IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME, GIL GO, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR-APPELLANT.

This is a special proceeding for change of name.  A summary of petitioner’s evidence is as
follows:

Gil Go was born in Tacloban City
on September 1, 1942.  His name in the civil register is Gil Co.  He was registered as the legitimate son of Co
Beng Chiong and Ong Sun Ti (mother). 
During liberation (Commonwealth, according to petitioner’s counsel), Co Beng Chiong, following a Chinese
custom, allegedly adopted the surname Yao
of his godfather and changed his name to Yao Ka
Sin.  No documentary evidence was
presented on this point.

When Gil Go was baptized, he was allegedly given the name Gil Yao Eng Hua.  His baptismal certificate was not presented
in evidence.  Gil Go testified that since
childhood, he has been known as Henry Yao among his
relatives, friends and business associates, but in his business and government
transactions, he used the name Gil Co. 
No third person corroborated his testimony.  He did not present any documentary evidence
to prove that he is known in the community as Henry Yao.

In his alien registration certificate (ACR), which was marked as
Exhibit G but is not found in the record (he withdrew it and did not present
later the photostatic copy
which his counsel promised to offer as a substitute), he is registered as Gil Go
due to an alleged error of an immigration clerk.  Because of the confusion generated by those
names, he wants legal authorization for the use of the name Henry Yao.

On March 9, 1965
Gil Go filed the instant petition in the Court of First Instance of Leyte.  He prayed that
his name be changed to Henry Yao.  During the hearing, the city fiscal opposed
the petition.  The lower court granted it
(Special Proceeding No. 1042).  The city
fiscal appealed.

The issue is whether the lower court erred in allowing the change
of name.  Gil Go did not submit any appellee’s brief.

1.  It was not indicated in
the title or caption of Gil Go’s petition that he
desired to change his name to Henry Yao.  The published order setting his petition for
hearing reproduced that defective title. 
Nor was it indicated in his petition that his registered name is Gil Co,
a name which he allegedly used in his official transactions (19 tsn).  In his
petition, he used the name Gil Go.

The proceeding for a change of name is a proceeding in rem.  Jurisdiction
to hear and determine the petition for change of name is acquired after due
publication of the order, setting it for hearing, which order should contain
certain data, among which is the name sought to be adopted, a matter which
should be indicated in the title of the petition (Pabellar
vs. Republic, L-27298, March 4, 1976, 70 SCRA 16).

The reason for that rule is that the ordinary reader only glances
fleetingly at the caption of the published order or the title of the petition
in a special proceeding.  Only if the
caption or the title strikes him does he proceed to read the contents of the
order.  And the probability is great that
he does not at all notice the other names or aliases of the applicant if these
are mentioned only in the body of the order or petition.  The noninclusion of
all the names or aliases of the applicant in the caption of the order or in the
title of the petition defeats the very purpose of the required publication
(Republic vs. Tañada, L-31563, November 29, 1971, 42
SCRA 419).

Inasmuch as the title of the petition in this case and the order
setting it for hearing were deficient, the lower court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the proceeding (Llerena Telmo vs. Republic, L-28549, September 23, 1976, 73 O.G.
39, 43).

On this score alone, the trial court’s order granting the
petition should be reversed.

2.  Another ground for the
reversal of the trial court’s order is that the reasons adduced by Gil Go and
his evidence are insufficient to justify his change of name.

Change of name is a matter of public interest.  It is a privilege and not a matter of
right.  The court should weigh carefully
the consequences of the change of name and deny the same unless weighty reasons
are shown.  The State has an interest in
the names borne by individuals and entities for purposes of
identification.  (Ong
Peng Oan vs. Republic, 102
Phil. 468).  Change of name may entail
serious consequences and cause some complications.  It should be authorized only for compelling
reasons.

Gil Go (Gil Co)’s assertion that he has used the name Henry Yao was not solidly substantiated by any documentary
evidence or by the testimony of other persons. 
His uncorroborated evidence consisted only of his testimony and his
birth certificate where his surname is Co, not Go.

On the witness stand, he contradicted the allegation in paragraph
3 of his petition (which he had verified) that he was “christened Gil
Go”.  He testified that he was
christened Gil Yao Eng Hua.

He failed to prove the allegation in his petition that the change
of his name to Henry Yao is justified by
“convenience and business reasons”. 
As already observed, he did not offer indubitable proof that he used the
name Henry Yao, or that his father was known as Yao Ka Sin.  He used
the name Gil Co in his school records (13 tsn).

WHEREFORE, the trial court’s order allowing the change of
name is reversed with costs against the petitioner-appellee.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, (Chairman), Barredo, Muñoz Palma, and
Martin, JJ., concur.

Antonio and Concepcion, Jr., JJ., did not take part.