View full case

REPUBLIC v. CA

FACTS:

The petition for review on certiorari aims to overturn the Court of Appeals' decision, which upheld the Regional Trial Court's decision granting the adoption petition of private respondents, Jaime B. Caranto and Zenaida P. Caranto. The petitioners filed the adoption petition for Midael C. Mazon, a child who had been living with them since he was seven years old. Their main objective was to correct Midael's first name from "Midael" to "Michael." To proceed with the case, the RTC scheduled a hearing and notified the Department of Social Welfare and Development and the Office of the Solicitor General. However, the Solicitor General opposed the correction of the child's name, arguing that it was beyond the purview of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. Eventually, after the hearing, the RTC granted the adoption and allowed the correction of the child's name. Displeased with the decision, the Solicitor General appealed to the Court of Appeals, which concurred with the RTC's ruling. Consequently, the Solicitor General resorted to filing a petition for review with the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Did the Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquire jurisdiction over the private respondents' petition for adoption given the published notice did not state the true name of the minor child?

  2. Did the RTC and Court of Appeals err in allowing the correction of the minor's name from "Midael" to "Michael" in the civil registry within the adoption proceedings?

RULING:

  1. On the issue of jurisdiction over the adoption petition The Supreme Court held that the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the petition for adoption. The Supreme Court found that the error in the child's name in the notice was merely a clerical one and substituting "ch" for "d" does not change the identity of the minor to be adopted or cause confusion, thus serving the purpose of notice.

  2. On the correction of the child's name in the civil registry within the adoption process The Supreme Court concluded that the RTC and the Court of Appeals erred by allowing the correction of the name within the adoption process. The Supreme Court emphasized that the RTC did not comply with Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, which governs cancellations or corrections in the civil registry. The civil registrar was not made a party to the proceeding nor was proper notice by publication given for the correction of the name, rendering the court’s decision on this matter void for lack of jurisdiction.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The jurisdiction over an adoption petition is not invalidated by minor clerical errors in the published notice if the overall purpose of the notice—to inform potentially interested parties so they can voice objections—is served.

  • Rule 108 of the Rules of Court must be followed for any correction or cancellation in civil registry entries, including the correction of names; and this includes making the civil registrar an indispensable party and ensuring proper publication of the notice.

  • Decisions affecting civil registry entries that bypass the provisions of Rule 108 are void for lack of jurisdiction, both as to the party and the subject matter.