REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON COSETENG-
MAGPAYO (A.K.A. JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON
MARQUEZ-LIM COSETENG)

G.R. No. 189476 February 2, 2011

Rule 103 vs Rule 108

 FACTS

Julian Edward Emerson Coseteng Magpayo

Born in Makati on September 9, 1972

Born to Fulvio M. Magpayo Jr. and Anna

Dominique Marquez-Lim Coseteng

Parents were married on March 26, 1972 per

marriage contract
 FACTS
Petition to CHANGE NAME to Julian Edward
Emerson Marquez Lim Coseteng (SPP No. Q-
0863058)

Filed before RTC Quezon City, July 22, 2008

Reason: Parents were never legally married

 FACTS
Notice setting the petition for hearing was
published in the newspaper, Broadside, in its
issues of

October 31-November 6, 2008

November 7-13, 2008
November 14-20, 2008

Notice was furnished to the OSG

No opposition
 FACTS
RTC granted the decision; Civil Registrar of Makati City
was ordered to:

1.Delete the entry "March 26, 1972" in Item 24 for

"DATE AND PLACE OF MARRIAGE OF PARTIES" [in
herein respondents Certificate of live Birth];
2. Correct the entry "MAGPAYO" in the space for the
Last Name of the [respondent] to "COSETENG";
3.Delete the entry "COSETENG" in the space for
Middle Nameof the [respondent]; and
4.Delete the entry "Fulvio Miranda Magpayo, Jr." in the
space for FATHER of the [respondent] (emphasis and
underscoring supplied; capitalization in the original)
 FACTS
The Republic filed a Motion for Reconsideration: denied

REPUBLIC:

the deletion of the entry on the date and place of

marriage of respondents parents from his birth
certificate has the effect of changing his civil status
from legitimate to illegitimate

- by ordering the deletion of respondentsparents

date of marriageand thename of respondents
fatherfrom the entries in respondents birth
certificate, the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction
 FACTS
RESPONDENT:

Respondent counters that the proceeding before the trial

court was adversarial in nature. He cites the serving of
copies of the petition and its annexes upon the Civil
Registrar of Makati, the Civil Registrar General, and the
OSG; the posting of copies of the notice of hearing in at
least four public places at least ten days before the
hearing; the delegation to the OSG by the City
Prosecutor of Quezon City to appear on behalf of the
Republic; the publication of the notice of hearing in a
newspaper of general circulation for three consecutive
weeks; and the fact that no oppositors appeared on the
scheduled hearing.
 RULING
The petition is impressed with merit.

GROUNDS:
(a) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult
to write or pronounce;
(b)when the change results as a legal consequence such as
legitimation;
(c) when the change will avoid confusion;
(d)when one has continuously used and been known since childhood
by a Filipino name, and was unaware of alien parentage;
(e) a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of former
alienage, all in good faith and without prejudicing anybody; and
(f) when the surname causes embarrassment and there is no
showing that the desired change of name was for a fraudulent
purpose or that the change of name would prejudice public
interest
 RULING
The change being sought in respondents
petition goes so far as to affect his legal status
in relation to his parents. It seeks to change
his legitimacy to that of illegitimacy. Rule 103
then would not suffice to grant respondents
supplication.

Labayo-Rowe v. Republic categorically holds

that "changes which mayaffect the civil status
from legitimate to illegitimate. . .
aresubstantial and controversial
alterationswhich can only be allowed after
appropriate adversary proceedings . . ."
 RULING
Rule 108applies. It reads:

SECTION 1. Who may file petition.Any

person interested in any act, event, order or
decree concerning thecivil status of persons
which has been recorded in the civil register,
may file a verified petition for thecancellation
or correction of any entry relating thereto,with
the [RTC] of the provincewhere the
corresponding civil registry is located.
 RULING
SEC. 3. Parties.When cancellation or correction of an
entry in the civil register is sought, thecivil
registrarandall persons who have or claim any interest
which would be affected thereby shall be made parties
to the proceeding.

SEC. 4. Notice and publication. Upon the filing of the

petition, the court shall, 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 newspaper of general circulation in the province.
(emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
 RULING
Republic v. Belmonte,illuminates, however:

The procedure recited inRule 103 regarding

change of name and inRule 108concerning
the cancellation or correction of entries in the
civil registry areseparate and distinct. They
may not be substituted one for the other for
the sole purpose of expediency. To hold
otherwise would render nugatory the
provisions of the Rules of Court allowing the
change of ones name or the correction of
entries in the civil registry only upon
meritorious grounds. .
 RULING
Aside fromimproper venue, he failed to implead
the civil registrar ofMakatiandall affected
partiesas respondents in the case.

Republic v. Labrador mandates that "a petition for a

substantial correction or change of entries in the
civil registry should haveas respondents the civil
registrar, as well as all other persons who have or
claim to have any interestthat would be affected
thereby." It cannot be gainsaid that change of
status of a child in relation to his parents is a
substantial correction or change of entry in the
civil registry.
 RULING
IN FINE, when a petition for cancellation or
correction of an entry in the civil register
involves substantial and controversial
alterations including those on citizenship,
legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or
legitimacy of marriage, a strict compliance
with the requirements of Rule 108 of the Rules
of Court is mandated.

WHEREFORE, the petition is, in light of the

foregoing discussions, GRANTED.