Updates on Republic Act No.

9048 otherwise known as the Clerical Error

Law1
By
Editha R. Orcilla and Marizza B. Grande

Introduction
Republic Act No. 9048 was approved by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo on
22 March 2001. This law is a consolidation of House Bill No. 9797 and Senate
Bill No. 2159 amending Articles 376 and 412 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.
Its been twelve years since this law was passed and implemented. However,
can we say that the process of implementing this law is fully understood by all
those involved and authorized to process petitions for Change of First Name
(CFN) and Correction of Clerical Errors (CCE)? Are there still problems
encountered in the implementation of this law? Let us see what the data show.
This paper aims to present and discuss actual problem cases or observations in
the processing of petitions submitted by the Local Civil Registry Offices (LCROs)
to the Legal Services Division (LSD) and likewise the observations/problems
encountered by the Document Management Division (DMD) of the National
Statistics Office (NSO) in the processing of requests for a copy of the corrected
document/s.
Specifically, the objectives of this paper are:
1. To update the Civil Registrars, Local Civil Registry Office (LCRO) Staff,
and other civil registration workers on the processing of petitions for RA
9048;
2. To discuss common/actual cases of impugned or disapproved petitions on
RA 9048 and the reason/s for disapproval; and
3. To discuss the common errors/observation encountered in the issuance of
copies of corrected documents affected by approved RA 9048 petitions.

1
Paper presented by Editha R. Orcilla, Chief Document Management Division, Civil Registration

Department, National Statistics Office during the 6th National Workshop on Civil Registration held
at the SMX Convention Center, Pasay City on August 7-9, 2012.

A. What is RA 9048?
Republic Act No. 9048 otherwise known as the Clerical Error Law is an act
authorizing the City or Municipal Civil Registrar (C/MCR) or the Consul General
(CG) to correct clerical or typographical error in an entry and/or change of first
name or nickname in the civil register without need of judicial order. This law
allows the:
1. correction of clerical or typographical errors in any entry in civil registry
documents, except corrections involving the change in sex, age,
nationality and status of a person; and
2. change of a person's first name in his/her civil registry document under
certain grounds specified under the law through administrative process.

We define a clerical or typographical error as an obvious mistake committed in

clerical work, either in writing, copying, transcribing, or typing an entry in the civil
register that is harmless and innocuous, such as a misspelled name or
misspelled place of birth and the like, and can be corrected or changed only by
reference to other existing record or records.

1. Who may file the petition for RA 9048?

Whether it is for correction of clerical or typographical error, or for change of first
name, the petition may be filed by a person of legal age (at least 18 years old)
who must have a direct and personal interest in the correction of the error or in
the change of first name in the civil register.
The following are the only persons who may file the petition:
a. Owner of the record that contains the error to be corrected or first name to
be changed; or
b. Owner's spouse, children, parents, brothers, sisters, grandparents,
guardian, or any other person duly authorized by law or by the owner of
the document sought to be corrected.

2. What are the supporting documents required for correcting a

CLERICAL OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR?

The supporting documents should be authentic and genuine otherwise, the

petition shall be denied or disapproved pursuant to Rule 5.8 of Administrative
Order No. 1, S. 2001.
The following supporting documents are admissible as basic requirements:
a. Certified machine copy of the certificate containing the alleged
erroneous entry or entries
b. Not less than 2 public or private documents upon which the correction
shall be based. Examples of these documents are the following:
baptismal certificate, voter's affidavit, employment record, GSIS/SSS
record, medical record, school record, business record, driver's
license, insurance, land titles, certificate of land transfer, bank
passbook, NBI/police clearance, civil registry records of ascendants,
and others.
c. Notice or Certificate of Posting
d. Certified machine copy of the Official Receipt of the filing fee
e. Other documents as may be required by the City/Municipal Civil
Registrar (C/MCR)

3. What are the supporting papers for CHANGE OF FIRST NAME (CFN)?
As in the case of correction of clerical error, no petition for change of first
name shall be accepted unless the petitioner submits the required supporting
papers, as follows:
a. All the documents required of the petitioner for the correction of clerical
error shall also be required of the petitioner for change of first name.
b. Clearance from authorities such as clearance from employer, if
employed; the National Bureau of Investigation; the Philippine National
Police; and other clearances as may be required by the concerned
C/MCR.
c. Proof of Publication. An affidavit of publication from the publisher and
copy of the newspaper clippings should be attached.

4. How much is the fee in filing a petition?

Pursuant to RA 9048, the City/Municipal Civil Registrar (C/MCR),
District/Circuit Registrar (D/CR), and Consul General are authorized to collect
from every petitioner the following rates of filing fees:

Petitions filed at LCRO/

Office of the Clerk of the
Sharia Court
Correction of clerical error
Change of First name

P 1,000.00
P 3,000.00

Clerical or typographical
error
Change of First Name

$50.00

Petitions filed at the Office

of Consul General

$150.00

A migrant petitioner shall pay an additional service fee to the Petition

Receiving Civil Registrar (PRCR). This service fee shall accrue to the local
treasury of the PRCR.
- Five hundred pesos (P500.00) for correction of clerical or typographical
error
- One thousand pesos (P1,000.00) for change of first name

5. Where should the petition be filed?

The petition for CCE/CFN shall be filed with the LCRO where the document
containing the clerical error to be corrected or first name to be changed is
kept. The same general rule shall apply for documents registered at the Office
of the Clerk of Shari'a Court for Muslim marriages, divorces, revocations of
divorces, and conversions to Islam.
However, in case the present residence or domicile of the petitioner is
different from where his/her civil registry record/s is/are registered, he/she
may file a migrant petition in the nearest LCRO in his area. This process is
called a migrant petition.
6. Where to submit petitions for affirmation?
Review and evaluation of RA 9048 petitions for affirmation is done by the
NSO-Legal Services Division (LSD).
Upon checking the completeness, consistency, and correctness of all RA
9048 petitions filed, the LCROs/Office of the Clerk of Sharia Court/Office of
Consul General transmits them by batch to the following address for
affirmation:

