IN THE MATTER OF CORRECTION OF ENTRIES IN THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE IN THE CIVIL REGISTRY OF MANILA, ADELINA C. VIRAY, ET AL., PETITIONERS-APPELLEES, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES…

Appeal by the Government from the order of the Court of First
Instance of Manila, Branch XXII, granting the petition of herein appellee for the correction of certain entries in the
record of her birth in the Civil Registry of Manila.  The case was submitted for decision without appellee’s brief in reply to that of appellant.

In a verified petition filed with the lower court on October 12,
1965 Adelina C. Viray
alleged, among other things, that on June 17, 1946 the Medical Office of the
Bureau of Health (then in charge of the Maternity and Children’s Hospital)
reported to the Civil Registry of Manila the fact of the petitioner’s birth in
said hospital on June 11, 1946; that the corresponding entry in the said
registry shows “Adelaide Kwong” and “Servillano Kwong” as her
name and the name of her father, respectively; that her real name is Adelina C. Viray and his
father’s, Servillano Viray
y Concepcion; that the said entries are clerical
errors and are not in accordance with the information given by her mother; and
that since birth she has been using the name Adelina
C. Viray. 
Petitioner prayed that the erroneous entries be corrected
accordingly.  On February 21, 1966 the Solicitor General filed an
opposition on the ground that the petition states no cause of action for the
reason that the errors sought to be corrected are substantial in nature, since
they involve a change of names.  On June 25, 1966 the trial court granted
the petition.  Hence the instant appeal.

The order appealed from must be reversed and the petition
denied.  In the first place, as far as
the petitioner is concerned, the proper petition should be one for change of
name under Rule 103 and not for mere correction of a clerical error in the
registry under Article 412 of the Civil Code. 
The error certainly is not clerical but substantial in nature, and is
not patent or visible on the face of the record.  The summary proceedings under Article 412 “only justify an order to correct innocuous
or clerical errors that are visible to the eyes or obvious to the
understanding.” (Black vs. Republic, L-10869, Nov. 28, 1958; Ansaldo vs. Republic, L-10226, Feb. 14, 1958; Tan Su vs.
Republic, L-12140, April 29, 1959; Bentoto vs.
Republic, L-14978, May 23, 1961; De Castro vs. Republic, L-17431, April 30,
1963; Lui Lin vs. Republic, L-18213, Dec. 24, 1963.)

Even granting that the requirements of Rule 103 as to publication
and notice of hearing have been com­plied with and therefore the petition may
be treated as one for change of name, still the same is fatally defective in
that the name “Adelina Kwong”
sought to be corrected does not appear in the caption of the petition nor in
the notice of hearing which was published. 
In Ng Yao Siong vs.
Republic, L-20306, March 31, 1966,
reiterated in Chan Chin vs. Local Civil Registrar of Manila, L-27159, September 17, 1969, it was held:

“It is our view that his failure in the heading of the
application to give the true name sought to be changed is fundamental; such
failure is non-compliance with the strict requirements of publication; it is
fatal; and the court did not acquire jurisdiction to hear the case.

“x x x Notices
in the newspapers, like the one under consideration, usually appear in the back
pages.  The reader, as is to be expected,
merely glances at the title of the petition. 
It is only after he has satisfied himself that the title interests him,
that he proceeds to read down further. 
The probability is that the portions in the publication heretofore
quoted will escape the reader’s notice. 
The purpose for which the publication is made,
that is, to inform, may thus be unserved.”

And as far as the petitioner’s father is concerned, the order of
correction is unjustified since he does not appear as one of the petitioners,
nor is his name included in the publication of the notice of hearing.

WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is reversed and the
petition is denied, without pronouncement as to costs.

Reyes, J.B.L., Acting C.J., Dizon, Zaldivar, Ruiz Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.

Barredo, J., took no part.

Concepcion, C.J., on leave.