PEOPLE v. SALI

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LORENA OMAPAS SALI

G.R. No. 206023

April 3, 2017

Facts:

Lorena Omapas Sali filed a Verified Petition, dated November 26, 2008, for Correction of Entry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court before the RTC with the following material averments:

1. Petitioner is a Filipino, of legal age, single and a resident [of] 941 D. Veloso St.[,] Baybay, Leyte;
2. The respondent is located in Baybay City, Leyte and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court where it can be served with summons and other processes of this Honorable Court;
3. All parties herein have the capacity to sue and be sued;
4. Petitioner is the daughter of Spouses Vedasto A. Omapas and Almarina A. Albay who was born on April 24, 1968 in Baybay, Leyte.
5. Unfortunately, in recording the facts of her birth, the personnel of the Local Civil Registrar of Baybay, Leyte thru inadvertence and mistake erroneously entered in the records the following: the first name of the petitioner as “DOROTHY” instead of “LORENA” and, the date of birth of the petitioner as “June 24, 1968” instead of “April 24, 1968.”
6. The petitioner has been using the name “Lorena A. Omapas[“] and her date of birth as “April 24, 1968” for as long as she since she could remember and is known to the community in general as such;
7.  To sustain petitioner’s claim that the entries in her Certificate of Live Birth pertaining to her first name and date of birth should be corrected so that it will now read as “LORENA A. OMAPAS” and “April 24, 1968” respectively,; and
8. This petition is intended neither for the petitioner to escape criminal and/or civil liability, nor affect the hereditary succession of any person whomsoever but solely for the purpose of setting the records of herein petitioner straight.

On February 23, 2010, the trial court issued the assailed Decision in favor of Sali. On March 24, 2010, the Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed the RTC Decision for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the court a quo because the title of the petition and the order setting the petition for hearing did not contain Sali’s aliases.

The CA denied the appeal, ruling that: (1) the records are bereft of any indication that Sali is known by a name other than “Lorena,” hence, it would be absurd to compel her to indicate any other alias that she does not have; (2) Sali not only complied with the mandatory requirements for an appropriate adversarial proceeding under Rule 108 of the Rules but also gave the Republic an opportunity to timely contest the purported defective petition; and (3) the change in the first name of Sali will certainly avoid further confusion as to her identity and there is no showing that it was sought for a fraudulent purpose or that it would prejudice public interest.

Issues: 

Whether or not the Petition of Lorena Omapas Sali is for a change of name as contemplated under Rule 103 of the Rules and not for correction of entries under Rule 108.

Whether or not the Regional Trial Ciurt has jurisdiction over the petition.

Ruling:

No, the Petition of Lorena Omapas Sali is not for a change of name as contemplated under Rule 103 of the Rules but for correction of entries under Rule 108.What she seeks is the correction of clerical errors which were committed in the recording of her name and birth date. The Court has held that not all alterations allowed in one’s name are confined under Rule 103 and that corrections for clerical errors may be set right under Rule 108. The evidence presented by Sali shows that, since birth, she has been using the name “Lorena.” Thus, it is apparent that she never had any intention to change her name.

However, at the time Sali’s petition was filed, R.A. No. 9048 was already in effect. Section 1 of the law states: SECTION 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or Typographical Error and Change of First Name or Nickname. – No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order, except for clerical or typographical errors and change of first name or nickname which can be corrected or changed by the concerned city or municipal civil registrar or consul general in accordance with the provisions of this Act and its implementing rules and regulations.

The petition for change of first name may be allowed, among other grounds, if the new first name has been habitually and continuously used by the petitioner and he or she has been publicly known by that first name in the community. The local city or municipal civil registrar or consul general has the primary jurisdiction to entertain the petition. It is only when such petition is denied that a petitioner may either appeal to the civil registrar general or file the appropriate petition with the proper court.

In this case, the petition, insofar as it prayed for the change of Sali’s first name, was not within the RTC’s primary jurisdiction. It was improper because the remedy should have been administrative, i.e., filing of the petition with the local civil registrar concerned. For failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the RTC should have dismissed the petition to correct Sali’s first name.

On the other hand, anent Sali’s petition to correct her birth date from “June 24, 1968” to “April 24, 1968,” R.A. No. 9048 is inapplicable. It was only on August 15, 2012 that R.A. No. 10172 was signed into law amending R.A. No. 9048. As modified, Section 1 now includes the day and month in the date of birth and sex of a person.

Hence, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The February 11, 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed in toto the February 23, 2010 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Baybay City, Leyte, is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. The Petition for Correction of entry in the certificate of live birth of dorothy a. omapas with respect to her first name is dismissed without prejudice to its filing with the local civil registrar concerned.