Republic vs. Court of Appeals

A correction of a misspelled name in the civil registry falls under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, and the failure to implead the local civil registrar and to publish the correction petition renders the proceeding void for lack of jurisdiction.

Spouses Jaime B. Caranto and Zenaida P. Caranto sought to adopt Midael C. Mazon, a fifteen-year-old minor who had lived with Jaime since age seven. The child's birth certificate recorded his first name as "Midael," but the spouses sought to correct it to "Michael" in the same adoption proceeding. The Solicitor General opposed the correction, arguing it could not be done in an adoption proceeding because Rule 108 of the Rules of Court governs the correction of entries in the civil registry.

Spouses Jaime B. Caranto and Zenaida P. Caranto filed a petition for the adoption of Midael C. Mazon, a fifteen-year-old minor, on September 21, 1988. Midael had been living with Jaime since he was seven years old, and after the spouses married on January 19, 1986, the minor stayed under their care and custody. In their petition, the spouses prayed that the child be declared their son, the authority of the natural parents dissolved, the child's surname changed to Caranto, and the first name "Midael" corrected to "Michael" in the civil registry.

The RTC set the case for hearing, ordering publication in a newspaper of general circulation in Cavite and service upon the Department of Social Welfare and Development and the Office of the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General opposed the correction of the name, arguing that it could not be granted in an adoption proceeding because Rule 108 of the Rules of Court governs the correction of entries in the civil registry. During the hearing, Zenaida Caranto, the natural mother Florentina Mazon, the minor, and a social worker testified. The social worker endorsed the adoption as being in the best interest of the child.

On May 30, 1989, the RTC granted the petition, declaring the child the son of the spouses for all legal intents and purposes, changing his name to Michael Caranto, and directing the Local Civil Registrar of Cavite City to amend the birth certificate. The RTC dismissed the Solicitor General's opposition, holding that Rule 108 applies only to corrections concerning civil status, not names, and that correcting the name in the same proceeding would prevent multiplicity of actions. The Solicitor General appealed to the Court of Appeals, reiterating his argument and adding that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the adoption because the published notice used "Michael" instead of "Midael," the name in the Certificate of Live Birth. On January 23, 1992, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto, distinguishing the case from Cruz vs. Republic and citing the need to avoid additional time and expenses.

• Jurisdiction over Adoption: Petitioner contended that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the adoption petition because the published notice stated the name "Michael" instead of "Midael," the name in the Certificate of Live Birth, invoking Cruz vs. Republic.
• Correction of Name: Petitioner argued that the correction of the minor's name could not be effected in the same proceeding for adoption, as it requires a separate petition under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

• Jurisdiction over Adoption: Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the adoption petition despite the discrepancy in the minor's name in the published notice.
• Correction of Name in Adoption Proceeding: Whether the correction of the minor's name in the civil registry can be validly granted in the same adoption proceeding.

• Jurisdiction over Adoption: Yes. The RTC acquired jurisdiction because the discrepancy between "Midael" and "Michael" was a mere clerical error that did not cause confusion, and the purpose of publication was served.
• Correction of Name in Adoption Proceeding: No. The correction of the name falls under Rule 108, and the trial court's failure to implead the local civil registrar and to publish the correction rendered the proceeding void for lack of jurisdiction.

• Jurisdiction over Adoption: The case of Cruz vs. Republic was distinguished because it involved a substantial error in identity (baptismal name vs. birth certificate name). In this case, the substitution of "ch" for "d" in "Midael" to make "Michael" is an obvious clerical error admitted even by the Solicitor General. The names can be read and pronounced with the same rhyme and tone, causing no confusion. The purpose of publication—to notify those who might object to the adoption—was served.
• Correction of Name in Adoption Proceeding: Rule 108, Section 2 explicitly includes "changes of name" as entries subject to cancellation or correction. The trial court erred in holding that Rule 108 applies only to civil status. Because the local civil registrar was not impleaded as an indispensable party and no separate notice of the correction was published as required by Rule 108, Sections 3 and 4, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the correction proceeding. The absence of an indispensable party and the lack of publication rendered the correction order null and void.

• Indispensable Party in Rule 108 Proceedings — The local civil registrar is an indispensable party in proceedings for the correction or cancellation of entries in the civil registry. Without impleading the civil registrar, no final determination of the case can be had, and all proceedings and judgments are rendered ineffectual.
• Jurisdictional Requirement of Publication in Rule 108 — The court must cause the order for correction to be published once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation. Failure to do so deprives the local civil registrar and interested parties of notice, rendering the proceeding null and void for lack of jurisdiction.
• Clerical Error in Name vs. Substantial Error in Identity — A mere clerical error in a name (e.g., misspelling that does not alter identity) does not defeat the jurisdiction of the court in adoption proceedings if the purpose of publication is served. This contrasts with substantial errors where a different identity might be involved, as in Cruz vs. Republic.

• "The local civil registrar is thus required to be made a party to the proceeding. He is an indispensable party, without whom no final determination of the case can be had." — This passage defines the indispensable role of the local civil registrar in Rule 108 proceedings, which was the basis for nullifying the correction order.
• "The necessary consequence of the failure to implead the civil registrar as an indispensable party and to give notice by publication of the petition for correction of entry was to render the proceeding of the trial court, so far as the correction of entry was concerned, null and void for lack of jurisdiction both as to party and as to the subject matter." — This states the ratio decidendi for striking down the correction of the name, emphasizing the jurisdictional necessity of impleading the civil registrar and publishing the correction.

• Cruz vs. Republic, 17 SCRA 693 (1966) — Distinguished. The case involved a substantial error in identity (baptismal name vs. birth certificate name), whereas the present case involved a mere clerical error.
• Yu vs. Republic, 21 SCRA 1018 (1967) — Followed. The case held that changing "Sincio" to "Sencio" is a mere correction of a clerical error, supporting the application of Rule 108 to innocuous changes.
• Labayo-Rowe vs. Republic, 168 SCRA 294 (1988) — Followed. The case held that a change of name from "Beatriz Labayo/Beatriz Labayu" to "Emperatriz Labayo" is a mere innocuous alteration where a summary proceeding is appropriate.
• Republic vs. Belmonte, 158 SCRA 173 (1988) — Cited to support the rule that the local civil registrar is an indispensable party in Rule 108 proceedings.

• Rule 108, Section 1, Rules of Court — Allows any interested person to file a verified petition for the cancellation or correction of any entry in the civil register.
• Rule 108, Section 2, Rules of Court — Enumerates entries subject to cancellation or correction, including "(o) changes of name," which applies to the correction of "Midael" to "Michael."
• Rule 108, Section 3, Rules of Court — Requires the civil registrar and all persons with an interest to be made parties to the proceeding.
• Rule 108, Section 4, Rules of Court — Requires notice and publication of the petition for correction once a week for three consecutive weeks.
• Article 412, Civil Code — Implemented by Rule 108, covering harmless and innocuous changes such as correction of a misspelled name.

Regalado, Romero, and Puno, JJ.