Republic v. Mercadera
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Merlyn Mercadera sought to correct her given name on her Certificate of Live Birth from "Marilyn L. Mercadera" to "Merlyn L. Mercadera." She initially attempted to have this correction made administratively through the Local Civil Registrar of Dipolog City under Republic Act No. 9048. However, the Registrar refused to act, citing a lack of a permanent appointment and requiring a court order. Procedural History: Consequently, Mercadera filed a petition for correction of entries under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dipolog City. The RTC granted the petition, ordering the correction of her name. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the RTC erred in allowing a change of name under Rule 108 instead of Rule 103 and in admitting photocopies of documents and hearsay testimony. The CA affirmed the RTC's decision, holding that the petition was for a correction of a clerical error, not a change of name, and that the evidence was admissible. The OSG then filed the present petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Petition: The Republic of the Philippines, through the OSG, petitions for review on certiorari, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in law by allowing the correction of Mercadera's name under Rule 108, contending it was a substantial change of name requiring the more stringent procedures of Rule 103. The OSG also argues that the CA erred in admitting secondary evidence. The core of the petition is the distinction between a mere correction of a clerical error under Rule 108 and a substantial change of name under Rule 103, asserting that Mercadera's case falls under the latter.
Issue(s)
Whether the correction of the given name "Marilyn" to "Merlyn" in the Certificate of Live Birth is a change of name under Rule 103 or a correction of a clerical error under Rule 108. Whether the lower courts erred in admitting photocopies of documentary evidence and hearsay testimony.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The petition filed by Mercadera was correctly treated as a petition for correction of a clerical error under Rule 108, not a change of name under Rule 103. The lower courts did not err in admitting the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the correction is a change of name under Rule 103 or a correction of a clerical error under Rule 108: The Court reiterated the distinction between "to correct" and "to change." To correct means "to make or set aright; to remove the faults or error from," while to change means "to replace something with something else of the same kind or with something that serves as a substitute." The petition clearly sought to "remove the faults or error" from the registered given name "MARILYN" and "make or set aright" it to conform to "MERLYN," the name she had used and by which she was known. The Court emphasized that while Rule 103 governs judicial petitions for change of name, Rule 108 implements judicial proceedings for the correction or cancellation of entries in the civil registry. Although R.A. No. 9048 now primarily lodges jurisdiction over change of first name with administrative officers, the correction of clerical or typographical errors in civil registry entries was removed from the ambit of Rule 108. However, the Court clarified that Rule 108 still covers substantial changes and corrections in entries, provided there is an appropriate adversary proceeding. The Court found that the conversion from "MARILYN" to "MERLYN" is a rectification of a name that is clearly misspelled, akin to cases where minor spelling alterations were considered clerical errors. The Court noted that Mercadera's attempt to use R.A. No. 9048 was unsuccessful, leading her to seek relief under Rule 108. The Court also pointed out that the OSG failed to present any concrete contention to convince the Court that the dangers sought to be prevented by Rule 103 were attendant in this case, especially since no opposition was filed despite proper publication. On the issue of admitting secondary evidence: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that evidence not objected to may be admitted and validly considered by the court. The OSG's argument that the photocopies and hearsay testimony were inadmissible was deemed off the mark. The Court noted that the OSG did not object to the presentation of these documents and the testimony during the proceedings before the RTC. Furthermore, the OSG's failure to oppose the motion to present evidence ex parte meant that it could not later complain about procedural defects. The Court reiterated that the OSG's participation, including the publication of the notice of hearing and notices to the OSG and the Local Civil Registry, constituted sufficient indicia of an adversary proceeding, even in the absence of an actual opposition.
Main Doctrine
A petition to correct a misspelled given name in a Certificate of Live Birth, which the petitioner has consistently used and been known by in the community, falls under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court as a correction of a clerical error, and not a change of name under Rule 103, even if it involves a substantial alteration, provided that an adversary proceeding is conducted.