Hon. Carmelita N. Ericta

Civil Registrar General
Attn: Legal Services Division (LSD)
National Statistics Office
Sta. Mesa, Manila
Subject: RA 9048 Petition

7. What are the documents to be submitted in securing a corrected

copy of the document?
For the purpose of securing a corrected copy of the document in CRS paper
(security paper), the following requirements shall be submitted to NSO for
processing:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

CTC of the NSO-OCRG Affirmed Decision;

CTC of the approved petition
CTC of the Certificate of Finality;
CTC of the affected document with annotation based on CFN/CCE
CTC of the affected document prior to correction ( unannotated)

These requirements are to be submitted to the following address:

Civil Registration Department
Vibal Building corner Times St and EDSA
West Triangle, Quezon City
Attn: Document Management Division (DMD)
Subject: RA 9048
Processing of requests for copy issuance of documents affected by RA 9048
is done at the Document Management Division (DMD) of the Civil
Registration Department (CRD).

B.

Appeal

When the petition for CCE/CFN is denied or disapproved by the C/MCR ( or CG

or D/CR), the petitioner has the option to appeal the decision of the C/MCR (or
CG or D/CR) to CRG within ten (10) working days from receipt of the decision. A
Notice of Appeal shall be filed to the concerned C/MCR (or CG or D/CR). The
5

C/MCR or CG or D/CR within five (5) working days after the receipt of the Notice
of Appeal from the petitioner, submits the petition and all the supporting
documents to the CRG. Within 30 calendar days after the receipt, the CRG will
render the decision on the appeal. The decision of the CRG shall be transmitted
to the concerned C/MCR within ten (10) working days after the date of the
decision. Within ten (10) working days after receipt of the decision, the C/MCR
(or CG or D/CR) shall notify the petitioner and shall carry out the decision.
When the petitioner fails to file the appeal within the 10 working days from receipt
of the decision, the decision of the C/MCR disapproving the petition shall become
final and executory. The only option left for the petitioner then shall be to file the
appropriate petition with the proper court.
The petitioner may appeal to the CRG on any of the following grounds:
1. A new evidence is discovered, which when presented, shall materially
affect, alter, modify or reverse the decision of the C/MCR;
2. The denial of the C/MCR is erroneous or not supported with evidence; or
3. The denial of the C/MCR is done with grave abuse of authority or
discretion.

C.

Statistics on RA 9048 Petitions

1. Received RA 9048 petitions by region
Figure 1 shows the number of RA 9048 petitions processed by region by the
NSO-LSD for the period 2005-2012. There were 783,131 RA 9048 petitions
received for review and approval.
Of the 17 regions, NCR had the highest number of petitions filed with 13.4%
or 104,728. Second in rank is Region III-Central Luzon with 12.6% or 98,317
followed by Region IV-A with 12.3% or 96,189. Meanwhile, the region which
had the least number of petitions is ARMM with only 0.5% or 3,609.
On the contrary, the top three regions which had the most number of
impugned cases are Region III, Region IV-A and Region VI-Western Visayas
with 2,562, 2,526, and 1,985 cases respectively. Although ARMM had the
least number of petitions filed, it has the highest proportion of impugned
cases with 8.6% or 311 of its total number of petitions. Table 1 in Annex 1
shows the total RA 9048 petitions received by type of decision by region in
2005-2012.

2. Received RA 9048 petitions by type of decisions

Of the total 783,131 petitions received
by NSO, 95.0% were affirmed decisions
by the Civil Registrar General (CRG).
On the other hand, 3.0% or 23,163
petitions
were
impugned
or
disapproved and 0.9% or 7,054 are
mixed decisions. A very small
proportion of the total number of
petitions filed is returned to the sender
(0.5% or 3,613). The remaining 0.6%
or 5,000 petitions are on-going RA
9048 petitions being processed by
NSO.

Figure 2. Percentage Distribution of RA 9048

petitions by Type of Decisions: 2005-2012
Returnto
Sender0.5%
Impugned3.0%

Mixed0.9%

There are also petitions already

impugned by CRG that were re-filed by
C/MCRs or D/CR or CG on the basis of
some valid grounds. A total of 798
appeal cases were received from 20052012. Likewise, based on RA 9048
database, a total of 23,163 petitions for
Motion for Reconsideration were
received by NSO.

Affirmed95.0%

Inprocess0.6%

D. Statistics on the Copy Issuance of documents affected by RA 9048

Petitions
From January 2005 to June 2012, NSO processed a total of 850,837
documents affected by RA 9048. Figure 3 below shows the number of annual
transactions from 2005-2012 (first semester).
The average daily transactions processed by NSO increased from 410 in
2004 to 595 in 2011. However, the number of average daily transactions
processed decreased to 510 based on January to June of 2012
accomplishments of the NSO-Civil Registration Department. Please see
Annex 2- Number of Applications on RA 9048 Processed by NSO-DMD.
Figure 3. Number of Applications Processed on RA
9048 by NSO: 2005-2012
160,000

148,574
130,702

140,000
120,000
100,000

131,508 136,251

102,458
84,843

80,000

61,872

54,629

60,000
40,000
20,000

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

E. Feedback Cases
As the number of RA 9048 requests increased from 2005-2011, it is also
observed that the number of Feedback Forms issued by NSO increased.
Feedback form is an electronic copy provided to clients stating the reasons why
the issuance of annotated or unconverted requests cannot be processed. This
form also provides the action to be taken for the clients to comply with before
they will return the set of documents needed for re-processing.
To compare the number of Feedback Forms issued vis--vis with the number of
RA 9048 applications received by NSO, the total number of applications received
from 2008 to 2012 was consolidated. Of the 608,907 total RA 9048 applications
received in this period, there were about 6.8% or 41,383 feedback forms issued
8

to NSO clients. Notice the increase in the proportion of Feedback Forms issued
from 5.4% of the total in 2008 to 9.0% of the total applications received in 2012.
Please refer to Annex 3- Number of RA 9048 received applications and
feedback forms issued by NSO: 2008-2012

