Republic vs. Mercadera

A petition to correct a misspelled given name in the civil register falls under Rule 108 (correction of entries) and not Rule 103 (change of name), provided the alteration is a mere rectification of a clerical error to make the entry reflect the true name the person has consistently used.

Merlyn Mercadera discovered that her Certificate of Live Birth registered her given name as "Marilyn" instead of "Merlyn," the name she had used in her baptismal records, educational diplomas, and government employment records. She initially sought administrative correction under Republic Act No. 9048 before the Local Civil Registrar of Dipolog City. The civil registrar refused to act without a court order, citing the lack of a permanent appointment as mandated by R.A. 9048. Consequently, a judicial petition for correction of entry was filed under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

• Birth and Registration: Born on August 19, 1970, Mercadera's birth was reported to the Local Civil Registrar of Dipolog City and recorded as "Marilyn Lacquiao Mercadera".
• Consistent Use of "Merlyn": Documentary evidence established that she was baptized as "Merlyn" in 1979, and her elementary, high school, and college diplomas uniformly bore the name "Merlyn L. Mercadera". Her Government Service Insurance System records also reflected the name "Merlyn".
• Administrative Refusal: Mercadera sought to correct the entry administratively under R.A. 9048, but the civil registrar declined, requiring a court order due to the registrar lacking a permanent appointment.
• Judicial Petition: Constrained to seek judicial relief, Mercadera filed a petition under Rule 108. The RTC set the case for hearing, ordering publication. No oppositors appeared. The OSG entered its appearance but did not oppose the ex parte presentation of evidence.
• RTC Ruling: The trial court granted the petition, finding that the documentary evidence sufficiently proved she had always been known as "Merlyn," justifying the correction.

• Improper Remedy: Petitioner argued that the correction from "Marilyn" to "Merlyn" is a material correction tantamount to a change of name, which requires a petition under Rule 103, not Rule 108.
• Substantial Error: Petitioner maintained that the alteration modifies or increases substantive rights, constituting a substantial error rather than a mere clerical one, and thus cannot be allowed under Rule 108.
• Admissibility of Evidence: Petitioner contended that the trial court erred in admitting photocopies of documentary evidence and the hearsay testimony of Mercadera's attorney-in-fact.

• Nature of the Petition: Respondent countered that the petition sought a correction of entry, not a change of name, as it merely aimed to rectify a misspelled given name to conform to the one she had consistently used.
• Admissibility of Evidence: Respondent argued that evidence not objected to during trial may be admitted and validly considered by the court in arriving at its judgment.

• Applicability of Rule 108: Whether a petition to correct a misspelled given name in the civil register should be filed under Rule 108 instead of Rule 103.
• Nature of the Error: Whether the correction from "Marilyn" to "Merlyn" constitutes a mere clerical error correctible under Rule 108 or a substantial change requiring Rule 103.
• Admissibility of Evidence: Whether the trial court erred in admitting photocopies of documentary evidence and hearsay testimony.

• Applicability of Rule 108: Rule 108 is the proper remedy. The petition sought to correct a misspelled name, not to change it. The distinction lies in intent: to correct is to remove an error, while to change is to substitute something else. The allegations in the petition clearly intended to remove the error from "Marilyn" to conform to the name she had always used, "Merlyn".
• Nature of the Error: The alteration is a clerical error. Substituting the letter "a" for "e" and deleting "i" so that "Marilyn" reads "Merlyn" is a patently misspelled name. The similarity between the names likely caused the mix-up in the birth certificate. Furthermore, the lack of opposition and the consistent use of "Merlyn" discount any confusion or modification of substantive rights.
• Admissibility of Evidence: The issue is moot. The OSG did not object to the presentation of evidence ex parte when it had the opportunity to do so. Evidence not objected to may be admitted and given probative value.

• Distinction between Correction and Change of Name — To correct means to make or set aright; to remove the faults or error from. To change means to replace something with something else of the same kind or with something that serves as a substitute. A petition to rectify a misspelled given name to conform to the name consistently used by the registrant falls under correction, not change.
• Correction of Substantial Errors under Rule 108 — Even substantial errors in the civil registry may be corrected under Rule 108 provided there is an adversary proceeding. However, clerical errors may be corrected via summary proceeding. The correction does not establish a substantive right but merely rectifies an erroneous entry to reflect the truth.

• "To correct simply means 'to make or set aright; to remove the faults or error from.' To change means 'to replace something with something else of the same kind or with something that serves as a substitute.'" — Defines the operative distinction between Rule 108 and Rule 103 in the context of altering a registered name.
• "Not all alterations allowed in one’s name are confined under Rule 103. Corrections for clerical errors may be set right under Rule 108." — Clarifies that Rule 108 encompasses corrections of clerical errors in names, notwithstanding the inclusion of "changes of name" in its enumeration of entries subject to correction.

• Co v. Civil Register of Manila, G.R. No. 138496 (2004) — Followed. Reiterated the distinction between the phrases "to correct" and "to change" in the context of civil register entries.
• Republic v. Valencia, 225 Phil. 408 (1986) — Followed. Established that even substantial errors in the civil registry may be corrected under Rule 108 provided the aggrieved party avails of the appropriate adversary proceeding.
• Yu v. Republic, 129 Phil. 248 (1967) — Followed. Recognized that changing 'Sincio' to 'Sencio' amounts to the righting of a clerical error, analogous to the correction from 'Marilyn' to 'Merlyn'.
• Republic v. Hernandez, 323 Phil. 606 (1996) — Distinguished. Held that a change in given name is a substantial matter that cannot be granted as an incident of another special proceeding (adoption), but inapplicable here where the petition directly sought correction of a misspelled name under Rule 108.

• Article 376, Civil Code — Provides that no person can change his name or surname without judicial authority. Implemented by Rule 103, which governs judicial petitions for change of name.
• Article 412, Civil Code — Provides that no entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order. Implemented by Rule 108, which governs judicial proceedings for the correction or cancellation of entries in the civil registry.
• Section 2, Rule 108, Rules of Court — Enumerates entries in the civil register subject to cancellation or correction, including "changes of name." Applied to justify that corrections for clerical errors in names may be set right under Rule 108.
• Republic Act No. 9048 — Authorizes the city or municipal civil registrar to correct clerical or typographical errors and change first names without a judicial order. Cited as the administrative remedy initially sought by the respondent, which was unavailable due to the local civil registrar's lack of permanent appointment.

Carpio (Chairperson), Nachura, Peralta, Abad.