ONG TE, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLEE.

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of
Cagayan, dated January 31, 1951, dismissing the petition of Ong Te for
change of his name to “Antonio Ong Ang.”

In his petition, the herein appellant averred that he is a Chinese citizen; that he has been a bona fide
resident of the province of Cagayan for more than seven years, having
continuously resided therein since 1950; that he is a holder of an
Alien Certificate of Registration; that he has never been convicted of
any crime nor is at present accused of any; and that his petition was
not intended to evade any lawful or valid and existing obligation.

During the hearing, the petitioner was represented by counsel and
his testimony was to the effect that his main reasons for wanting to
change his name are that there are several persons having the same name
as his, and that he has long been known by the name “Antonio.” The
Provincial Fiscal of Cagayan, in representation of the Solicitor
General, appeared for the government and cross-examined the petitioner.

After trial, the lower court issued an order, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:

“Considering that the ground alleged by the
petitioner to change his name is not, in the opinion of the Court, a
valid one as he was not given the name of Antonio when he was
‘baptized, the Court hereby denies the petition and consequently
dismisses the same.”

From this order the petitioner has appealed. The appeal is devoid of merit.

While We do not share the reason advanced by the court below in
denying the petition, to wit—that petitioner was not given the name of
Antonio when he was” baptized—because baptism is not a condition sine qua non to a change of name, We are of the opinion that the petition should still be dismissed.

To follow the reasoning of the court below to its logical
conclusion, there will be no possibility of persons changing their
names because most, if not all, the applicants have not been baptized
of the names which they would want to adopt subsequently. Be that as it
may, We feel, as indicated above, that the decision of the court
denying the petition should be affirmed.

While petitioner testified to the effect that when he was securing a
visa to Hongkong he was told that there are over 30 persons who bear
the name of “Ong Te,” it is not, however, sufficiently shown that this
alleged duplication of names would prejudice him in some way or
another. His testimony to this effect was not even supported by any
other evidence. We cannot, therefore, seriously take it as a ground for
the change of name desired.

As to the alleged ground that petitioner had been using the name
“Antonio” for quite a time, there is authority to the effect that “the
mere fact that the applicant has been using a different name and has
become known by it does not per se alone constitute ‘proper and reasonable cause’ or justification, to legally authorize a change of name.” (Ong Peng Oan vs. Republic, 102 Phil., 468; 54 Off. Gaz. (8) 2527.)

Furthermore, the addition of the words “Ong Ang” after the word
“Antonio” would add more confusion than the use of his present name,
Ong Te.

Section 5, Rule 103 of the Rules of Court requires that for a change of name, there should appear proper and reasonable
cause. But, unfortunately for the petitioner, he has failed to prove
before Us that his petition is grounded upon proper and reasonable
cause.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is affirmed. Costs against the petitioner-appellant.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Barrera, and Dizon, JJ., concur.
Makalintal, J,. concurs in the result. Order affirmed.