Substantial correction

Under RA 9048, clerical or typographical error or change of first name in the birth certificate of a person can now be done administratively by the local Civil Registrar or by the Consul General without the need of a judicial order. This is explained in this case of Francis.

Francis is the son of Jaime and Teresita. In his birth certificate, his name is listed as Franc while his mother’s name is Tess and that his parents were married on the date and placed specified theiren.

Since there are errors in his first name and that of his mother and since he is really an illegitimate child, he filed a Petition for Correction of Entries before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) pursuant to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court praying that his name be corrected from Franc to Francis and his mother’s name from Tess to Teresita. He also asked the court to delete the date and place of marriage of his parents and instead enter therein the words “not married.”

The RTC however dismissed his petition. It ruled that the correction in the first name of Francis and his mother can be administratively done by the civil registrar pursuant to RA 9048 while the other correction deleting the date and place of marriage of his parents and entering instead the words “not married” can be done only in an adversarial proceedings since the correction is substantial in nature and would affect Francis’ status as a legitimate child.

Francis however insisted that Rule 108 of the Rules of Court allows substantial corrections so he should be allowed to present proof that his parents were not married, during the trial, not during the filing of the petition. Was Francis correct?

No. RA 9048 removed from the ambit of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court the correction of clerical or typographical errors which may consist of errors in the first name of the child or his parents. The intent and effect of the law is to exclude the change of the firstname from the coverage of the Rules of Court until and unless an administrative petition is first filed and subsequently denied.

On the other hand correcting the entries on the birth certificate of Francis on the date and place of marriage of his parents and changing it to “not married” is a substantial correction requiring adversarial proceedings. Substantial or controversial alterations include those on the citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage. So, strict compliance with the requirements of the Rules of Court is mandated by impleading as parties to the proceedings not only the local civil registrar but also all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the correction.

In this case therefore, Francis should at least implead his father and mother since the substantial correction he is seeking will also affect them (Onde vs. Office of the Local Civil Registrar etc., G.R. 197174, September 10, 2014).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law, Vols. I and II are now available at 201 Verde de Oro Bldg. Commonwealth Ave. Diliman Q.C.,   CP No. 09179118759.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]