G.R. No. 186027. December 8, 2010.* REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. MERLYN MERCADERA through her Attorney-in-Fact, EVELYN M. OGA, respondent.

 This petition for review on certiorari assails the December 9, 2008 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) and RTC

On June 6, 2005, Merlyn Mercadera (Mercadera) , represented by her sister and duly constituted Attorney-inFact, Evelyn M. Oga (Oga), sought the correction of her given name as it appeared in her Certificate of Live Birth— from Marilyn L. Mercadera to Merlyn L. Mercadera

Under R.A. No. 9048, the city or municipal civil registrar or consul general, as the case may be, is now authorized to effect the change of first name or nickname and the correction of clerical or typographical errors in civil registry entries. “

The Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Dipolog City, however, refused to effect the correction unless a court order was obtained “because the Civil Registrar therein is not yet equipped with a permanent appointment before he can validly act on petitions for corrections filed before their office as mandated by Republic Act 9048.” 5

Mercadera was then constrained to file a Petition For Correction of Some Entries as Appearing in the Certificate of Live Birth under Rule 108 before the Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City (RTC).

RTC granted the petition

Marilyn Lacquiao Mercadera, to MERLYN Lacquiao Mercadera. 

For the OSG, the correction in the spelling of Mercadera’s given name might seem innocuous enough to grant but “it is in truth a material correction as it would modify or increase substantive rights.” 1 0 What the lower court actually allowed was a change of Mercadera’s given name, which would have been proper had she filed a petition under Rule 103 and proved any of the grounds therefor. The lower court, “may not substitute one for the other for purposes of expediency.” 1 1 Further, because Mercadera failed to invoke a specific ground recognized by the Rules, the lower court’s order in effect allowed the change of one’s name in the civil registry without basi

CA agreed with RTC

T H E C O U R T O F A P P E A L S E R R E D O N A Q U E S T I O N O F L AW I N G R A N T I N G T H E C H A N G E I N R E S P O N D E N T ’ S N A M E U N D E R R U L E 1 0 3 . I I T H E C O U R T O F A P P E A L S E R R E D O N A Q U E S T I O N O F L AW I N C O N S I D E R I N G S E C O N D A R Y E V I D E N C E .

 Rule 103 procedurally governs judicial petitions for change of given name or surname, or both, pursuant to Article 376 of the Civil Code. 1 6 This rule provides the procedure for an independent special proceeding in court to establish the status of a person involving his relations with others, that is, his legal position in, or with regard to, the rest of the community. 1 7

Rule 108, on the other hand, implements judicial proceedings for the correction or cancellation of entries in the civil registry pursuant to Article 412 of the Civil Code. 2 4 Entries in the civil register refer to “acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons,” 2 5 

In the case at bench, the OSG posits that the conversion from “MARILYN” to “MERLYN” is not a correction of an innocuous error but a material correction tantamount to a change of name which entails a modification or increase in substantive rights. For the OSG, this is a substantial error that requires compliance with the procedure under Rule 103, and not Rule 108.

It appears from these arguments that there is, to some extent, confusion over the scope and application of Rules 103 and Rule 108. Where a “change of name” will necessarily be reflected by the corresponding correction in an entry, as in this case, the functions of both rules are often muddled. While there is no clear-cut rule to categorize petitions under either rule, this Court is of the opinion that a resort to the basic distinctions between the two rules with respect to alterations in a person’s registered name can effectively clear the seeming perplexity of the issue.

Thus, the petition filed by Mercadera before the RTC correctly falls under Rule 108 as it simply sought a correction of a misspelled given name. To correct simply means “to make or set aright; to remove the faults or error from.” To change means “to replace something with something else of the same kind or with something that serves as a substitute.” 3 6 From the allegations in her petition, Mercadera clearly prayed for the lower court “to remove the faults or error” from her registered given name “MARILYN,” and “to make or set aright” the same to conform to the one she grew up to, “MERLYN.” It does not

Indeed, there are decided cases involving mistakes similar to Mercadera’s case which recognize the same a harmless error.

The fact that no one opposed the petition, including the OSG, did not deprive the court of its jurisdiction to hear the same and did not make the proceeding less adversarial in nature. Considering that the OSG did not oppose the petition and the motion to present its evidence ex parte when it had the opportunity to do so, it cannot now complain that the proceedings in the lower court were procedurally defective. Indeed, it has become unnecessary to further discuss the reasons why the CA correctly affirmed the findings of the lower court especially in admitting and according probative value to the evidence presented by Mercadera.