This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-08-12 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In sustaining the RTC decision, the CA relied on the Court's conclusion in Republic v. Kho,[23] Alba v. Court of Appeals,[24] and Barco v. Court of Appeals,[25] that the failure to implead indispensable parties was cured by the publication of the notice of hearing pursuant to the provisions of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. In Republic v. Kho,[26] petitioner therein appealed the RTC decision granting the petition for correction of entries despite respondents' failure to implead the minor's mother as an indispensable party. The Court, however, did not strictly apply the provisions of Rule 108, because it opined that it was highly improbable that the mother was unaware of the proceedings to correct the entries in her children's birth certificates especially since the notices, orders and decision of the trial court were all sent to the residence she shared with them.[27] | |||||
|
2011-02-02 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Meanwhile, in Republic v. Kho,[27] Carlito Kho (Carlito) and his siblings named the civil registrar as the sole respondent in the petition they filed for the correction of entries in their respective birth certificates in the civil registry of Butuan City, and correction of entries in the birth certificates of Carlito's minor children. Carlito and his siblings requested the correction in their birth certificates of the citizenship of their mother Epifania to "Filipino," instead of "Chinese," and the deletion of the word "married" opposite the phrase "Date of marriage of parents" because their parents â"€ Juan and Epifania â"€ were not married. And Carlito requested the correction in the birth certificates of their children of his and his wife's date of marriage to reflect the actual date of their marriage as appearing in their marriage certificate. In the course of the hearing of the petition, Carlito also sought the correction of the name of his wife from Maribel to "Marivel." | |||||
|
2009-12-04 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Petitioners maintain that the court a quo may pass upon the validity of marriage and questions on legitimacy even in an action to correct entries in the civil registrar. Citing Cariño v. Cariño,[11] Lee v. Court of Appeals[12] and Republic v. Kho,[13] they contend that even substantial errors, such as those sought to be corrected in the present case, can be the subject of a petition under Rule 108.[14] | |||||