Republic v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondents, spouses Jaime B. Caranto and Zenaida P. Caranto, filed a petition for the adoption of Midael C. Mazon, a fifteen-year-old boy who had been living with them. They also prayed for the correction of the minor's first name from "Midael" to "Michael" and for his surname to be changed to Caranto. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) set the case for hearing, with notice published in a newspaper and served upon the Department of Social Welfare and Development and the Office of the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General opposed the prayer for the correction of the name, arguing that it should be done in a separate proceeding under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, not in an adoption case. The RTC dismissed the opposition, holding that Rule 108 applied only to corrections of civil status and that correcting the name in the adoption proceeding would prevent multiplicity of actions. The RTC granted the adoption, declared the child as the son of the petitioners, ordered the correction of his name to Michael Caranto, and directed the Local Civil Registrar to amend the birth certificate. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto. The Petition: The Republic, through the Solicitor General, filed a petition for review on certiorari, assailing the Court of Appeals' decision, particularly the part allowing the correction of the child's name in the adoption proceeding. The petitioner argued that the RTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the adoption case due to a defect in the published notice, which used the name "Michael" instead of "Midael." It also contended that the correction of the name could not be granted in the adoption proceeding.
Issue(s)
Whether the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the adoption petition despite the discrepancy between the name in the published notice and the name in the birth certificate. Whether the prayer for the correction of the minor's name could be granted in the same adoption proceeding.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the Court of Appeals. It affirmed the grant of the adoption petition but deleted the order directing the Local Civil Registrar to change the name "Midael" to "Michael" in the child's birth certificate.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction over the adoption petition: The Court held that the RTC correctly acquired jurisdiction over the adoption petition. It distinguished the present case from Cruz v. Republic, where a substantial defect in the published notice involving different names was found. In this case, the discrepancy between "Midael" and "Michael" was a mere clerical error, easily pronounced with the same rhyme and tone, and did not create confusion regarding the identity of the child. The purpose of publication, which is to give notice to potential objectors, was served. Therefore, the RTC's grant of the adoption petition was affirmed. On the issue of correcting the name in the civil registry: The Court ruled that both the RTC and the Court of Appeals erred in granting the prayer for the correction of the child's name in the civil registry within the adoption proceeding. The Court clarified that Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, which governs the cancellation or correction of entries in the civil register, applies to changes of name. The trial court's belief that Rule 108 was only for corrections of civil status was erroneous, as Section 2(o) explicitly includes "changes of name." Furthermore, compliance with Rule 108 requires impleading the local civil registrar as an indispensable party and publishing notice of the petition for correction. These requirements were not met in the adoption proceeding. The notice published was for adoption, not for the correction of the name, and the civil registrar was not made a party. Consequently, the trial court's order to correct the name was void for lack of jurisdiction over the indispensable party and the subject matter of the correction.
Main Doctrine
While the correction of a clerical error in a name may be allowed in an adoption proceeding to prevent multiplicity of suits, the procedure for correction of entries in the civil registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court must still be strictly complied with, including the impleading of the Civil Registrar as an indispensable party and proper notice by publication.