RepublicofthePhilippines

SupremeCourt
Manila

THIRDDIVISION

REPUBLIC
OF
THE
G.R.No.189476
PHILIPPINES,

Petitioner,
Present:

CARPIOMORALES,J.,Chairperson,
versus
BRION,

BERSAMIN,and
JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON VILLARAMA,JR.,and
COSETENGMAGPAYO
SERENO,JJ.
(A.K.A. JULIAN EDWARD
EMERSON
MARQUEZLIM Promulgated:
COSETENG),
February2,2011
Respondent.

xx

DECISION

CARPIOMORALES,J.:
Born in Makati on September 9, 1972, Julian Edward Emerson Coseteng Magpayo
(respondent) is the son of Fulvio M. Magpayo Jr. and Anna Dominique MarquezLim
[1]
Coseteng who, as respondents certificate of live birth shows, contracted marriage on
March26,1972.

Claiming, however, that his parents were never legally married, respondent filed on
July 22, 2008 at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City a Petition to change his
nametoJulianEdwardEmersonMarquezLimCoseteng.Thepetition,docketedasSPPNo.
Q0863058, was entitled IN RE PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME OF JULIAN
EDWARD EMERSON COSETENG MAGPAYO TO JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON
MARQUEZLIMCOSETENG.

In support of his petition, respondent submitted a certification from the National

Statistics Office stating that his mother Anna Dominique does not appear in [its] National
[2]
IndicesofMarriage. Respondentalsosubmittedhisacademicrecordsfromelementaryup
[3]
tocollege showingthathecarriedthesurnameCoseteng,andthebirthcertificateofhis
[4]
child where Coseteng appears as his surname. In the 1998, 2001 and 2004 Elections,
respondent ran and was elected as Councilor of Quezon Citys 3rd District using the name
[5]
JULIANM.L.COSETENG.

[6]
OnorderofBranch77oftheQuezonCityRTC, respondentamendedhispetition
byallegingthereincompliancewiththe3yearresidencyrequirementunderSection2,Rule
[7]
103oftheRulesofCourt.

ThenoticesettingthepetitionforhearingonNovember20,2008waspublishedinthe
newspaperBroadsideinitsissuesofOctober31November6,2008,November713,2008,
[8]
and November 1420, 2008. And a copy of the notice was furnished the Office of the
SolicitorGeneral(OSG).
No opposition to the petition having been filed, an order of general default was
[9]
enteredbythetrialcourtwhichthenallowedrespondenttopresentevidenceexparte.

[10]
ByDecisionofJanuary8,2009,
the trial court granted respondents petition and
directedtheCivilRegistrarofMakatiCityto:

1.Delete the entry March 26, 1972 in Item 24 for DATE AND PLACE OF
MARRIAGEOFPARTIES[inhereinrespondentsCertificateofliveBirth]

2. Correct the entry MAGPAYO in the space for the Last Name of the
[respondent]toCOSETENG

3. Delete the entry COSETENG in the space for Middle Name of the
[respondent]and

4.DeletetheentryFulvioMirandaMagpayo,Jr.inthespaceforFATHERof
the[respondent](emphasisandunderscoringsuppliedcapitalizationintheoriginal)

The Republic of the Philippines (Republic) filed a motion for reconsideration but it
[11]
wasdeniedbythetrialcourtbyOrderofJuly2,2009,
hence,it,thrutheOSG,lodged
thepresentpetitionforreviewtotheCourtonpurequestionoflaw.

TheRepublicassailsthedecisioninthiswise:

I....THEPETITIONFORCHANGEOFNAMEINVOLVESTHECHANGEOF
[RESPONDENTS]
CIVIL
STATUS
FROM
LEGITIMATE
TO
ILLEGITIMATE AND, THEREFORE, SHOULD BE MADE THROUGH
APPROPRIATEADVERSARIALPROCEEDINGS

II.THETRIALCOURTEXCEEDEDITSJURISDICTIONWHENITDIRECTED
THE DELETION OF THE NAME OF RESPONDENTS FATHER FROM HIS
[12]
BIRTHCERTIFICATE.
(emphasisandunderscoringsupplied)

TheRepubliccontendsthatthedeletionoftheentryonthedateandplaceofmarriage
of respondents parents from his birth certificate has the effect of changing his civil status
fromlegitimatetoillegitimate,hence,anychangeincivilstatusofapersonmustbeeffected
[13]
throughanappropriateadversaryproceeding.

