IN RE: PETITION FOR CORRECTION OF ENTRY IN THE CERTIFICATE OF BIRTH, recorded in the Office of the Local Civil Registrar
of the Local Civil Registrar of San Juan, Rizal under the family name
DANILO IBARRA SISON AND JOSEPHINE IBARRA SISON vs REPUBLIC
G.R. No. L-58087 / December 27, 1982 / MELENCIO-HERRERA, J./ RULES ON CHANGE,
CANCELLATION OR CORRECTION OF ENTRIES CHANGE OF NAME/ REDMAINES
NATURE Petition for review on certiorari of a CFI decision
PETITIONERS Danilo Sison and Josephine Sison
RESPONDENTS Republic of the Philippines and Hon. Buenaventura Guerrero
SUMMARY. The father of minor petitioners used their stepfathers surname in his marriage
contract. When petitioners were born, their birth certificate also reflected step-
grandfathers surname. But when they were baptized, the surname recorded was their real
grandfathers surname. This was also what was registered in their school records and what
they were came to be known among friends and relatives. When they were about to go to
the US to join their mother, they realized that their birth certificate was recorded under
step-grandfathers surname. Hence they, represented by their grandmother, filed this
present petition for correction of entry so that their birth certificates may be changed to
reflect their real surname. The CFI denied the petition on the ground that the summary
procedure for correction of entry in the Civil Registry under Article 412, CC in relation to Rule
108, ROC is confined to mere clerical errors or harmless or innocuous 1 changes. SC sustained
the petition and reversed the CFIs ruling. Substantively, it found that the petitioners
surname should really be real grandfathers and not step-grandfathers because when their
father was born, their grandmother was still married to their real grandfather. Procedurally,
it sustained the petition as one for change of name (Rule 103), albeit entitled as correction
for entry (Rule 108), because the relief asked for is really one properly within the purview of
the former. Further, the petition was allowed because the proceedings were not summary in
nature and complied with the requisites on notice, publication and hearing for judicial
change of name.
DOCTRINE. A petition for correction of surname as recorded in the registry of birth may be
treated as a petition for change of name. It may be allowed where the proceedings held in
lower court was not summary in character.
Dissent: The evidence presented in the lower court and the lack of notice sent to all persons
known to the grandmother of the petitioners who assisted them in commencing the instant
suit do not warrant the granting of the petition for the correction of change of name.
FACTS.
Petitioners Danilo Sison and Josephine Sison are the children of the late Antonio Sison
and Gloria Ibarra.
Antonio was one of the two children of Gertrudes Reyes, the grandmother of petitioners
who is also representing them in the case, with her first husband Aurelio Sison.
Gertrudes was married thrice. Her second husband was Laurencio de la Cruz, while her
current one is Jose Delgado (third is not important).
When he was 27 years old, Antonio eloped and married Gloria Ibarra. In their marriage
certificate, Antonio used the surname de la Cruz in the Marriage Contract. As earlier
stated, this marriage bore herein petitioners, Danilo and Josephine, whose births were
1 Inoffensive, innocent
de la Cruz.
However, when petitioners were baptized, their surnames were stated to be Sison.
When they entered school, they were also registered as Danilo Sison and Jocelyn Sison,
and became known to relatives and friends by such names.
Antonio is now dead, while Gloria is in the US. Apparently, petitioners were to go
to the US to join Gloria there, but it was discovered during the processing of their
travel papers that their surname in their birth registry was de la Cruz. Hence, the
present petition. Petitioners (minors), assisted by Gertrudes, submitted an
Amended Petition to the CFI of Rizal for correction of their surnames from de la
Cruz, as entered in their respective Birth Certificates, to Sison. The SolGen was
served a copy of this petition.
The CFI issued an order setting the case for hearing and citing all interested
persons to show cause, if any, why the petition should not be granted. A copy of
this order was served on the Civil Registrar and on the SolGen, and was also
published as required.
The State, through the SolGen, filed an opposition, alleging that the corrections
requested were substantial or controversial in nature and that the summary
procedure for correction of entry in the Civil Registry under Art. 412, CC in relation
to Rule 108, ROC are confined to mere clerical errors or harmless or innocuous
changes.
Petitioners adduced their evidence before a duly appointed commissioner in the
presence of a Solicitor. Meanwhile, no evidence was presented by the State in
support of its opposition.
The CFI denied the petitioner on the grounds raised by the SolGen. Petitioners MR
was likewise denied, hence the instant recourse to the SC.
ISSUES & RATIO.
1. WON the petition for correction of surname should be granted YES.
SUBSTANTIVE
Petitioners have proved that their correct surname is Sison. It was error for Antonio to
have entered de la Cruz as his surname in his marriage contract and in the Birth
Certificates of his children, for, at the time of Antonios birth, his mother was then the wife
of Aurelio Sison. Thus, Antonios father was Aurelio Sison, and this was not affected by the
fact that at the time of his marriage, his mother had already married Laurencio de la Cruz.
Our laws do not authorize legitimate children to adopt the surname of a person who is not
their father. (Siguro daw pinalitan ni Antonio surname niya kasi para magtago kasi nga
nagtanan lang sila ni Gloria). Since late Daddy Antonios correct surname was Sison, it
follows that his childrens surname should also be Sison and not de la Cruz.
PROCEDURAL
Under the ROC, a name can be legally changed by a petition for Change of Name under Rule
103, since a persons legal name is what appears in the civil register, and not the name by
which he was baptized or by which he has been known in the community.
However, the petition in this case, while entitled correction of entry may well be one for
judicial authority to change names, for the petition prays for correction of names and more
specifically, for an order to make the necessary corrections in the respective certificates of
birth of petitioners by registering their names therein as Danilo Sison y Ibarra and Josephine
Sison y Ibarra.
As held in San Roque v. Republic, that the petition was entitled one to correct name in the
birth certificate of Leoncia San Roque and prayed that petitioners name appearing in her
birth certificate be corrected accordingly did not necessarily make the petition fall under the
provisions of Rule 108, because even under the provisions of Rule 103 the judgment or order
rendered in connection with said Rule shall be furnished the Civil Registrar of the
municipality or city where the court who issued the same is situated, and such Civil Registrar
shall forthwith enter the same in the civil register.
Moreover, as held in Matias vs. Republic, granting that the supplying of a name that was left
blank in the original recording of the birth does not constitute a rectification of a mere
clerical error, it is well to observe that the doctrine of the case of Ty Kong Tin v. Republic
(which was also used by herein SolGen to support the States opposition), and subsequent
rulings based thereon, forbade only the entering of material corrections or amendments in
the record of birth by virtue of a judgment in a summary action against the Civil Registrar.
There was actually falsification of document here committed by Antonio and his wife, when
they made it appear in the marriage contract that Antonios surname was de la Cruz, and
later on, when they presumably furnished the data to be written in their childrens birth
certificates with respect to the latters surname being dela Cruz instead of Sison.
Daddy Antonio, during his lifetime, had all the time to cause the correction of his childrens
birth records in the Local Civil Registrars Office until his dead. However, neither he nor his
wife, the mother of the children, filed any such petition for correction. Perhaps the reason
for their omission was fear of criminal prosecution.
Moreover, all persons interested in the estate of the late Daddy Antonio and the heirs of his
stepfather by his mothers second marriage, Laurencio dela Cruz, were not personally
notified of, nor heard on the petition for correction. Notice by publication will not suffice
since these interested persons are known to Lola Gertrudes.
Rights of third persons may also be prejudiced by the petition for correction, which rights
should likewise be determined in an appropriate proceeding.

