Rule 103, Rule 109, or administrative correction

ONE of the most common legal problems encountered in the Philippines is an error of entry in the birth certificate.

The errors can occur in the first name, middle name, surname, citizenship, sex of the person, birth month, birth year, or in the name of a parent.

Entries may also be canceled and corrected for: (a) marriage; (b) deaths; (c) judgments of annulment of marriage; (e) judgments for nullity of marriage; (f) legitimations; (g) adoptions; (h) acknowledgments of natural children; (i) naturalization; (j) election, loss or recovery of citizenship; or (k) judicial determination of filiation, among others (see Section 2, Rule 108, Rules of Court).

However, knowing what to correct, rectify, or cancel in an official government record is only the first step.

The person wanting to change or cancel the entry must know the proper legal remedy to avail (himself of) to avoid wasting his or her time and resources; this will also limit the unnecessary filing of actions in courts.

In 2001, Republic Act 9048 vested the civil registrar with primary jurisdiction over the correction of certain clerical or typographical errors and changes of first name.

Examples are: misspelled first name from Frank to Franco, change of first name from Michael to Michelle, or change from Kristoffersonfordham to Kristoffer because it is hard to pronounce.

More than a decade later, “Republic Act 10172 expanded the coverage of the summary administrative procedure provided under Republic Act 9048 to include clerical corrections in the day and/or month in the date of birth, or in the sex of the person, where it is patently clear that there was a clerical or typographical error or mistake in the entry” (Santos v. Republic, et al., G.R. 250520, May 5, 2021).

The Supreme Court, in the case of Bartolome v. Republic, summarized the rules:

The person wanting to change or cancel the entry must know the proper legal remedy to avail (himself of) to avoid wasting his or her time and resources; this will also limit the unnecessary filing of actions in courts

“1. A person seeking 1) to change his or her first name, 2) to correct clerical or typographical errors in the civil register, 3) to change/correct the day and/or month of his or her date of birth, and/or 4) to change/correct his or her sex, where it is patently clear that there was a clerical or typographical error or mistake, must first file a verified petition with the local civil registry office of the city or municipality where the record being sought to be corrected or changed is kept, in accordance with the administrative proceeding provided under R.A. 9048 in relation to R.A. 10172.

2. A person seeking 1) to change his or her surname or 2) to change both his or her first name and surname may file a petition for change of name under Rule 103, provided that the jurisprudential grounds discussed in Republic v. Hernandez are present.

3. A person seeking substantial cancellations or corrections of entries in the civil registry may file a petition for cancellation or correction of entries under Rule 108… [R]ule 108 now applies only to substantial changes and corrections in entries in the civil register” (G.R. 243288, August 28, 2019).

It must be underscored that a “person may only avail (himself) of the appropriate judicial remedies under Rule 103 or Rule 108 [in the entries referred to as number 1 above] after the petition in the administrative proceedings is filed and later denied” (G.R. 243288, August 28, 2019).

In the Bartolome case, Ruben Bartolome filed a petition for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court seeking to correct the name “Feliciano Bartholome” as appearing in his birth certificate to “Ruben [Cruz] Bartolome.”

He claimed he had been using the name “Ruben [Cruz] Bartolome” since his childhood. The issue to be resolved by the Supreme Court was “[w]hether the change/correction sought in petitioner’s first name, middle name, and surname, as appearing in his birth certificate, from ‘Feliciano Bartholome’ to ‘Ruben Cruz Bartolome’ should be filed under R.A. 9048, Rule 103, or Rule 108 of the Rules” (G.R. 243288,

By Melandrew T. Velasco

THE Philippines, being an archipelago, faces challenges in terms of connectivity – not only digital but also physical through infrastructure and transport.

Matching the growth of infrastructure is needed to maximize economic development.

In the past post-EDSA administrations, the infrastructure program had been carried out either through the regular infrastructure program, with government allocating budget to finance the infrastructure projects or through public-private partnership.

Public-private partnership enables private corporations to invest in and build projects where government does not have the financial capability and managerial expertise to undertake. These projects are built without cost to government.

During the term of President Rodrigo Duterte, the government embarked on a massive infrastructure program—Build, Build, Build— with many projects under the PPP.

President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. is continuing the program that his predecessor started. Under his Build, Better, More (BBM) program, more infrastructure projects will be undertaken in partnership with the private sector.