The Republic adds that by ordering the deletion of respondents parents date of
marriageandthenameofrespondentsfatherfromtheentriesinrespondentsbirthcertificate,
[14]
thetrialcourtexceededitsjurisdiction,suchordernotbeinginaccordwithrespondents
prayerreading:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that the

Honorable Court issue an order allowing the change of name of petitioner from JULIAN
EDWARD EMERSON COSETENG MAGPAYO to JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON
MARQUEZLIMCOSETENG,andthattheHonorableCourtordertheLocalCivilRegistrar
andallotherrelevantgovernmentagenciestoreflectthesaidchangeofnameintheirrecords.

[15]
Petitioner prays for other reliefs deemed proper under the premises.
(underscoringsupplied)

Respondentcountersthattheproceedingbeforethetrialcourtwasadversarialinnature.He
citestheservingofcopiesofthepetitionanditsannexesupontheCivilRegistrarofMakati,
theCivilRegistrarGeneral,andtheOSGthepostingofcopiesofthenoticeofhearinginat
leastfourpublicplacesatleasttendaysbeforethehearingthedelegationtotheOSGbythe
CityProsecutorofQuezonCitytoappearonbehalfoftheRepublicthepublicationofthe

noticeofhearinginanewspaperofgeneralcirculationforthreeconsecutiveweeksandthe
[16]
factthatnooppositorsappearedonthescheduledhearing.

Thepetitionisimpressedwithmerit.

ApersoncaneffectachangeofnameunderRule103(CHANGEOFNAME)using
valid and meritorious grounds including (a) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or
extremelydifficulttowriteorpronounce(b)whenthechangeresultsasalegalconsequence
such as legitimation (c) when the change will avoid confusion (d) when one has
continuouslyusedandbeenknownsincechildhoodbyaFilipinoname,andwasunawareof
alien parentage (e) a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of former
alienage,allingoodfaithandwithoutprejudicinganybodyand(f)whenthesurnamecauses
embarrassment and there is no showing that the desired change of name was for a
[17]
fraudulent purpose or that the change of name would prejudice public interest.
Respondentsreasonforchanginghisnamecannotbeconsideredasoneof,oranalogousto,
recognizedgrounds,however.

ThepresentpetitionmustbedifferentiatedfromAlfonv.RepublicofthePhilippines.
[18]
InAlfon,theCourtallowedthethereinpetitioner,EstrellaAlfon,tousethenamethat
she had been known since childhood in order to avoid confusion. Alfon did not deny her
legitimacy, however. She merely sought to use the surname of her mother which she had
beenusingsincechildhood.Rulinginherfavor,theCourtheldthatshewaslawfullyentitled
tousehermotherssurname,addingthattheavoidanceofconfusionwasjustificationenough
toallowhertodoso.Inthepresentcase,however,respondentdenieshislegitimacy.

The change being sought in respondents petition goes so far as to affect his legal
statusinrelationtohisparents.Itseekstochangehislegitimacytothatofillegitimacy.Rule
103thenwouldnotsufficetograntrespondentssupplication.

[19]
LabayoRowev.Republic
categorically holds that changes which may affect the
civil status from legitimate to illegitimate . . . are substantial and controversial alterations
whichcanonlybeallowedafterappropriateadversaryproceedings...

Since respondents desired change affects his civil status from legitimate to
illegitimate,Rule108applies.Itreads:


SECTION1.Whomayfilepetition.Anypersoninterestedinanyact,event,orderor
decreeconcerningthecivilstatus of persons which has been recorded in the civil register,
may file a verified petition for the cancellation or correction of any entry relating thereto,
withthe[RTC]oftheprovincewherethecorrespondingcivilregistryislocated.

xxxx

SEC. 3. Parties.When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register is

sought,thecivilregistrarandallpersonswhohaveorclaimanyinterestwhichwouldbe
affectedtherebyshallbemadepartiestotheproceeding.

