Republic of the Philippines vs Virgie (Virgel) Tipay

G.R. No. 209527 – 826 Phil. 88 – Remedial Law – Special Proceedings – Rule 108 – Correction of Entries – Rule 108 vs Rule 103 – Rule 108 covers both minor and substantial corrections

In 2009, Virgel Tipay petitioned before the court for the correction of entries in his birth certificate. His petition was under Rule 108 (Correction of Entries). He sought to correct the following:

(1) His name from VIRGIE to VIRGEL
(2) His sex from FEMALE to MALE
(3) His date of birth from May 12, 1976 to February 25, 1976

His petition was granted but the Office of the Solicitor-General appealed on the ground that the court which granted the petition had no jurisdiction because according to the OSG, the petition should have been filed under Rule 103 (Change of Name) and that Rule 108 was only limited to minor corrections of entries.

ISSUE: Whether or not the OSG is correct.

HELD: No. Rule 108 of the Rules of Court governs the procedure for the correction of substantial changes in the civil registry. Rule 108 may be utilized to correct both minor and substantial errors in a person’s birth certificate. (However, take note that in 2001 RA 9048 or AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OR MUNICIPAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OR THE CONSUL GENERAL TO CORRECT A CLERICAL OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN AN ENTRY AND/OR CHANGE OF FIRST NAME OR NICKNAME IN THE CIVIL REGISTER WITHOUT NEED OF A JUDICIAL ORDER, AMENDING FOR THIS PURPOSE ARTICLES 376 AND 412 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES was passed. This was further bolstered by RA 10172 which allowed local civil registrars and the Consul General to make changes in the day and month in the date of birth, as well as in the recorded sex of a person when it is patently clear that there was a typographical error or mistake in the entry.)

In this case, Virgel was able to comply with the requirements of both Rule 103 and Rule 108. He impleaded the local civil registrar, the Solicitor General, and the Provincial Prosecutor as parties to his petition for correction of entries. The RTC then issued an order, which set the case for hearing. In compliance with Rule 108, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, the order was published for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province. Additionally, the local civil registrar and the OSG were notified of the petition through registered mail.

The State was represented and a public notice was had. The RTC proceedings were clearly adversarial in nature. It dutifully complied with the requirements of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

The ruling of the RTC is sustained but only insofar as the change of first name and sex are concerned because the record does not show that Virgel presented sufficient evidence to prove that he was indeed born on February 25, 1976.

Read full text.