The Supreme Court denied the petition of Florenda Balila Reyes and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision that set aside the correction of her date of birth in her Certificate of Live Birth. The Court held that changing her birth date is a substantial alteration under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, and that Reyes failed to implead her siblings, who are indispensable parties.
The Case
The case began with a petition for correction of entries in the Certificate of Live Birth of Rolinda Sambrano Balila — Reyes' maiden name — in Registry No. 133 of the Local Civil Registry of Quezon, Isabela, under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. Reyes filed it against Artemio P. Reyes, Valeriano P. Rafanan, the Municipal Local Civil Registrar of Quezon, Isabela, Lisa Grace S. Bersales in her capacity as Civil Registrar General of the Philippine Statistics Authority, and all other interested parties before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
Initially, Reyes failed to implead her parents. In an Order dated October 24, 2019, the RTC directed Reyes to amend her petition to conform with procedural requirements. Reyes then filed an amended petition impleading her parents, explaining that the omission was because her parents were already deceased. The RTC ordered publication of the petition in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for three consecutive weeks. Reyes was presented as the sole witness.
Reyes said that while processing her application for a Bureau of Internal Revenue Tax Identification Number, she discovered erroneous entries in her Certificate of Live Birth: her first name was recorded as "Rolinda" instead of "Florencia"; her father's middle name as "Agamata" instead of "Agmata"; and her date of birth as January 25, 1961 instead of December 8, 1960. She presented her father's death certificate, marriage contract, baptismal certificate, school records, service record, and government-issued identification cards. The respondents failed to present any evidence.
In an Order dated July 1, 2022, the RTC granted the petition and directed the Local Civil Registrar to correct all three entries. The Republic moved for partial reconsideration, arguing the corrections were substantial and required impleading all interested persons, including Reyes' siblings. In an Order dated October 14, 2022, the RTC denied the motion, finding the birth date change would not have a large effect since only 48 days would be added to her age.
The Republic appealed. In a Decision dated June 20, 2025, the Court of Appeals partially granted the appeal: it upheld the change in Reyes' name and her father's middle name but reversed the change in her birth date, ruling she failed to implead her siblings as required under Rule 108.
The Issue
The core issue was whether the CA erred in setting aside the correction of Reyes' date of birth due to her failure to implead indispensable parties — her siblings — in the petition.
The Ruling
The Court held that the Petition is bereft of merit. It ruled that the corrections to Reyes' first name and her father's middle name are mere clerical and typographical errors that can be effected by the local civil registrars or the Consul General under RA 9048, as amended by RA 10172. However, the change in Reyes' date of birth, which also changes her age, is a substantial alteration that must be corrected by filing a petition under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
The Court's disposition reads: "ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated June 20, 2025 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 120835 is AFFIRMED."
By the Numbers
- Registry No. 133 — Local Civil Registry of Quezon, Isabela
- Erroneous birth date: January 25, 1961; proper date sought: December 8, 1960
- 48 days — the difference the RTC said would be added to her age
- RTC Order granting the petition: July 1, 2022
- RTC Order denying reconsideration: October 14, 2022
- CA Decision: June 20, 2025, in CA-G.R. CV No. 120835
- Publication: once a week for three consecutive weeks
The Court's Reasoning
The Court explained that Rule 108 applies both to clerical, innocuous mistakes and to substantial errors affecting civil status, citizenship, and nationality. RA 9048 (2001) authorized local civil registrars or the Consul General to correct clerical or typographical errors and changes in the first name without a judicial order, leaving substantial corrections to Rule 108. RA 10172 (2012) expanded that authority to changes in the day and month of the date of birth and the recorded sex, when there is a patent typographical error.
Under Rule 108, Section 3, the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest that would be affected must be made parties. The Court said failure to implead indispensable parties in a substantial correction renders subsequent proceedings, including the judgment, ineffectual. It noted that allowing corrections through mere summary proceedings would open the door to fraud or other mischief.
Citing Republic v. Maligaya, where the Court set aside a correction of a birth date for failure to implead siblings, the Court found Reyes similarly failed to implead her siblings. While subsequent publication may cure a failure to implead in certain instances — such as earnest efforts to bring in interested parties, when the parties initiated the proceedings, when there is no awareness of interested parties, or when a party is inadvertently left out — the Court held none of these exceptions applied here.
Source: Supreme Court Decision in G.R. No. E-03220.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.