F. RA 9048 Application System

Petitions submitted by the C/MCRs, CG, and D/CR to the OCRG are encoded
using the RA 9048 Application System (Civil Registration Archive Management
and Document Servicing and Vital Statistics System). This application system
facilitates the release of OCRG Decision and annotation of civil registry
documents. It also provides facility for tracking the status of RA 9048 petitions.
Likewise, it is a database containing the details, status, and results of petitions -for change of first name or correction of entries in birth, marriage or death
documents -- received by the OCRG for decision in accordance with the
provisions of RA9048.

G. Common Errors observed in the processing of RA 9048 petitions

The common errors observed during the processing of petitions under RA
9048 are the following:
1. No Petition Number
2. Duplicate Petition Numbers
3. Wrong Form used
4. No Action Taken by the LCR
5. No LCRs date of decision
6. No date of birth, marriage, and death indicated on the Petition Form
7. No C/MCR signature in the verification and decision portions
8. Lack/incomplete supporting documents to support the petition for
CCE/CFN
9. No date indicated on the verification portion
10. No petitioners signature
9

11. There are some LCROs without an officially appointed civil registrars and
where the duties is functioned by Officers-In-Charge (OICs). Designation
Order of OIC C/MCR should be attached to the RA 9048 petition.
12. Entries indicated in the decision is inconsistent with the information in the
birth certificate
13. Supporting documents are either not certified true copies of the original or
showed erasures or alterations.
14. Failure to follow the procedures of posting and publication. Some petitions
were disapproved due to lack of requirements on the posting (date of filing
inconsistent with date of posting, which should be 10 days).
Note: If LCRO Copy is correct, indicate that only the OCRG Copy is to be
corrected.

H. Actual cases of impugned petitions

Case 1
Facts:
A petition for Correction of Clerical Error was filed by Luzviminda
Estorninos Matos on April 7, 2011 at the office of MCR Jimmy B. Alfuerta of
Capalonga, Camarines Norte correcting the spelling of her middle name and
mothers last name from Estoninos to Estorninos.
Finding the petition meritorious for consideration, the MCR granted the
petition on April 25, 2011 and the same was forwarded to the Civil Registrar
General (CRG) for affirmation under OCRG No. 11-0813009. However, it was
impugned on the ground that the correction is not covered under RA 9048.
Before filing the correction under RA 9048, the petitioner filed a petition for
correction of entries at the RTC of Labo, Camarines Norte for her gender, that is,
from male to female, her middle name and mothers last name as well as her
parents places of birth. Her petition was granted. After securing an annotated
copy from NSO, the petitioner discovered that the annotation on her middle name
and mothers last name were inadvertently misspelled as Estoninos instead of
Estorninos because these are the entries approved by the court.

10

The petitioners counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration but was

denied by the court as the prescribed time to file a Motion for Reconsideration
has already lapsed.
The petitioner then filed a petition for Correction of Clerical Error under RA
9048 on her middle name and her mothers last name but was later impugned by
the CRG.
Issue:
Is a correction previously corrected through court can be again corrected
under RA 9048?
Resolution:
As a rule, any correction previously corrected in civil records through
judicial means cannot be corrected again under RA 9048. As the Implementing
Rules and Regulations of Clerical Error Law states that:
Furthermore, an entry in the civil registry previously corrected or first
name previously changed on the basis of a court order shall not be corrected or
changed again under RA 9048.
In this case, RA 9048 does not cover the correction. In order to correct the
misspelled middle name and mothers last name, the petitioner is advise to file
again another petition in court since any judicial correction cannot be corrected
again administratively under RA 9048.

Case 2
Facts:
On June 21, 2012, a petition for Correction of Clerical Error was filed by
Raul P. Villanueva at the Office of the City Civil Registrar of Caloocan City to
correct the erroneous entry (First Name of the Child) on the annotation written in
the REMARKS/ANNOTATION portion of his sons Certificate of Live Birth
(COLB) filed at the Office of the Civil Registrar General (OCRG). The record filed
at the OCRG is the only record to be corrected since the record filed at the Local
Civil Registry Office (LCRO) of Caloocan City did not contain any error.
The child, JHANRY MENDOZA, was born on January 29, 1994 at
Caloocan City and was registered late on May 20, 1996. During the registration
of the COLB, RHODORA MENDOZA , the informant and mother of the child,
also applied for the legitimation of her child. The application for legitimation was
granted. Hence, Jhanry became the legitimated child of Rhodora Mendoza and
11

Paul Pascual Villanueva and the four copies of his COLB were annotated
pursuant to legitimation. However, in the COLB of Jhanry that was forwarded to
the
OCRG,
the
following
annotation
was
written
on
the
REMARKS/ANNOTATION portion of the document :
Legitimated by the subsequent marriage of parents on Oct. 21, 1994.
Henceforth, the child shall be known as : JEANRY MENDOZA VILLANUEVA.
The childs first name was erroneously indicated as JEANRY instead of
JHANRY.
Issue:
Can the erroneous entries in the REMARKS/ANNOTATION portion of the
COLB which was forwarded to OCRG be corrected under RA 9048?
Resolution:
In this case, RA 9048 does not apply. Since the COLB filed at the Local
Civil Registry Office (LCRO) contains the correct annotation , the proper
procedure is for the LCRO of Caloocan City to endorse a certified photocopy of
their file together with the certified copies of the requirements for legitimation to
the Document Management Division (DMD) of the Civil Registration Department
(CRD) for evaluation and consideration.

