Republic v CA and Caranto

Republic v. CA and Caranto (1996) Petitioners:  Republic of the Philippines Respondents:  THE C!RT " APPEA#$% &A'E . CARA*T% and +E*A',A P. CARA*T Ponente: endo-a Topic: Adoption  effects effects of adoption adoption SUMMARY: The trial court ac/uired 0urisdiction over the case% as lon as the publication of the petition for adoption involved an obvious clerical error in the na2e of the child to be adopted (2isspellin of first na2e). Ho3ever% no chane of na2e can be ranted unless the local civil reistrar is i2pleaded and unless the petition for chane of na2e is published published (separatel4 fro2 the petition for adoption). FACTS:

Private respondents spouses &ai2e . Caranto and +enaida P. Caranto filed this petition for the adop adoptio tion n of idael idael C. a-on a-on%% then then fiftee fifteen n 4ears 4ears old% old% 3ho 3ho had had been been livin livin 3ith 3ith priva private te respondent &ai2e . Caranto since he 3as seven 4ears old. A2on those souht in the petition 3as 3as that that 5the 5the first first na2e na2e 3hich 3hich 3as 3as 2ista 2istaenl enl4 4 reist reistere ered d as ',AE ',AE# # be correc corrected ted to 'CHAE#.7 The $olicitor 8eneral opposed the petition insofar as it souht the correction of the na2e of the child fro2 idael to ichael. He arued that althouh the correction souht concerned onl4 a clerical and innocuous error% it could not be ranted because the petition 3as basicall4 for  adoption% not the correction of an entr4 in the civil reistr4 under Rule 1: of the Rules of Court. The RTC ruled in favor of the spouses Caranto% declarin 'CHAE# C. a-on as the son b4 adoption of the spouses Caranto% and chanin his na2e to 'CHAE#. The CA affir2ed the RTC decision. ISSUE/S: •

;o* the RTC ac/uired 0urisdiction over the private respondents< petition for adoption (Accordin to the Republic% the trial court did not ac/uire 0urisdiction over the petition for  adoption because the notice b4 publication did not state the true na2e of the 2inor  child.) o =E$. 't involves an obvious obvious clerical error in the na2e na2e of the the child souht to be adopted. The correction involves 2erel4 the substitution of the letters ch for the letter d% so that 3hat appears as idael as iven na2e 3ould read ichael. Even the $olicitor 8eneral ad2its that the error is a plainl4 clerical one. Chanin the na2e of the child fro2 idael C. a-on to ichael C a-on cannot possibl4 cause an4 confusion% because both na2es can be read and pronounced 3ith the sa2e rh42e (tu2a) and tone (tono% tuno% hi2i).

The purpose of the publication re/uire2ent is to ive notice so that those 3ho have an4 ob0ection to the adoption can 2ae their ob0ection no3n. That purpose has been served b4 publication of notice in this case. ;o* the decision of the RTC% insofar as it ordered the correction of the na2e of the 2inor% is valid o *% it is void and 3ithout force and effect. The trial court 3as clearl4 in error in holdin Rule 1: to be applicable onl4 to the correction of errors concernin the civil status of persons. Rule 1:% > plainl4 states? 5>. Entries sub0ect to cancellation or correction. @ !pon ood and valid rounds% the follo3in entries in the civil reister 2a4 be cancelled or  corrected? (a) births (b) 2arriaes (c) deaths (d) leal separation (e)  0ud2ents of annul2ents of 2arriae (f) 0ud2ents declarin 2arriaes void fro2 the beinnin () leiti2ations (h) adoptions (i) acno3led2ents of natural children (0) naturali-ation () election% loss or recover4 of citi-enship (l) civil interdiction (2) 0udicial deter2ination of  filiation (n) voluntar4 e2ancipation of a 2inor and (o) chanes of na2e.7 o This case falls under letter (o)% referrin to chanes of na2e. 'ndeed% it has been the unifor2 rulin of this Court that Art. B1> of the Civil Code @ to i2ple2ent 3hich Rule 1: 3as inserted in the rules of Court in 196B @ covers those har2less and innocuous chanes% such as correction of a na2e that is clearl4 2isspelled. o The local civil reistrar is thus re/uired to be 2ade a part4 to the proceedin (Rule 1:% ). He is an indispensable part4% 3ithout 3ho2 no final deter2ination of the case can be had. As he 3as not i2pleaded in this case 2uch less iven notice of the proceedin% the decision of the trial court% insofar as it ranted the pra4er for the correction of entr4% is void. The absence of an indispensable part4 in a case renders ineffectual all the proceedin subse/uent to the fillin of the co2plaint includin the 0ud2ent. o *or 3as notice of the petition for correction of entr4 published (Rule 1:% B). ;hile there 3as notice iven b4 publication in this case% it 3as notice of the petition for adoption 2ade in co2pliance 3ith Rule 99% B. 'n that notice onl4 the pra4er for adoption of the 2inor 3as stated. *othin 3as 2entioned that in addition the correction of his na2e in the civil reistr4 3as also bein souht. The local civil reistrar 3as thus deprived of notice and% conse/uentl4% of the opportunit4 to be heard. o

•



NOTES? •

,iest of this case on p. >D of Not Bone of My Bone But Still My Own