Republic v. Mercadera

G.R. No. 186027 (December 8, 2010)

SC upheld Merlyn Mercadera's birth cert correction, clarifying minor vs. substantial name changes.

Facts:

Merlyn Mercadera, represented by her sister and Attorney-in-Fact, Evelyn M. Oga, filed a petition for correction of her given name in her Certificate of Live Birth from "Marilyn L. Mercadera" to "Merlyn L. Mercadera." This petition was filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dipolog City under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, following the refusal of the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Dipolog City to effect the correction without a court order. The refusal was based on the Civil Registrar's lack of a permanent appointment, which was necessary to act on such petitions under Republic Act No. 9048.

The RTC initially set a hearing for the petition, which was later postponed to allow the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to participate. During the hearing, the RTC allowed Mercadera to present evidence ex parte due to the absence of opposition. Testimonies and documentary evidence were presented, including baptismal certificates and diplomas, all of which consistently identified her as "Merlyn." The RTC found sufficient grounds to grant the petition, concluding that the correction was justified as Mercadera had used "Merlyn" throughout her life.

The OSG appealed the RTC's decision, arguing that the court had erred in granting a change of name under Rule 108 instead of Rule 103, which governs changes of name. The OSG contended that the correction was substantial and required a different legal process.

Legal Issues:

  1. Whether the RTC erred in granting the petition for correction of name under Rule 108 instead of Rule 103.
  2. Whether the admission of photocopies of documentary evidence and hearsay testimony was proper.

Arguments:

  • Petitioner (Mercadera): Argued that the petition was for the correction of a clerical error in her name as recorded in her birth certificate. She maintained that she had always been known as "Merlyn" and that the correction was necessary to reflect her true identity.

  • Respondent (OSG): Contended that the RTC's decision effectively changed Mercadera's name, which should have been processed under Rule 103. The OSG argued that the correction was substantial and could potentially modify substantive rights, thus requiring a more rigorous adversarial process.

Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision, emphasizing that the petition was indeed for the correction of an entry in the civil registry and not a change of name. The court distinguished between "correction" and "change," noting that correction involves rectifying an error, while change implies replacing one name with another. The court cited previous jurisprudence to support its position that corrections of misspelled names could be handled under Rule 108, provided they do not alter substantive rights.

The appellate court also upheld the RTC's admission of evidence, stating that evidence not objected to may be considered valid. The court found that the OSG's arguments regarding procedural flaws were unconvincing, particularly since no opposition was presented during the hearings.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  1. The distinction between "correction" and "change" of names is critical in determining the applicable legal framework (Rule 108 vs. Rule 103).
  2. Corrections of clerical errors, including misspellings in civil registry entries, can be processed under Rule 108, provided there is an adversarial proceeding.
  3. The admission of evidence not objected to is permissible and can be validly considered by the court in its judgment.