SEC.4.Noticeandpublication.Uponthefilingofthepetition,thecourtshall,byan
order, fix the time and place for the hearing of the same, and cause reasonable notice
thereof to be given to the persons named in the petition.The court shall also cause the
ordertobepublishedonceaweekforthree(3)consecutiveweeksinanewspaperofgeneral
circulationintheprovince.(emphasis,italicsandunderscoringsupplied)

Rule108clearlydirectsthatapetitionwhichconcernsonescivilstatusshouldbefiled
inthecivilregistryinwhichtheentryissoughttobecancelledorcorrectedthatofMakatiin
the present case, and all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected
therebyshouldbemadepartiestotheproceeding.

Asearlierstated,however,thepetitionofrespondentwasfilednotinMakati where
hisbirthcertificatewasregisteredbutinQuezonCity.Andastheabovementionedtitleof
thepetitionfiledbyrespondentbeforetheRTCshows,neitherthecivilregistrarofMakati
norhisfatherandmotherweremadepartiesthereto.

[20]
RespondentneverthelesscitesRepublicv.Capote
insupportofhisclaimthathis
changeofnamewaseffectedthroughanappropriateadversaryproceeding.

[21]
Republicv.Belmonte,
illuminates,however:

The procedure recited in Rule 103 regarding change of name and in Rule 108
concerning the cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry are separate and
distinct. They may not be substituted one for the other for the sole purpose of
expediency.ToholdotherwisewouldrendernugatorytheprovisionsoftheRulesofCourt
allowingthechangeofonesnameorthecorrectionofentriesinthecivilregistryonlyupon
meritoriousgrounds....(emphasis,capitalizationandunderscoringsupplied)

Even assuming arguendo that respondent had simultaneously availed of these two

statutoryremedies,respondentcannotbesaidtohavesufficientlycompliedwithRule108.
For, as reflected above, aside from improper venue, he failed to implead the civil
registrarofMakatiandallaffectedpartiesasrespondentsinthecase.

[22]
Republic v. Labrador
mandates that a petition for a substantial correction or
changeofentriesinthecivilregistryshouldhaveasrespondentsthecivilregistrar,aswellas
allotherpersonswhohaveorclaimtohaveanyinterestthatwouldbeaffectedthereby.It
cannotbegainsaidthatchangeofstatusofachildinrelationtohisparentsisasubstantial
correctionorchangeofentryinthecivilregistry.

[23]
LabayoRowe
highlights the necessity of impleading indispensable parties in a
petition which involves substantial and controversial alterations. In that case, the therein
petitionerEmperatrizLabayoRowe(Emperatriz)filedapetitionforthecorrectionofentries
inthebirthcertificatesofherchildren,VicenteMiclat,Jr.andVictoriaMiclat,intheCivil
Registry of San Fernando, Pampanga. Emperatriz alleged that her name appearing in the
birthcertificatesisBeatriz,whichishernickname,butherfullnameisEmperatrizandher
civil status appearing in the birth certificate of her daughter Victoria as married on 1953
BulanareerroneousbecauseshewasnotmarriedtoVicenteMiclatwhowastheonewho
furnishedthedatainsaidbirthcertificate.

ThetrialcourtfoundmeritinEmperatrizspetitionandaccordinglydirectedthelocal
civilregistrartochangehernameappearinginherchildrensbirthcertificatesfromBeatrizto
EmperatrizandtocorrecthercivilstatusinVictoriasbirthcertificatefrommarriedtosingle
andthedateandplaceofmarriagetonomarriage.

On petition before this Court after the Court of Appeals found that the order of the
trialcourtinvolvedaquestionoflaw,theCourtnullifiedthetrialcourtsorderdirectingthe
change of Emperatriz civil status and the filiation of her child Victoria in light of the
followingobservations:

x x x x Aside from the Office of the Solicitor General, all other indispensable
parties should have been made respondents. They include not only the declared
fatherofthechildbutthechildaswell,togetherwiththepaternalgrandparents,ifany,as
theirhereditaryrightswouldbeadverselyaffectedthereby.Allotherpersonswhomaybe
affected by the change should be notified or represented. The truth is best ascertained
underanadversarysystemofjustice.