Case 3
Facts:
On February 1, 2012, a petition for Correction of Clerical Error in the
Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) of Susan Antiquera was filed by Hermogenes
Antiquera at the Local Civil Registry Office of Manito, Albay.
Susan A. Antiquera was born at Manito, Albay and was registered at the
same municipality. However, in her COLB, the childs and fathers last names
were erroneously indicated as Antiquierra instead of Antiquera and her birth
date was also erroneously indicated as 20 February 1967 instead of 20 March
1967.
Finding the petition to be sufficient in form and substance, the petition was
granted by the LCRO of Manito, Albay and the approved petition was forwarded
to OCRG for affirmation. The decision to correct the childs and fathers last
names from ANTIQUIERRA to ANTIQUERA were affirmed by the CRG under
OCRG No. 12-0894801. However, the petition to correct the childs date of birth
12

from FEB. 20, 1967 to MARCH 20, 1967 was impugned for insufficiency of
the supporting documents to establish the correct entry of the alleged clerical or
typographical error.
On May 28, 2012, a Motion for Reconsideration was filed by Hermogenes
Antiquera seeking reconsideration of the impugned CRG decision. However,
upon evaluation , the new evidence presented by the petitioner failed to establish
clerical error on the childs date of birth. Hence, the Motion for Reconsideration
was denied under MR No. 12-9922969 on the ground that the correction involves
the change of age of the child.
Issue:
Is the CRG correct in the denial of the petition for correction of date of
birth in the COLB of Susan A. Antiquera?
Resolution:
As a general rule, correction that involves the change of age of the child
cannot be corrected under RA 9048. However, there are cases illustrated in the
Manual of Instructions of RA 9048 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations,
namely, Section 5, Case 5.1 The date of the occurrence of the vital event was
after the date of registration of the same event or registration was done before
the occurrence of the event; Case 5.2 The date is impossible.; Case 5.3
The date appears unreasonable ; Case 5.4 Misleading date where numeric
character or symbol was used for the month ; and Case 5.5 year of birth was
erroneous. Hence, errors pertaining to date that fall under these cases may be
considered clerical and subject for evaluation.
The case of Susan A. Antiquera does not fall in any of the wrong dates as
illustrated above. Hence, correction is not covered under RA 9048. If the party
is in need of the corrected date of birth, it is advised that a petition for correction
of entries may be filed in the proper court or the party may wait for the
amendment of RA 9048.

Case 4
Facts:
On June 15, 2012, a petition for Correction of Clerical Error in the
Certificate of Marriage (COM) between Roderick D. Realino and Estella D.
Santos was filed by Estella Realino at the Office of the City Civil Registrar of Las
Pias City to correct the erroneous wifes age and date of birth.
13

Roderick D. Realino and Estella D. Santos contracted marriage on July

23, 1998 at Las Pias City. In their COM, the wife declared her date of birth and
age as 8 August 1977 and 20, respectively. However, in the wifes Certificate
of Live Birth (COLB), her date of birth was indicated as August 8, 1979. Hence,
a discrepancy occurred. In order that her date of birth be consistent in all her
records, Estella Realino filed a petition for Correction of Clerical Error under the
provision of RA 9048 on her COM correcting the wifes date of birth from 8
AUGUST 1977 to 8 AUGUST 1979 and wifes age from 20 to 18 years old.
Finding the petition sufficient in form and substance, it was granted by the
City Civil Registrar (CCR) of Las Pias City on June 27, 2012 and the same was
forwarded to the Office of the Civil Registrar General (OCRG) for affirmation.
However, the CRG impugned the petition under OCRG No. 12-0934218 on the
ground that the correction affects the validity of the marriage.
Issue:
Is the OCRG correct in impugning the petition filed by Estella Realino in
her COM?
Resolution:
There are three formal requisites of marriage. One of these is the valid
marriage license. However, there are marriages exempt from the license
requirement as provided under Articles 27, 28, 33 and 34 of the Family Code of
the Philippines. The marriage between Roderick D. Realino and Estella D.
Santos was solemnized under Article 34, a case exempt from the marriage
license requirement. Article 34 states that no license shall be necessary for the
marriage of a man and a woman who have lived together as husband and wife
for at least five years and without any legal impediment to marry each other.
This article requires that at the start of the cohabitation, both the contracting
parties have no legal impediment to marry each other hence, they shall at least
be 18 years of age.
The CCRO of Las Pias City failed to consider the requirement of Article
34 in granting the petition
In this case, RA 9048 is not applicable. The petitioner is advised to file a
petition for correction in the proper court.

14

Case 5
Facts:
Frederick Siojo Uy filed a Petition for Correction of Clerical Error on the
Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) of his friend , Larry V. Al-ag, in the City of Manila
under OCRG No. 12-0925735 on May 10, 2012. The petition is to correct the
errors in the childs last name & middle name on the Remarks or Annotation
done on his friends (COLB) by the City Civil Registry Office (CCRO) of Manila.
The child was born out of wedlock to parents Liezel G. Vertudazo and
Flavio T. Al-ag on August 5, 1989. On March 22, 2012, the father filed his
Affidavit of Admission of Paternity and also the Affidavit to Use the Surname of
the Father. Pursuant to RA 9255, the child then was able to use his fathers
surname, Al-ag. However, in the annotation done by the CCRO of Manila on his
COLB, the last name/middle name of the child was inadvertently spelled as
Vertuzado instead of Vertudazo. The same error also occurred on the COLB
filed at the Office of the Civil Registrar General (OCRG). The
Remarks/Annotation is as follows:
Pursuant to R.A. 9255, the surname of the child named herein is hereby
changed from VERTUZADO to AL-AG. ACKNOWLEDGED by FLAVIO T.
AL-AG, executed on March 22, 2012 in CABUAC NORTE, SIKATUNA,
BOHOL and recorded in this office under Reg No. 2012-3048, Series of
2012. Henceforth, the child shall now be known as : LARRY VERTUZADO
AL-AG.
Finding the petition meritorious for consideration, the petition was granted
by CCR Maria Josefa Encarnacion A. Ocampo on May 25, 2012 and the same
was forwarded to the Office of the Civil Registrar General (OCRG) for affirmation.
However, the petition was denied by the CRG on the ground that the correction
on the Remarks/Annotation portion can not be corrected under RA 9048.
Issue:
Is the CRG correct in impugning the petition correcting the clerical error in
the annotation made by the CCRO on the COLB?
Resolution:
RA 9048 does not apply to correct the clerical error made in an
annotation. The proper procedure is for the City Civil Registrar of Manila to
endorse to the Document Management Division (DMD) of the Civil Registration
Department (CRD) another set of the documents with the correct annotation. The
newly endorsed documents from the CCRO of Manila will be the basis of DMD to
15

