REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. DAVID P. AVILA, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF COTABATO AND TAN CHENG BENG, TAN AY KIM, TAN CHENG KENG, TAN AY GHO AND…

Republic of the Philippines versus Avila

The Case

This is the case of the Republic of the Philippines against Judge David Avila of the Court of First Instance of Cotabato and the four Tan siblings, Tan Cheng Beng, Tan Ay Kim, Tan Cheng Keng, and Tan Ay Gho. The Republic appeals from the trial court's order granting the siblings' petition under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court to change their names to Johnny Yap Tan, Jeanette Yap Tan, Jimmy Yap Tan, and Jennifer Yap Tan. The case matters because it fixes the standard for the judicial change of name: a change of name is a mere privilege, not a right, and it demands a proper and reasonable cause, not trivial or flimsy reasons. It also teaches how the Court weighs the statutory rule that a legitimate child bears the father's surname against a petitioner's personal preferences.

Procedural History

The four siblings filed a petition for change of name in the Court of First Instance of Cotabato, presided over by Judge David Avila. They caused the petition to be published once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and Province of Cotabato, where they reside. At the hearing, a representative of the Solicitor General appeared for the State, but the State presented no evidence. The trial court issued an order authorizing the change of names as prayed for. The State, through the Solicitor General, appealed that order to the Supreme Court, which decided the appeal in May 1983.

Facts

The private respondents are the legitimate children of the spouses Lim Leong Ho and Yap Kun, both Chinese citizens. Their mother, Yap Kun, was already dead when the petition was filed. All four were born in Dulawan, now Datu Piang, in Cotabato, on September 11, 1943, December 8, 1948, January 21, 1950, and June 3, 1955, respectively. Their present names appear in their certificates of birth, in the records of the Bureau of Immigration, in their certificates of registration, and in their school records.

They asked to change their names for three reasons. First, having been born in the Philippines and having learned to love and adopt the traits and traditions of the Filipino people, they wished to change their Chinese names into Christian or Filipino names. Second, they wanted to avoid embarrassment and confusion in their social and business dealings, since friends and acquaintances already knew them by the names they wished to adopt. Third, the youngest, Tan Ay Gho, wished to avoid ridicule, because her name in the Muslim dialect means "running nose."

The record also showed that the siblings did not use their father's family name, Lim, but the surname Tan, which belonged to their mother's first husband. Their father explained that it was the mother who gave them the name Tan and that he simply acquiesced. The names they sought to adopt combined their mother's surname with that of her first husband, producing the family name Yap Tan.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in granting the petition for change of name despite the absence of a proper and reasonable cause.
• Whether or not the reasons given, namely a desire to adopt Filipino names, the avoidance of embarrassment and confusion, and the avoidance of ridicule, are sufficient and valid grounds for a change of name.
• Whether or not the change of name should be denied because it would authorize the use of a family name other than that of the father, contrary to law.

Applicable Provisions

Article 264, paragraph 1, of the Civil Code provides:

Legitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of their father, and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this Code.

This provision bears on the case because the siblings sought to discard their father's surname, Lim, in favor of Yap Tan, a combination of their mother's surname and the surname of her first husband, which the law does not allow.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court erred. A change of name is a mere privilege and not a matter of right, and it should not be abused or allowed for trivial and flimsy reasons. To justify a change of name, there must exist a proper and reasonable cause or compelling reason.

On the second issue, the Court found the reasons insufficient. It recalled the proper and reasonable causes recognized in Republic versus Tañada: when the name is ridiculous, tainted with dishonor, or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; when the request is a consequence of a change of status, such as when a natural child is acknowledged or legitimated; and when the change is necessary to avoid confusion. The Court saw nothing embarrassing in bearing a Chinese name, especially by one who is admittedly a Chinese, and observed that it would be a greater source of ridicule for a Chinese to adopt American or Filipino names, which connotes a desire to hide one's ancestry. On confusion, the Court reasoned that granting the petition would not eliminate confusion but enhance it, because the siblings would then have three names instead of two. As to the name Tan Ay Gho, the Court held that its supposed ugly meaning was not reason enough, since her parents, long-time residents of Cotabato, are presumed to know the meaning of the name they gave her, and a given name is chosen for a child, not imposed by law.

On the third issue, the Court found no plausible explanation for legalizing Yap Tan as the family name. The siblings were totally discarding the use of their father's family name, which is specifically ordained by law under Article 264, paragraph 1, of the Civil Code. The Court could not give judicial sanction to legalize the use of the names applied for.

Doctrine

A change of name is a mere privilege, not a matter of right, and it may be granted only upon a proper and reasonable cause or compelling reason, never for trivial or flimsy reasons. The recognized grounds are: when the name is ridiculous, tainted with dishonor, or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; when the change is a consequence of a change of status, such as acknowledgment or legitimation; and when the change is necessary to avoid confusion. A legitimate child must use the surname of the father under Article 264, paragraph 1, of the Civil Code, and a petition that discards the father's surname in favor of the mother's surname or that of her former husband cannot be granted judicial sanction.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the order of the trial court, denied the petition for change of names, and imposed no costs.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a change of name is a mere privilege and not a matter of right, grantable only for a proper and reasonable cause or compelling reason. Examiners use this case to test the grounds for change of name and the rule that a legitimate child bears the father's surname.