REPUBLIC v. MICHELLE SORIANO GALLO, GR No.
207074, 2018-01-17
Facts:
To accurately reflect these facts in her documents, Gallo prayed before the Regional Trial Court of
Ilagan City, Isabela in Special Proc. No. 2155[5] for the correction of her name from "Michael" to
"Michelle" and of her biological sex from "Male" to "Female" under Rule 108[6] of the Rules of Court.
[7]
In addition, Gallo asked for the inclusion of her middle name, "Soriano"; her mother's middle name,
"Angangan"; her father's middle name, "Balingao"; and her parent's marriage date, May 23, 1981, in
her Certificate of Live Birth, as these were not recorded.[
As proof, she attached to her petition copies of her diploma, voter's certification, official transcript of
records, medical certificate, mother's birth certificate, and parents' marriage certificate... he Regional
Trial Court, in its December 7, 2010 Order, granted the petition.
It lent credence to the documents Gallo presented and found that the corrections she sought were
"harmless and innocuous."
The Office of the Solicitor General appealed, alleging that the applicable rule should be Rule 103 of
the Rules of Court for Petitions for Change of Name.[19] It argued that Gallo did not comply with the
jurisdictional requirements under Rule 103 because the title of her Petition and the published Order
did not state her official name, "Michael Gallo."[20] Furthermore, the published Order was also
defective for not stating the cause of the change of name.[21]
The Court of Appeals, in its assailed April 29, 2013 Decision, denied the Office of the Solicitor
General's appeal.[22] It found that Gallo availed of the proper remedy under Rule 108 as the
corrections sought were clerical, harmless, and innocuous
However, the Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, believes otherwise. For it, Gallo
wants to change the name that she was given. Thus, it filed the present Petition via Rule 45 under
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The Petition raises procedural errors made by the Regional Trial
Court and the Court of Appeals in finding for Gallo.
Issues:
whether or not the Republic of the Philippines raised a question of fact in alleging that the change
sought by Michelle Soriano Gallo is substantive and not a mere correction of error;... whether or not
Michelle Soriano Gallo's petition involves a substantive change under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court
instead of mere correction of clerical errors... whether or not Michelle Soriano Gallo failed to exhaust
administrative remedies and observe the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
Ruling:
In assailing the Court of Appeals' ruling that the change sought by Gallo was a mere correction of
error, petitioner raises a question of fact not proper under a Rule 45 Petition, which should only raise
questions of law.
In the case at bar, petitioner raises an issue which requires an evaluation of evidence as determining
whether or not the change sought is a typographical error or a substantive change requires looking
into the party's records, supporting documents, testimonies, and other evidence.
Rule 103 of the Rules of Court does not apply to the case at bar. The change in the entry of Gallo's
biological sex is governed by Rule 108 of the Rules of Court while Republic Act No. 9048 applies to
all other corrections sought.
a person may now change his or her first name or correct clerical errors in his or her name through
administrative proceedings. Rules 103 and 108 only apply if the administrative petition has been filed
and later denied.
Republic Act No. 10172 does not apply in the case at bar as it was only enacted on August 15, 2012
—more than two (2) years after Gallo filed her Petition for Correction of Entry on May 13, 2010.[85]
Hence, Republic Act No. 9048 governs.
Gallo's Petition involves a mere correction of clerical errors.
Gallo is not attempting to replace her current appellation. She is merely correcting the misspelling of
her given name. "Michelle" could easily be misspelled as "Michael," especially since the first four (4)
letters of these two (2) names are exactly the same. The differences only pertain to an additional
letter "a" in "Michael," and "le" at the end of "Michelle." "Michelle" and "Michael" may also be
vocalized similarly, considering the possibility of different accents or intonations of different people. In
any case, Gallo does not seek to be known by a different appellation. The lower courts have
determined that she has been known as "Michelle" all throughout her life. She is merely seeking to
correct her records to conform to her true given name.
However, Rule 108 does not apply in this case either.
he applicable law then for the correction of Gallo's name is Republic Act No. 9048... it is the civil
registrar who has primary jurisdiction over Gallo's petition, not the Regional Trial Court. Only if her
petition was denied by the local city or municipal civil registrar can the Regional Trial Court take
cognizance of her case.
as to these corrections, Gallo should have sought to correct them administratively before filing a
petition under Rule 108.
However, the petition to correct Gallo's biological sex was rightfully filed under Rule 108 as this was a
substantial change excluded in the definition of clerical or typographical errors in Republic Act No.
9048
Petitioner does not deny that the issue of non-compliance with these two (2) doctrines was only
raised in this Court. Thus, in failing to invoke these contentions before the Regional Trial Court, it is
estopped from invoking these doctrines as grounds for dismissal.