correct also the annotated document filed in its archive. This is an administrative
solution.

I. Common Errors Observed on the Issuance of Corrected Copies

In the processing of documents affected by RA 9048, there are several
problems encountered.

Case 1. The LCRO file that was used in filing the petition for correction of
entries is a case of delayed registration but NSO file is a timely registered
one
A common problem encountered by DMD.
Example:
A petition for correction of entries on the date of marriage of parents from
May 24, 1992 to May 24, 1993 on the birth record of Railah Diamla Binsi of
Malabang, Lanao del Sur was filed by her father. The petition was approved by
the CRG in January of this year. The birth certificate was registered under
registry number 2000-283.
When a request for a corrected copy of the subject birth record was
received by DMD, it was discovered that a timely registered document is
available in the archives of NSO. This document was registered in 1998 under
registry number 98-355 and the name of the child is Raila Diamla Diamla. Given
the presence of this timely registered document, the request for a copy of the
corrected document was denied and instead, a copy of the timely registered
document is issued to the requesting party. The date of marriage of parents in
this document is May 23, 1993 which is correct.
This case again implies that before a petition is accepted, a copy of the
document secured from NSO shall be required from the client to ensure that
proper document is used in filing the petition.

Case 2. Application of Rule 12 Effect of approving the petition for change

of name
of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)
of
Administrative Order No. 1 series of 2001
Rule 12 states that: When the petition for a change of first name is approved
by the C/MCR or CG or D/CR and such decision has not been impugned by the
CRG, the change shall be reflected in the birth certificate by way of marginal
16

annotation. In case there are other civil registry records of the same person
which are affected by such change, the decision of approving the change of first
name in the birth certificate, upon becoming final and executory, shall be
sufficient to be used as basis in changing the first name of the same person in
his other affected records without need for filing a similar petition. In such a case,
the successful petitioner shall file a request in writing with the concerned C/MCR,
CG or D/CR to make such marginal annotation, attaching thereto a copy of the
decision.
This rule was further clarified by Memorandum Circular No. 04-08 issued on
August 24, 2004.
Example:
A petition for change of first name from Zenaida to Alicia on the birth
certificate of Zenaida Dadiz was filed in February of this year. The petition was
approved by CRG in March 2012. The correction was annotated on her birth
certificate which occurred in San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte. Subsequently, Zenaida
or Alicia, invoking Rule 12, wrote a letter to the concerned LCR requesting that
the change of her first name be likewise reflected on her Certificate of Marriage.
Her request was granted by the concerned LCR. The LCR reflected the
correction on the first name on the COM of Zenaida.
When the documents were transmitted to DMD for processing, that is,
reflecting the change of first name of the wife on the marriage certificate, the
request was disapproved. The reason behind the disapproval is that, DMD
observed that the first name of the wife on the Certificate of Marriage is Alicia
Zenaida which is different from the name of her birth certificate, that is Zenaida
only.
To correct the erroneous entry on the Certificate of Marriage, another
petition for correction of entries to correct the first name of the wife on the
Certificate of Marriage shall be filed by the wife.

Case 3. RA 9048 Form No. 1.1 (LCRO) or Petition Form is incomplete

There are instances that the certified machine copy of the Petition Form
submitted to DMD does not contain the signature of the C/MCR on the Action
Taken By The C/MCR portion. Take note that the Petition Form including its
back page should have complete entries before DMD can process the
documents.

17

Example:
A petition for correction of entries on the Date and Place of Marriage of
Parents on the birth record of Romnick Duero which occurred in Calayan,
Cagayan was approved in July 2009. Recently, the document owner is
requesting for a copy of the corrected document from CRD. Upon verification, it
was discovered that the Action Taken By The C/MCR did not contain the
signature of the concerned LCR. Because of this deficiency, the result of the
processing was a feedback instead of a copy of the corrected birth record.
To resolve this issue, the client has to request for a certified machine copy
of the Petition Form from the concerned LCR. Processing will be completed by
DMD once the complete requirements are received.

Case 4. Copies of documents (birth, marriage, death) prior to correction is

no longer available at the LCRO
It has been observed that copies of birth, marriage and death documents
prior to correction are no longer available at the LCROs. However, a Feedback
Form from DMD was issued that a certified copy of the document prior to
correction is requested to be submitted before the request for a copy of the
corrected document can be processed (lacking certified copy of the document
prior to correction).
To resolve this issue, the LCRO is requested to endorse a certified
machine copy of the document with the marginal annotation together with a
certification that the copy of the document prior to correction is no longer
available. In case a certified machine copy is no longer possible, the LCRO is
requested to endorse a certified transcription (MF 1A) with the proper annotation
on RA 9048. The certified machine copy with annotation or MF 1A with
annotation on RA 9048, shall be submitted in addition to the requirements
needed in the processing of documents affected by RA 9048.
Case 5. Document submitted for processing are not certified copies
There are cases where the documents submitted for processing are not
certified copies, only photocopies. Take note that only certified copies are
approved for processing.

