Ong v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Salvadora Ong alias Peck Suan and Yap Keng Hue filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Cebu for the correction of names in the birth certificate of their child, Yap Bee Ling. They alleged that the names registered were incorrect: the father's name was registered as Yap King Hue, the mother's as Peck Suan Ong, and the child's as Yap Bee Ling. They sought to change these to Yap Keng Hue, Salvadora Ong alias Peck Suan, and Yap Bee Ling alias Mary, respectively. Procedural History: The lower court ordered the Civil Registrar of Cebu City to make the corrections as prayed for, specifically changing the child's name to Mary Yap Bee Ling, the father's to Yap Keng Hue, and the mother's to Salvadora Ong alias Peck Suan. The Appeal: The Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, appealed the decision, contending that the lower court erred in entertaining a petition for the use of aliases within a petition for change of names and in ordering the correction of the birth certificate of Yap Bee Ling.
Issue(s)
Whether the lower court erred in entertaining a petition for the use of aliases within a petition for change of names. Whether the lower court erred in ordering the correction of the birth certificate of Yap Bee Ling.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court, finding no error in the original entries of the birth certificate and the civil registry. The Court held that the petition did not sufficiently prove an error in the original registration and that the inclusion of an alias requires a separate petition.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that the lower court erred in entertaining a petition for the use of aliases within the scope of a petition for change of names. The petition, as filed, sought to correct the registered names and include an alias for the child. However, the established procedure for including an alias is distinct from a petition for change of name, which is intended to correct clerical errors or mistakes in the civil registry. The petitioners failed to clearly state in their petition that their objective was to secure authority for the child to use an alias, nor did they substantiate this claim during the hearing. Therefore, the petition, as framed, was not the proper vehicle for obtaining an alias. On Issue 2: The Court found no error in the original entries in the birth certificate and the civil registry of Cebu City. The petitioners claimed that the true names of the parents and child were different from those registered. However, the testimony of Dra. Gloria Cura Bacay, who prepared the birth certificate, indicated that the data therein were correct and that she had not seen the exhibits presented by the petitioners (Exhibits "D" and "E") prior to its preparation. This testimony directly refuted the petitioners' claim of incorrectness. Furthermore, there was no evidence presented to show that the birth certificate was incorrectly copied into the civil registry. The name of the child, Yap Bee Ling, as it appeared in the civil registry, was not incorrect, although it may have been incomplete by omitting the alias "Mary." This incompleteness, however, was not due to an error in the original registration but because the alias did not appear in the birth certificate itself. Consequently, the correction sought was not authorized.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reiterated that a petition for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court is a special and summary proceeding for correcting clerical errors or mistakes in the civil registry. It is not a remedy to substitute a new name for an old one, nor to include an alias that was not originally registered, unless there is a clear showing of an error in the original entry. The burden of proof lies with the petitioner to demonstrate that the original entry was indeed erroneous and that the proposed correction or change reflects the true name or identity.