TherightofthechildVictoriatoinheritfromherparentswouldbesubstantially
impaired if her status would be changed from legitimate to illegitimate. Moreover, she
would be exposed to humiliation and embarrassment resulting from the stigma of an

illegitimatefiliationthatshewillbearthereafter.Thefactthatthenoticeofhearingofthe
petitionwaspublishedinanewspaperofgeneralcirculationandnoticethereofwasserved
upontheStatewillnotchangethenatureoftheproceedingstaken.Rule108,likeallthe
otherprovisionsoftheRulesofCourt,waspromulgatedbytheSupremeCourtpursuantto
itsrulemakingauthorityunderSection13,ArticleVIIIofthe1973Constitution,which
directs that such rules shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights. If Rule
108weretobeextendedbeyondinnocuousorharmlesschangesorcorrectionsoferrors
which are visible to the eye or obvious to the understanding, so as to comprehend
substantialandcontroversialalterationsconcerningcitizenship, legitimacy of paternity
or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, without observing the proper proceedings as
earlier mentioned, said rule would thereby become an unconstitutional exercise which
wouldtendtoincreaseormodifysubstantiverights.Thissituationisnotcontemplated
[24]
underArticle412oftheCivilCode.
(emphasis,italicsandunderscoringsupplied)

Asfortherequirementofnoticeandpublication,Rule108provides:

SEC.4.Noticeandpublication.Uponthefilingofthepetition,thecourtshall,by
an order, fix the time and place for the hearing of the same, and cause reasonable
notice thereof to be given to the persons named in the petition. The court shall also
cause the order to be published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a
newspaperofgeneralcirculationintheprovince.

SEC.5.Opposition.Thecivilregistrarandanypersonhavingorclaimingany
interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought may, within
fifteen (15) days from notice of the petition, or from the last date of publication of
suchnotice,filehisoppositionthereto.(emphasisandunderscoringsupplied)

A reading of these related provisions readily shows that Rule 108 clearly mandates
two sets of notices to different potential oppositors. The first notice is that given to the
personsnamedinthepetitionandthesecond(whichisthroughpublication)isthatgivento
other persons who are not named in the petition but nonetheless may be considered
interestedoraffectedparties,suchascreditors.Thattwosetsofnoticesaremandatedunder
the abovequoted Section 4 is validated by the subsequent Section 5, also abovequoted,
whichprovidesfortwoperiods(forthetwotypesofpotentialoppositors)withinwhichto
fileanopposition(15daysfromnoticeorfromthelastdateofpublication).

[25]
This is the overriding principle laid down in Barco v. Court of Appeals.
In that
case, Nadina Maravilla (Nadina) filed a petition for correction of entries in the birth
certificate of her daughter June from June Salvacion Maravilla to June Salvacion Gustilo,
ArmandoGustilobeing,accordingtoNadina,herdaughtersrealfather.Gustiloinfactfiled
beforethetrialcourtaCONSTANCIAwhereinheacknowledgedJuneashisdaughter. The

trialcourtgrantedthepetition.

After Gustilo died, his son Jose Vicente Gustilo filed with the Court of Appeals a
petition for annulment of the Order of the trial court granting the change of Junes family
nametoGustilo.

Milagros Barco (Barco), natural guardian of her minor daughter Mary Joy Ann
Gustilo,filedbeforetheappellatecourtamotionforintervention,allegingthatMaryJoyhad
alegalinterestintheannulmentofthetrialcourtsOrderasMaryJoywas,byBarcosclaim,
alsofatheredbyGustilo.

The appellate court dismissed the petition for annulment and complaintin
intervention.
OnappealbyBarco,thisCourtruledthatsheshouldhavebeenimpleadedinNadinas
petitionforcorrectionofentriesofthebirthcertificateofMaryJoy.Butsinceapetitioner,
likeNadina,isnotexpectedtoexhaustivelyidentifyalltheaffectedparties,thesubsequent
publicationofthenoticecuredtheomissionofBarcoasapartytothecase.ThustheCourt
explained:

Undoubtedly,BarcoisamongthepartiesreferredtoinSection3ofRule108.Her
interestwasaffectedbythepetitionforcorrection,asanyjudicialdeterminationthatJune
wasthedaughterofArmandowouldaffectherwardsshareintheestateofherfather.It
cannotbeestablishedwhetherNadinaknewofMaryJoysexistenceatthetimeshefiled
the petition for correction. Indeed, doubt may always be cast as to whether a
petitioner under Rule 108 would know of all the parties whose interests may be
affectedbythegrantingofapetition.Forexample,apetitionercannotbepresumed
to be aware of all the legitimate or illegitimate offsprings of his/her spouse or
paramour.xxxx.