Case 6. Documents which require multiple annotations

Several cases of this category resulted to feedback either because the
supporting documents for the second annotation are lacking or incomplete.
18

Example:
The birth record of Mylin Miranda from Sto. Nio, Cagayan had undergone
the process of RA 9048 and Supplemental Report. The document should
contain the annotation on RA 9048 and Supplemental Report. Unfortunately,
only the annotation on RA 9048 was implemented because the requirements for
the Supplemental Report are lacking. A feedback in this deficiency was prepared
to be communicated to the concerned LCRO.
LCROs are advised to send the complete requirements to ensure that the
processing of the document is completed.

Case 7. The entry/ies of the item/s on the LCRO copy which was used in
filing the petition for correction of entries or change of first name is/are not
consistent with the entries on the NSO copy.
This problem is very common. Depending on the discrepancy, the client has
to file again another petition or worse will go to court to correct the erroneous
entry.
Example:
A petition for correction of entries on the Childs First Name, Childs and
Fathers Last Names was filed on the birth record of a certain Susana Ordenanza
which occurred in Daet, Camarines Norte. The childs first name should be
changed from Susana to Susan and the childs and fathers last names shall
be corrected from Ordenanza to Ordinanza. The petition was approved and
affirmed by the Civil Registrar General (CRG). The copy from the LCRO was
used in filing the petition.
When the client requested for a copy of the corrected document at DMD, it
was discovered that the copy of NSO contains SUSANA CU as the name of the
child and BENITO CU as the name of the father. It can be observed that entries
between the NSO and LCR copies are not consistent.
Item
Registry Number
Name of the Child
Date of Birth
Name of the Father
Name of the Mother
Place of Birth

LCRO Copy
55-244
Susana Ordenanza
January 21, 1955
Benito Ordenanza
Rosa Caminar
Daet, Camarines Norte
19

NSO Copy
244
Susana Cu
January 21, 1955
Benito Cu
Rosa Caminar
Daet, Camarines Norte

To resolve this problem, the petition for correction of entries will just be
implemented on the LCRO copy while the correction on the NSO copy shall be
done through court.

Case 8. Cases where the registry number of the document filed at the
LCRO is not consistent with the registry number of the same document
filed at the NSO document archives.
This is also a common problem. There are so many cases which fall
under this category.
The LCRO and NSO copies should have consistent registry number.
To resolve these cases, a feedback is issued informing the concerned
LCR to endorse a certified copy of the document prior to annotation and a copy
of the page of the registry book where the subject document was recorded.
These documents should be accompanied by a transmittal letter from the
concerned LCR informing NSO of the reasons of such discrepancy.
Also to avoid the delay of request for SECPA with remarks/annotation of
RA 9048, it is advised that the C/MCR should check the correctness of registry
number in the petition and document to be corrected.

Case 9. Entries of the approved items for correction, name of the LCR, date
of decision, etc are not properly encoded or impugned items were included
in the encoding .
As discussed under Section E, the creation of entries/data to be used in
the annotation of the corrected document is done at the LSD. The database
created at the LSD is accessed by the Document Management Division (DMD)
of the Civil Registration Department to process the request of a copy of the
corrected document. If there are errors in the encoding, there is a need for DMD
to refer back the problem to LSD for proper resolution. Once the error is
resolved, DMD prepares the copy of the annotated document.
Example:
A petition to correct the husbands age, wifes age and the wifes middle
initial was filed by the wife on their marriage certificate which took place in
Candelaria, Quezon. In the course of encoding the items to be corrected at the
LSD, the wifes age was missed. Hence, when a copy of the corrected document
is being requested by the wife, DMD can not process the request until such time
20

that the missing entry shall be encoded. DMD has to coordinate with LSD to
include the wifes age in the encoding and once the wifes age is encoded, it is
only the time that RA 9048 Unit will be able to issue a copy of the corrected
marriage certificate.
Usually, the feedback that is issued by DMD for this case is: Further
verification of the supporting documents is needed. Please call up telephone
nos. xxx-xxxx after 10 working days to verify the status of your request.

J.

Memorandum Circulars/Memorandum Issued by the OCRG Related to

RA 9048

1. Memorandum Circular No. 2010-04

Date Issued: October 20, 2010
Addressed to: All City/Municipal Civil Registrars/Officers-in-Charge
All Consuls/Consul-General
All Sharia Circuit Registrars
Subject: Guidelines in the Correction of Entries in the Geographic,
Statistical Portion and/or Registry Numbers on Civil Registry
Documents
This Memorandum Circular outlines the guidelines on how to make the
corrections on the entries in the items that are exempt from judicial means
or RA 9048. These items are: the Geographical Portion, Statistical Portion
and Registry Number.
2. Memorandum Circular No. 2007-006
Date Issued: February 13, 2007
Addressed to: All City/Municipal Civil Registrars
Consuls General
Subject: Guidelines in Filing the Appropriate Petition Involving the Use of
JR, II, III and the likes under RA 9048
This Memorandum Circular contains illustrations which serve as
guidelines in the filing of appropriate petition involving the use of Jr, II, III
and so on.

21

It serves as a guide to all C/MCRs and CGs on the appropriate process to

be used, that is, whether the process of supplemental report or the
process of RA 9048. If RA 9048 is applicable, this Memorandum Circular
included illustrations on what type of petition is to be filed, that is, Petition
for Change of First Name or Petition for Clerical Error.

