Wednesday, January 7, 2015

Rule 108 petition; proper venue; who to implead.




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   


“x x x.

Respondent nevertheless cites Republic v. Capote[1] in support of his claim that his change of name was effected through an appropriate adversary proceeding.  

Republic v. Belmonte,[2] 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.  To hold otherwise would render nugatory the provisions of the Rules of Court allowing the change of one’s name or the correction of entries in the civil registry only upon meritorious grounds. . . . (emphasis, capitalization and underscoring supplied)


Even assuming arguendo that respondent had simultaneously availed of these two statutory remedies, respondent cannot be said to have sufficiently complied with Rule 108.  For, as reflected above, aside from improper venue, he failed to implead the civil registrar of Makati and all affected parties as respondents in the case. 

Republic v. Labrador[3] mandates that “a petition for a substantial correction or change of entries in the civil registry should have as respondents the civil registrar, as well as all other persons who have or claim to have any interest that 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.

Labayo-Rowe[4] highlights the necessity of impleading indispensable parties in a petition which involves substantial and controversial alterations.  In that case, the therein petitioner Emperatriz Labayo-Rowe (Emperatriz) filed a petition for the correction of entries in the birth certificates of her children, Vicente Miclat, Jr. and Victoria Miclat, in the Civil Registry of San Fernando, Pampanga.  Emperatriz alleged that her name appearing in the birth certificates is Beatriz, which is her nickname, but her full name is Emperatriz; and her civil status appearing in the birth certificate of her daughter Victoria as “married” on “1953 Bulan” are erroneous because she was not married to Vicente Miclat who was the one who furnished the data in said birth certificate.

X x x.”




[1]       G.R. No. 157043, February 2, 2007, 514 SCRA 76.
[2]       241 Phil. 966 (1988). 
[3]       G.R. No. 132980, 305 SCRA 438 (1999). 
[4]       Supra, note 19.