Specpro Rule 103 108
Specpro Rule 103 108
However, there are instances where other Mary Grace opposed Jako’s petition alleging
affected parties may be particularly that it will result in the dissolution of her
interested with the outcome of the petition. existing family relations with her son. Is her
As aptly described by SC in the case of: contention correct?
(b) when the change results as a legal Rule 103 is not proper where the
consequence, as in legitimation; purpose of the petition is to establish
the status of the petitioner
(c) when the change will avoid confusion;
Republic of the Philippines vs.
(d) when one has continuously used and Coseteng-Magpayo, G.R. No. 189476,
been known since childhood by a Filipino February 2, 2011
name, and was unaware of alien
parentage; Held: The change being sought in
respondent’s petition goes so far as to
(e) a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino affect his legal status in relation to his
name to erase signs of former alienage, all parents. It seeks to change his legitimacy
in good faith and without prejudicing to that of illegitimacy. Rule 103 then
anybody; and would not suffice to grant respondent’s
Page 4
Republic v. Belmonte, illuminates, Held: Under R.A. No. 9048, the city or
however: municipal registrar or consul general, as
the case may be, is now authorized to
The procedure recited in Rule 103] effect the change of first name or nickname
regarding change of name and in Rule 108 and the correction of clerical or
concerning the cancellation or correction typographical errors in civil registry
of entries in the civil registry are separate entries. “Under said law, jurisdiction over
and distinct. They may not be substituted applications for change of first name is
one for the other for the sole purpose of now primarily lodged with administrative
expediency. To hold otherwise would officers. The law now excludes the change
render nugatory the provisions of the of first name from the coverage of Rules
Rules of Court allowing the change of 103 until and unless an administrative
one’s name or the correction of entries in petition for change of name is first filed
the civil registry only upon meritorious and subsequently denied” and removes
grounds. . . . (emphasis, capitalization and “correction or changing of clerical errors
underscoring supplied) in entries of the civil register from the
ambit of Rule 108. “Hence, what is left for
the scope of operation of the rules are
Atty. Dalam Commentaries: Before
substantial changes and corrections in
magdaan 108, daan muna RA 9048, that is
entries of the. (See also Rommel Jacinto
the General Rule.
Dantes Silverio v. Republic, G.R. No.
174689, October 22, 2007, 536 SCRA 373,
XPN: If it involves substantial corrections,
385).
no need na magdaan RA 9048, diretso na sa
Rule 108
A party desiring to correct his name must
Commentary: The highest tribunal is trying avail first R.A. 9048, as amended.
to say the proper procedure in an instance
where desires to affect changes to his or CASE: Republic v. Michelle Soriano Gallo,
her status is to avail the remedy under Rule G.R. No. 207074, January 17, 2018
108 of the ROC.
Thus, a person may now change his or her
Now, assuming for the sake of argument first name or correct clerical errors in his or
that you availed of Rule 103 instead of Rule her name through administrative
108, can you be allowed to transform proceedings. Rules 103 and 108 only apply
(convert) the proceeding into that of Rule if the administrative petition has been
108? filed and later denied.
This is clarified to us by SC in the case of: In 2012, Republic Act No. 9048 was
amended by Republic Act No. 10172.
Effect of RA 9048 to Rule 103
In addition to the change of the first name,
the day and month of birth, and the sex of a
MILAGROS M. BARCO, as the Natural
person may now be changed without
Guardian and Guardian Ad Litem of
judicial proceedings. Republic Act No. 10172
MARY JOY ANN GUSTILO, petitioner,
clarifies that these changes may now be
Page 5
RA No. 9048, as amended, is not proper Republic of the Philippines v. Tipay, G.R.
where substantial change is involved. No. 209257, Feb. 14, 2018
CASE: Kilosbayan Foundation v. Ermita, G.R. Held: Jurisprudence on this matter later
No. 177721, July 3, 2007 developed, giving room for the correction
of substantial errors. The Court
Held: Republic Act No. 9048 provides in ultimately recognized that substantial or
Section 2 (3) that a summary administrative controversial alterations in the civil
proceeding to correct clerical or registry are allowable in an action filed
typographical errors in a birth certificate under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, as
cannot apply to a change in nationality. long as the issues are properly threshed
Substantial corrections to the nationality or out in appropriate adversarial
citizenship of persons recorded in the civil proceedings — effectively limiting the
registry should, therefore, be effected through application of the summary procedure to
a petition filed in court under Rule 108 of the the correction of clerical or innocuous
Rules of Court. errors. The Court's ruling in Republic v.