3. Memorandum Circular No. 2007-007

Date Issued: September 13, 2007
Issued to: All Municipal/City Civil Registrars/Officers-in-Charge
Subject: Entries that cannot be corrected by judicial means or by RA 9048
Our Civil Registry Forms are composed of two parts, the entry/legal
portion and the statistical portion. In addition, we have also the
Geographical Identification Portion and the Registry Number which are
written outside the legal/entry and statistical portions. If there is an
erroneous entry under the entry/legal portion, correction can be done
through RA 9048 or judicial means depending on the item to be corrected.
However, if the statistical portion or the geographical identification portion
or the registry number need corrections, what procedure shall we use?
Memorandum Circular No. 2007-007 is the answer.
This Memorandum Circular provides examples on how to correct errors in
the Statistical Portion, Geographical Identification Portion and Registry
Number. Memorandum Circular 2010-004 outlined how to implement the
corrections to be done, that is, the annotations to be used.

4. Memorandum Circular No. 2005-007

Date Issued: June 21, 2005
Addressed to: All City/Municipal Civil Registrars/
Consuls General
Subject: Clarifying Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9048
(Publication Requirement for Change of First Name)
This Memorandum Circular clarified the publication requirement for
Change of First Name. It was promulgated because there were some
petitions for CFN that were denied by C/MCRs on the ground of noncompliance with the publication requirement of the law, i.e., for not
publishing the petition for CFN itself ( Forms Nos. 4.1 and 4.2). Some
22

LCRs insist that the petition itself (Forms Nos. 4.1 and 4.2) should be
published and not the Notice of Publication (Form Nos. 10.1 and 10.2).
This Memorandum Circular clarified that if the Notice of Publication (Form
No. 10.1 and 10.2) is used in the publication, it can be construed that the
publication requirement under Section 5 of RA 9048 is complied with.

5. Memorandum Circular No. 04-08

Date Issued: August 24, 2004
Addressed to: All Local Civil Registrars
Subject: Clarification for Case 3, Section 9 of the Manual of Instructions
for Republic Act
9048 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations
Case 3, Section 9 of the Manual of Instructions for Republic Act 9048 and
its Implementing Rules and Regulations read as:
Change of first name shall be availed of only once subject to Rule
12. Under Rule 12, the decision granting change of first name in the birth
certificate, upon becoming final and executory, shall be sufficient to be
used as the basis in changing the first name of the same person in his
affected records.
This Memorandum Circular clarified that the change of first name is only
applicable to the civil registry records of that same person and not to
another persons record where his name could be cited. Hence, because
of this clarification, the case example was updated accordingly.

6. Memorandum Circular No. 04-03

Date Issued: April 26, 2004
Issued to: City/Municipal Civil Registrars
The Department of Foreign Affairs
Subject: Retraction/Withdrawal of Petitions Under RA 9048
This Memorandum Circular provided the guidelines governing the
retraction or withdrawal of duly filed petitions under RA 9048. It was
provided in these guidelines that retraction maybe done at any stage of
the evaluation of the petition. However, in no case shall retraction be
allowed when the Civil Registrar General (CRG) has already acted upon
23

the petition which means that the CRG has already affirmed or impugned
the petition. These guidelines also included who may retract petitions,
form of retraction and procedures to be implemented at the Local Civil
Registry Office (LCRO) and at the Office of the Civil Registrar General
(OCRG) in case a letter signifying the desire to retract a duly filed petition
is received.

7. Memorandum Circular No. 04-02

Date Issued: April 13, 2004
Addressed to: All Local Civil Registrars
Subject: Use of Forms Under RA 9048
This Memorandum Circular instructed the Local Civil Registry Offices
(LCROs) that all petitions for Correction of Clerical Error/Change of First
Name/Appeal/Motion for Reconsideration shall use RA 9048 Forms as
appearing in Appendix No. 1 of the Manual of Instructions. Likewise, this
Memorandum Circular instructed the LCROs to reproduce the forms and
shall make the same available to interested parties. In reproducing the
forms, the LCROs are instructed that care should be taken so as not to
miss, alter or modify any item of information.

8. Memorandum
Date Issued: 16 February 2004
Addressed to: All Local Civil Registrars
Subject: Correction of Clerical Errors
Basically, this Memorandum clarified the procedure to be undertaken on
the following cases:
Case 1. Both LCRO and OCRG documents have wrong entries.
Where does the petition be filed?
Is there a need to annotate both the LCRO and OCRG
documents in case an interested party requests for a copy?
Case 2. In case only the LCRO Copy has the wrong entry
Where does the petition be filed?
In case an interested party requests for a copy, which
document shall contain the annotation?
24

Case 3. In case only the OCRG Copy has the wrong entry
Where does the petition be filed?
Which document shall bear the proper annotations?

9. Memorandum Circular 03-01

Date Issued: February 10, 2003
Addressed to: All Civil Registrars/Officers-In-Charge
Subject: Officers-In-Charge at the Local Civil Registry Office

The Office of the Civil Registrar General (OCRG) has observed the
increasing number of Local Civil Registry Offices (LCROs) which have
incumbent Local Civil Registrars but the duties and functions of the Local
Civil Registry Office are performed by a designated Officer-In-Charge.
This Memorandum Circular clarified that the functions and duties arising
from RA 9048 are merely additional function to those already existing at
the LCRO and with the LCR. Hence, it is not proper for an OIC to perform
some of the functions of the office while at the same time another
performs just RA 9048 functions.
This Memorandum Circular issued in 2003 clarified that the OCRG will
recognize the duly designated OIC as the valid occupant at the LCRO
provided that such designation not fall under any of the exceptions
allowing OICs to act on RA 9048 petitions.

