it must be filed under Rule 108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry), with strict compliance as to venue, impleading of the civil registrar and all interested parties, and notice and publication requirements.

Respondent Julian Edward Emerson Coseteng-Magpayo is the son of Fulvio M. Magpayo Jr. and Anna Dominique Marquez-Lim Coseteng, who, according to respondent's certificate of live birth, contracted marriage on March 26, 1972. Respondent was born in Makati on September 9, 1972. His birth certificate was registered with the civil registry of Makati City. Respondent claimed, however, that his parents were never legally married and sought to change his name to reflect only his mother's surname.

Julian Edward Emerson Coseteng-Magpayo was born in Makati on September 9, 1972, the son of Fulvio M. Magpayo Jr. and Anna Dominique Marquez-Lim Coseteng. His certificate of live birth shows that his parents contracted marriage on March 26, 1972. Respondent, however, claimed that his parents were never legally married. In support of this claim, he submitted a certification from the National Statistics Office stating that his mother "does not appear in [its] National Indices of Marriage."

On July 22, 2008, respondent filed a Petition for Change of Name before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, docketed as SPP No. Q-0863058, seeking to change his name from "Julian Edward Emerson Coseteng Magpayo" to "Julian Edward Emerson Marquez-Lim Coseteng." He submitted academic records from elementary through college showing that he had consistently used the surname "Coseteng," as well as the birth certificate of his child where "Coseteng" appears as his surname. He had also been elected three times — in 1998, 2001, and 2004 — as Councilor of Quezon City's 3rd District under the name "JULIAN M.L. COSETENG."

The notice of hearing was published in the newspaper Broadside for three consecutive weeks, and a copy was furnished the Office of the Solicitor General. No opposition was filed, and an order of general default was entered, allowing respondent to present evidence ex parte. By Decision of January 8, 2009, the trial court granted the petition and directed the Civil Registrar of Makati City to delete the entry on the date and place of marriage of respondent's parents, correct the surname to "Coseteng," delete the middle name "Coseteng," and delete the name of respondent's father from the birth certificate. The Republic, through the OSG, filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by Order of July 2, 2009, prompting the present petition for review on a pure question of law.

• Change of Civil Status: The Republic argued that the deletion of the entry on the date and place of marriage of respondent's parents from his birth certificate has the effect of changing his civil status from legitimate to illegitimate, and that any change in civil status must be effected through an appropriate adversary proceeding.
• Excess of Jurisdiction: The Republic contended that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction when it directed the deletion of the name of respondent's father from his birth certificate, since such relief was not prayed for in the petition.

• Adversarial Nature of Proceedings: Respondent countered that the proceeding before the trial court was adversarial in nature, citing the service of copies of the petition upon the Civil Registrar of Makati, the Civil Registrar General, and the OSG; the posting of notices in public places; the delegation of appearance to the OSG by the City Prosecutor of Quezon City; the publication of the notice of hearing in a newspaper of general circulation for three consecutive weeks; and the absence of any oppositors at the scheduled hearing.

• Propriety of Rule 103: Whether a petition for change of name under Rule 103 may be used to effect a change in civil status from legitimate to illegitimate.
• Compliance with Rule 108: Whether respondent complied with the procedural requirements of Rule 108, including proper venue, impleading of the civil registrar and all affected parties, and notice and publication.

• Propriety of Rule 103: No. Rule 103 (Change of Name) does not suffice where the desired change affects civil status from legitimate to illegitimate; Rule 108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) applies, requiring strict compliance with its procedural mandates.
• Compliance with Rule 108: No. Respondent failed to comply with Rule 108: the petition was filed in Quezon City instead of Makati where the birth certificate was registered, the civil registrar of Makati was not impleaded, and respondent's parents — who have or claim an interest affected by the change — were not made parties.

• Propriety of Rule 103: The recognized grounds for change of name under Rule 103 include when the name is ridiculous or dishonorable, when the change results as a legal consequence such as legitimation, when the change will avoid confusion, and similar circumstances. Respondent's reason — denying his legitimacy to adopt his mother's surname — does not fall under or is analogous to any recognized ground. The case was distinguished from Alfon vs. Republic, where the Court allowed the petitioner to use her mother's surname to avoid confusion, but the petitioner there did not deny her legitimacy. Here, respondent denies his legitimacy, and the change sought goes to the core of his legal status in relation to his parents. Labayo-Rowe vs. Republic categorically holds that changes affecting civil status from legitimate to illegitimate are substantial and controversial alterations that can only be allowed after appropriate adversary proceedings. Rule 108, not Rule 103, is the proper remedy.

• Compliance with Rule 108: Rule 108 directs that a petition concerning one's civil status should be filed in the civil registry where the entry is sought to be cancelled or corrected — Makati in this case — and that the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby shall be made parties. Respondent filed his petition in Quezon City, not Makati, and neither the civil registrar of Makati nor his father and mother were made parties. Republic vs. Belmonte established that the procedures under Rule 103 and Rule 108 are separate and distinct and may not be substituted for one another. Even assuming respondent had simultaneously availed of both remedies, he still failed to comply with Rule 108 due to improper venue and failure to implead indispensable parties. Republic vs. Labrador mandates that a petition for substantial correction of entries should include as respondents the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest affected thereby. Labayo-Rowe further highlights the necessity of impleading indispensable parties, as the right of a child to inherit from parents would be substantially impaired if status were changed from legitimate to illegitimate. While Barco vs. Court of Appeals and Republic vs. Kho hold that publication of notice cures the failure to implead an indispensable party who is inadvertently left out or unknown to the petitioner, the civil registrar and naturally affected parties must still be impleaded. The two sets of notices under Section 4 of Rule 108 — personal notice to persons named in the petition and publication for other interested parties — are mandatory. Strict compliance with Rule 108 is required when a petition involves substantial and controversial alterations including legitimacy of paternity or filiation.