xxxx

The purpose precisely of Section 4, Rule 108 is to bind the whole world to the
subsequent judgment on the petition. The sweep of the decision would cover even
parties who should have been impleaded under Section 3, Rule 108 but were
[26]
inadvertentlyleftout.xxxx.
(emphasis,italicsandunderscoringsupplied)

[27]
Meanwhile,inRepublic v. Kho,
Carlito Kho (Carlito) and his siblings named the civil
registrarasthesolerespondentinthepetitiontheyfiledforthecorrectionofentriesintheir
respectivebirthcertificatesinthecivilregistryofButuanCity,andcorrectionofentriesin
the birth certificates of Carlitos minor children. Carlito and his siblings requested the
correction in their birth certificates of the citizenship of their mother Epifania to Filipino,

instead of Chinese, and the deletion of the word married opposite the phrase Date of
marriage of parents because their parents Juan and Epifania were not married. And
Carlitorequestedthecorrectioninthebirthcertificatesoftheirchildrenofhisandhiswifes
date of marriage to reflect the actual date of their marriage as appearing in their marriage
certificate.Inthecourseofthehearingofthepetition,Carlitoalsosoughtthecorrectionof
thenameofhiswifefromMaribeltoMarivel.

TheKhosmotherEpifaniatookthewitnessstandwhereshedeclaredthatshewasnot
marriedtoJuanwhodiedbeforethefilingoftheKhospetition.

Thetrialcourtgrantedthepetition.

OntheissueofwhetherthefailuretoimpleadMarivelandtheKhosparentsrendered
the trial of the petition short of the required adversary proceedings and the trial courts
judgmentvoid,thisCourtheldthatwhenalltheproceduralrequirementsunderRule108are
followed, the publication of the notice of hearing cures the failure to implead an
indispensable party. In so ruling, the Court noted that the affected parties were already
notifiedoftheproceedingsinthecasesincethepetitionersiblingsKhosweretheoneswho
initiated the petition respecting their prayer for correction of their citizenship, and Carlito
respectingtheactualdateofhismarriagetohiswifeand,withrespecttotheKhospetition
forchangeoftheircivilstatusfromlegitimatetoillegitimate,theirmotherEpifaniaherself
tookthewitnessstanddeclaringthatshewasnotmarriedtotheirfather.
What is clear then in Barco and Kho is the mandatory directive under Section 3 of
Rule108toimpleadthe civil registrar and the parties who would naturally and legally be
affectedbythegrantofapetitionforcorrectionorcancellationofentries.Nonimpleading,
however,aspartyrespondentofonewhoisinadvertentlyleftoutorisnotestablishedtobe
knownbythepetitionertobeaffectedbythegrantofthepetitionoractuallyparticipatesin
theproceedingisnotifiedthroughpublication.

IN FINE, when a petition for cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register
involvessubstantialandcontroversialalterationsincludingthoseoncitizenship,legitimacy
ofpaternityorfiliation,orlegitimacyofmarriage,astrictcompliancewiththerequirements
ofRule108oftheRulesofCourtismandated.

WHEREFORE, the petition is, in light of the foregoing discussions, GRANTED.

TheJanuary8,2009DecisionofBranch77oftheRegionalTrialCourtofQuezonCityin
SPProc.No.Q0863058isNULLIFIED.


SOORDERED.

CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

ARTUROD.BRIONLUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the
casewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

[1]
Records,p.7.
[2]
Id.at8.
[3]
Id.at916.
[4]
Id.at16.
[5]
Id.at1722.
[6]
PresidedbyJudgeVivencioS.Baclig.
[7]
Id.at23.
[8]
Id.at4850.
[9]
Id.at45.
[10]
Id.at116117.
[11]
Id.at135136.7
[12]
Rollo,pp.1617.
[13]
Id.at1718.

[14]
Id.at1819.
[15]
Rollo,p.18.
[16]
Id.at5356.
[17]
VideSeeRepublicv.Hernandez,323Phil.606,637638(1996).
[18]
186Phil.600(1980).
[19]
G.R.No.L53417,December8,1988,168SCRA294.
[20]
G.R.No.157043,February2,2007,514SCRA76.
[21]
241Phil.966(1988).
[22]
G.R.No.132980,305SCRA438(1999).
[23]
Supra,note19.
[24]
Id.atp.301.
[25]
465Phil.39(2004).
[26]
Id.at5556.
[27]
G.R.No.170340,June29,2007,526SCRA177.