10. Memorandum
Date Issued: June 21, 2001
Addressed to: All City/Municipal Civil Registrars
Subject: C/MCRs are Under the Direction and Supervision of the Civil
Registrar General, and C/MCRs are Authorized to Administer
Oaths ( DOJ Opinion No. 26, Series of 2001)
This Memorandum was included in this list to inform the City/Municipal
Civil Registrars about their power to administer oath as provided in
Section 12(g) of Act No. 3753. This power, as mentioned in this
Memorandum, shall be limited to civil registry matters and the same must
be free of charge.
25

11. Memorandum
Date Issued: February 7, 2002
Addressed to: All Local Civil Registrars
Subject: Reiteration of Procedures
This Memorandum presented the observations of the Office of the Civil
Registrar General (OCRG) on the petitions submitted by the Local Civil
Registry Offices (LCROs) and the reasons why the petitions are returned
to the concerned LCROs. This Memorandum reiterated different rules for
the guidance of the LCROs.

12. Memorandum
Date Issued: 18 April 2002
Addressed to: All City/Municipal Civil Registrars
Subject: Opinion No. 11, S. 2002 of the Secretary of Justice Concerning
Filing Fee of Petition under Republic Act No. 9048
The objective of this Memorandum is to inform all City/Municipal Civil
Registrars concerning Opinion No. 11 series of 2002 issued by the
Secretary of Justice regarding the filing fee of petition under RA 9048.
This Opinion from the Department of Justice resolved the issue whether or
not a local government unit can impose a filing fee in an amount different
from what was promulgated by the Inter-Agency Committee which was
mandated under the said law to promulgate the implementing rules and
regulations.
Among other things, the Secretary of Justice said:
Xxx we rule that the filing fees as imposed by Administrative Order No.
1, S. 2001 should prevail over the filing fees imposed by the said City
Ordinance since the rules and regulations promulgated by the civil
registrar general pursuant to the provisions of RA 9048 have the force and
effect of law (U.S. v. Molina, 29 Phil. 119 [1914]; See Co Chiong v.
Cuaderno, 83 Phil. 242). Moreover, the aforementioned Administrative
Order was issued in implementation of RA 9048 and under the said Law, it
is the civil registrar general, not the local government units, that has the
26

authority to issue rules and regulations in implementation of the provisions

thereof.

K. Conclusion
RA 9048 or the Clerical Error Law was envisioned to ease the burden of
going through a very costly and tedious process of correcting erroneous
entries in the civil register. It has been a very helpful means to every
Filipino with problems in their civil registry documents. Based on the data
presented, a great number of Filipinos have benefited in the more than ten
years of implementation of the said law. Although problems cannot be
avoided, these should serve as a challenge to all Local Civil Registry
Heads and Staff to strive more to improve the implementation of the law
from the time of filing the petition until the issuance of a corrected copy of
the affected document which is the ultimate need of the client. Let us be
a part of the success of the clients we serve.

27

Annex 1
Table 1. Total Petitions Received by Type of Decision by Region: 2005-2
Decision
Return
to

REGION
Total
PHILIPPINES
National Capital Region
CAR
Region I - Ilocos
Region II Cagayan Valley
Region III Central Luzon
Region IVA - CALABARZON
Region IVB MIMAROPA
Region V Bicol
Region VI Western Visayas
Region VII Central Visayas
Region VIII Eastern Visayas
Region IX Zamboanga Peninsula
Region X Bukidnon
Region XI Davao
Region XII Soccsksargen
ARMM Autonomous Region in Muslim
Region XIII CARAGA

Affirmed

Mixed

Sender

InProcess

783,131

744,301

23,163

7,054

3,613

5,000

104,728
34,925
75,773
38,049
98,317
96,189
22,060
37,853
66,574
53,374
28,171
17,421
40,828
30,075
21,812
3,609
13,373

100,912
33,076
72,600
35,458
94,453
92,243
20,488
35,570
63,466
50,862
25,935
16,067
38,341
28,647
20,519
3,092
12,572

1,460
989
1,945
1,451
2,562
2,526
960
1,162
1,985
1,508
1,457
1,005
1,664
805
914
311
459

628
452
577
379
761
795
245
349
518
507
340
196
431
406
199
100
171

184
189
263
274
294
359
158
192
268
261
201
97
345
182
135
96
115

1,544
219
388
487
247
266
209
580
337
236
238
56
47
35
45
10
56

28

Impugned

Annex 2
Table 2. Number of Applications on RA 9048 Processed by NSO-DMD : 20042012(First Semester)

Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total

2004
3,075
5,707
4,300
3,975
4,230
4,333
4,749
4,470
4,353
5,099
4,465
3,962
52,718

2005
5,363
4,124
6,263
7,217
8,527
7,790
7,806
8,138
8,271
6,882
7,779
6,683
84,843

2006
6,133
3,811
4,865
4,110
5,922
5,012
4,234
4,355
4,169
4,312
4,337
3,369
54,629

2007
7,327
7,025
12,149
8,268
10,359
11,120
9,382
9,358
3,505
12,462
8,744
2,759
102,458

29

2008
10,502
12,497
10,761
11,373
11,472
10,415
11,454
10,880
11,098
11,438
9,704
9,108
130,702

2009
13,305
12,113
11,154
8,679
11,943
8,926
8,607
11,009
10,666
15,524
11,806
7,776
131,508

2010
13,130
11,247
12,070
9,550
9,817
10,640
11,207
11,353
14,176
11,990
11,124
9,947
136,251

2011
11,758
12,125
13,687
11,127
12,646
13,753
12,770
13,710
14,101
12,020
10,707
10,170
148,574

2012
11,897
10,894
10,521
9,269
9,833
9,458

61,872

Annex 3
Table 3. Total Number of RA 9048 Applications Received
and Feedback Forms issued: 2008-2012

Year

Number of RA 9048
Applications
Received

Number of
Feedback Forms
Issued

2008

130,702

7,075

5.4%

2009

131,508

8,529

6.5%

2010

136,251

9,481

7.0%

2011

148,574

10,748

7.2%

2012

Total

61,872

5,550

608,907

41,383

30

9.0%

6.8%