Valencia, explained the adversarial
The series of events and long string of procedure to be followed in correcting
alleged changes in the nationalities of substantial errors in this wise:
respondent Ong’s ancestors, by various
births, marriages and deaths, all entail It is undoubtedly true that if the subject
factual assertions that need to be threshed matter of a petition is not for the
out in proper judicial proceedings so as to correction of clerical errors of a harmless
Page 8
administrative correction of clerical or Q. Who may file the petition for correction
typographical errors or change of first of entries under Rule 108?
name or nickname in entries in the civil
register, leaving to Rule 108 the correction Sec. 1. Who may file petition. - Any person
of substantial changes in the civil registry in interested in any act, event, order or decree
appropriate adversarial proceedings concerning the civil status of persons which
has been recorded in the civil register, may
HOWEVER, there is no intent on the part file a verified petition for the cancellation or
of the lawmakers to deprive the courts to correction of any entry relating thereto,
exercise the reliefs under Rule 108 (and with the Court of First Instance of the
Rule 103) of the Rules of Court province where the corresponding civil
registry is located.
Re: Final Report on the Judicial Audit
Conducted at the RTC, Branch 67, Paniqui Matters covered by Rule 108
Tarlac, A.M. No. 06-7-414-RTC, October 19,
2007 Sec. 2. Entries subject to cancellation or
correction. - Upon good and valid grounds,
Held: At first glance, the seeming effect of the following entries in the civil register
the amendment is to remove from the may be cancelled or corrected:
ambit of Rule 108 the correction of clerical
or typographical errors or change of entries (a) births;
in the civil register and to make Rule 108 (b) marriages;
apply only to substantial changes and (c) deaths;
corrections to entries in the civil register. (d) legal separations;
Hence, we clarified in Republic v. (e) judgments of annulments of marriage;
Benemerito that the obvious effect of R.A. (f) judgments declaring marriages void from
No. 9048 is merely to make possible the the beginning;
administrative correction of clerical or (g) legitimations;
typographical errors in entries and the (h) adoptions;
administrative change of first name or (i) acknowledgments of natural children;
nickname in the civil register, leaving to (j) naturalization
Rule 108 the correction of substantial (k) election, loss or recovery of citizenship
changes in the civil registry in appropriate (l) civil interdiction;
adversarial proceedings. (m) judicial determination of filiation;
(n) voluntary emancipation of a minor; and
Hence, the question that now arises is (o) changes of name.
whether trial courts still have jurisdiction
over petitions for correction of clerical
Legal separations (item d), judgments of
errors and change of first name and
annulments of marriage (item e);
nickname in the civil registry. Assuming
judgments declaring marriages void
that the trial courts retain such authority,
from the beginning (item f, Sec. 2, Rule
the corollary question is whether the
108) as subject matter of Rule 108
summary procedure prescribed in R.A. No.
proceeding.
9048 should be adopted in cases filed
before the courts, or should the adversarial
Fujiki v. Marinay
proceeding under Rule 108 be followed.
G.R. No. 196049, June 26, 2013
Page 10
Since the recognition of a foreign Fujiki has the personality to file a petition
judgment only requires proof of fact of to recognize the Japanese Family Court
the judgment, it may be made in a special judgment nullifying the marriage between
proceeding for cancellation or correction Marinay and Maekara on the ground of
of entries in the civil registry under Rule bigamy because the judgment concerns
108 of the Rules of Court. Rule 1, Section 3 his civil status as married to Marinay. For
of the Rules of Court provides that "[a] the same reason he has the personality to
special proceeding is a remedy by which a file a petition under Rule 108 to cancel
party seeks to establish a status, a right, the entry of marriage between Marinay
or a particular fact." Rule 108 creates a and Maekara in the civil registry on the
remedy to rectify facts of a person’s life basis of the decree of the Japanese Family
which are recorded by the State pursuant Court.
to the Civil Register Law or Act No. 3753.
These are facts of public consequence There is no doubt that the prior spouse
such as birth, death or marriage,66 which has a personal and material interest in
the State has an interest in recording. As maintaining the integrity of the marriage
noted by the Solicitor General, in Corpuz he contracted and the property relations
v. Sto. Tomas this Court declared that arising from it. There is also no doubt that
"[t]he recognition of the foreign divorce he is interested in the cancellation of an
decree may be made in a Rule 108 entry of a bigamous marriage in the civil
proceeding itself, as the object of special registry, which compromises the public
proceedings (such as that in Rule 108 of record of his marriage. The interest
the Rules of Court) is precisely to derives from the substantive right of the
establish the status or right of a party or a spouse not only to preserve (or dissolve,
Page 11