• Distinction Between Rule 103 and Rule 108 — Rule 103 governs change of name, while Rule 108 governs cancellation or correction of entries in the civil register. They are separate and distinct remedies that may not be substituted for one another for expediency. A change of name petition under Rule 103 cannot be used to effect a substantial change in civil status from legitimate to illegitimate; such a change must be pursued under Rule 108 with strict compliance.
• Substantial and Controversial Alterations in the Civil Register — Changes affecting civil status from legitimate to illegitimate, including those concerning citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, are substantial and controversial alterations that require appropriate adversary proceedings and strict compliance with Rule 108. Extending Rule 108 beyond innocuous corrections to comprehend such substantial alterations without proper proceedings would be an unconstitutional exercise tending to increase or modify substantive rights, contrary to Article 412 of the Civil Code.
• Two Sets of Notices Under Rule 108 — Section 4 of Rule 108 mandates two sets of notices to different potential oppositors: (1) personal notice to the persons named in the petition, and (2) publication of the order once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation, intended for other persons not named but who may be interested or affected parties. Section 5 validates this dual-notice scheme by providing two periods within which to file opposition — 15 days from notice or from the last date of publication.
• Publication Cures Non-Impleading of Inadvertently Omitted Parties — Under Barco vs. Court of Appeals and Republic vs. Kho, when all procedural requirements under Rule 108 are followed, publication of the notice cures the failure to implead an indispensable party who is inadvertently left out or is not known to the petitioner to be affected. However, the civil registrar and parties who would naturally and legally be affected must still be impleaded.

• "The procedure recited in Rule 103 regarding change of name and in Rule 108 concerning the cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry are separate and distinct. They may not be substituted one for the other for the sole purpose of expediency." — This passage, quoting Republic vs. Belmonte, articulates the fundamental principle that Rule 103 and Rule 108 are independent remedies, establishing the doctrinal basis for nullifying the trial court's grant of the change-of-name petition.
• "changes which may affect the civil status from legitimate to illegitimate . . . are substantial and controversial alterations which can only be allowed after appropriate adversary proceedings" — This formulation from Labayo-Rowe vs. Republic defines the category of alterations requiring strict Rule 108 compliance and is the controlling standard for distinguishing innocuous corrections from substantial changes in the civil register.
• "IN FINE, when a petition for cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register involves substantial and controversial alterations including those on citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, a strict compliance with the requirements of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is mandated." — This is the Court's concluding doctrinal statement, synthesizing the ratio decidendi and establishing the rule of strict compliance for substantial alterations under Rule 108.

• Alfon vs. Republic of the Philippines, 186 Phil. 600 (1980) — Distinguished. In Alfon, the Court allowed the petitioner to use her mother's surname to avoid confusion, but the petitioner did not deny her legitimacy. The present case was distinguished because respondent denies his legitimacy, making the change one affecting civil status.
• Labayo-Rowe vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-53417, December 8, 1988, 168 SCRA 294 — Followed. Categorically held that changes affecting civil status from legitimate to illegitimate are substantial and controversial alterations requiring appropriate adversary proceedings. Also established the necessity of impleading indispensable parties, including the declared father, the child, and paternal grandparents, as their hereditary rights would be adversely affected.
• Republic vs. Belmonte, 241 Phil. 966 (1988) — Followed. Established that Rule 103 and Rule 108 are separate and distinct remedies that may not be substituted for one another for expediency.
• Republic vs. Labrador, G.R. No. 132980, 305 SCRA 438 (1999) — Followed. Mandated that a petition for substantial correction or change of entries in the civil registry should implead as respondents the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest affected thereby.
• Barco vs. Court of Appeals, 465 Phil. 39 (2004) — Followed. Held that publication of the notice under Section 4 of Rule 108 cures the failure to implead an indispensable party who is inadvertently left out, as the purpose of publication is to bind the whole world to the subsequent judgment.
• Republic vs. Kho, G.R. No. 170340, June 29, 2007, 526 SCRA 177 — Followed. Held that when all procedural requirements under Rule 108 are followed, publication cures the failure to implead an indispensable party, particularly where affected parties participated in or initiated the proceedings.

• Rule 103, Rules of Court (Change of Name) — Governs petitions for change of name. The Court held that Rule 103 does not suffice where the desired change affects civil status from legitimate to illegitimate.
• Rule 108, Rules of Court (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Register) — Governs petitions for cancellation or correction of entries in the civil register. Sections 1, 3, 4, and 5 were applied: Section 1 requires filing in the RTC of the province where the civil registry is located; Section 3 requires impleading the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest affected; Section 4 mandates two sets of notices — personal notice to persons named in the petition and publication once a week for three consecutive weeks; Section 5 provides for two periods within which to file opposition.
• Article 412, Civil Code — Referenced in Labayo-Rowe as the statutory basis limiting corrections in the civil register, providing that no entry in the civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order. The Court noted that extending Rule 108 to comprehend substantial alterations without proper proceedings would be contrary to this provision.

Arturo D. Brion, Lucas P. Bersamin, Martin S. Villarama Jr., and Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno concurred.