In this case, the proceedings below were not summary pursuant to the rulings in the Matias Finally, the majority opinion does not intimate any possible effect on the criminal liability of
case and in the more recent one of Kumala Salim Wing v. Ahmad Abubakar, which case has the spouses for falsifying the entries in the marriage contract and birth certificates. The
also been invoked by petitioners. In those cases, it was ruled that the proceedings were not crime was concealed from the authorities until the time the SolGen was served with a copy
summary, considering the publication of the petition made by order of the court in order to of the amended petition.
give notice to any person that might be interested, including direct service on the SolGen
himself. J. Aquino, dissenting (joined by J. Makasiar)
The Chomi case lays down the correct rule. The petitioners should file a petition for change
Here, copies of the Petition and Amended Petition were served on the SolGen. The CFIs of surname.
order setting the petition for hearing was duly published, and copy of such order was
likewise furnished the SolGen. Notwithstanding that all interested persons were cited to
appear to show cause why the petition should not be granted, no one appeared to oppose
except the State through the SolGen. However, the State did not present evidence in
support of its opposition. There was hearing on the merits where the State was duly
represented, and where petitioners and their witness were cross-examined. No doubt was
cast on the credibility of petitioners allegations or upon the evidence adduced by them.
Absent, too, is any showing that prejudice would result to any party interested.

In fact, the SolGen has filed a manifestation departing from the States earlier posture, in
light of the above Kumala Salim Wing case, and has recommended that the decision
appealed from be reversed. This recommendation is well taken and the petition should thus
be granted.

DECISION.
CFI decision SET ASIDE. PETITION for change of surname GRANTED.

NOTES.
J. De Castro, concurring
The action contemplated under Rule 108 is not a summary action, and renders obsolete
rulings denying authority to the courts to order correction of more than mere harmless
clerical errors in the Civil Registry.

J. Makasiar, dissenting