4/14/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The trial court dismissed the Petition outright, because Co Boon Peng applied for naturalization under Letter of Instruction No. 270 which, unlike Commonwealth Act No. 473 or the Revised Naturalization Law, did not expressly provide that the father's naturalization automatically extended to his wife and children.[61] This Court, however, reversed the trial court, ruling that Letter of Instruction No. 270 and Commonwealth Act No. 473 are statutes in pari materia, both governing the naturalization of qualified aliens residing in Philippines. Thus: Absent any express repeal of Section 15 of [Commonwealth Act] No. 473 [on the effect of the naturalization on wife and children] in [Letter of Instruction] No. 270, the said provision should be read in to the latter law as an integral part thereof, not being inconsistent with its purpose. Thus, Section 15 of [Commonwealth Act] No. 473, which extends the grant of Philippine citizenship to the minor children of those naturalized thereunder, should be similarly applied to the mi nor children of those naturalized under [Letter of Instruction] No. 270[.][62] On Hubert and Arlene's recourse to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court to change the nationality of their father as entered in their birth certificates, this Court said that the recourse was "appropriate."[63] The entry sought to be corrected was one of those allowed under Rule 108, the Court-approved procedure to correct entries in the civil registry such as those made in the birth certificate. Hubert and Arlene were found to have sufficiently alleged the ultimate facts required to effect the change: (1) that they are the legitimate children of Co Boon Peng; (2) that their father was a naturalized Filipino citizen; and (3) that their birth certificates still indicate that their father is Chinese. Taking that into consideration, this Court said that it "behooved the trial court to do its duty under Section 4, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court,"[64] that is, to issue a notice of the hearing on the Petition for Correction of Entry and cause its publication. The change will be in the form of a marginal annotation on the certificate of live birth. In the words of the Court: The petitioners' recourse to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, as amended, is appropriate. Under Article 412 of the New Civil Code, no entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order. The law does not provide for a specific procedure of law to be followed. But the Court approved Rule 108 of the Rules of Court to provide for a procedure to implement the law. The entries envisaged in Article 412 of the New Civil Code are those provided in Articles 407 and 408 of the New Civil Code which reads: Art. 407. Acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons shall be recorded in the civil register. Art. 408. The following shall be entered in the civil register: (1) Births; (2) marriages; (3) deaths; (4) legal separations; (5) annulments of marriage; (6) judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning; (7) legitimations; (8) adoptions; (9) acknowledgments of natural children; (10) naturalization; (11) https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66236 8/20