Short answer. Yes. Section 6 requires the officer to post the petition in a conspicuous place provided for that purpose for ten consecutive days once he finds it sufficient in form and substance. For a change of first name it is also published in a newspaper, twice.

What the law says

He shall post the petition in a conspicuous place provided for that purpose for ten (10) consecutive days after he finds the petition and its supporting documents sufficient in form and substance.

RA 9048, Section 6 — Posting Decision And Transmittal. Read the full provision →

What the law says

In addition, the petition shall be published at least once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation.

RA 9048, Section 5 — Form Contents And Publication. Read the full provision →

Posting is mandatory, and public is the point

He shall post the petition in a conspicuous place provided for that purpose for ten (10) consecutive days after he finds the petition and its supporting documents sufficient in form and substance. Every word of that is doing work. Conspicuous means it is meant to be seen rather than merely available. A place provided for that purpose means a designated board at the office, not a filing drawer. Ten consecutive days are calendar days, not working days. And the officer shall post — there is no discretion in the section and nothing that lets a petitioner opt out.

A name change is exposed twice over

Posting applies to petitions generally. A change of first name draws a second and much wider form of notice, because Section 5 adds that In addition, the petition shall be published at least once a week for two (2) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation. So the difference between correcting a misspelling and changing the name you go by is not only the cost and the timeline; it is how many people are told. Anyone weighing the two routes should factor that in honestly rather than discover it at the counter.

Why the law insists on it

This process replaces a court case, and a court case is public. The whole justification for letting an administrative officer change a civil register entry without a judge is that the change is announced first, so that anyone with a reason to object has a window in which to raise it — a creditor, a counterparty, someone with a claim, or an agency holding a record in the old name. Take away the notice and the shortcut becomes a quiet way to alter identity records, which is precisely what Section 9's penalty clause is written to deter.

If publicity is genuinely a risk

For most people this is an inconvenience. For some it is not — someone who has moved to escape a violent former partner, for instance, may find that a posted and published petition is the very thing that locates them. The section provides no confidentiality mechanism and no exception, so this is not something to negotiate at the counter. It is a reason to take advice before filing about whether a different remedy fits your situation better, and to raise the safety concern explicitly with counsel rather than assume the office will accommodate it.

Related provisions

Note. Statute text quoted on this page is reproduced from the official enactment and is linked to the full provision. The explanation around it is general legal information from Vivas & Nobles Law Office, not legal advice. Whether it applies to your situation depends on facts only a lawyer reviewing them can assess.