REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. SANTIAGO O. TAÑADA, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INS­TANCE OF CEBU AND LUA ONG REPRE­SENTING THE MINOR BABY ONG, ALIAS LUA AN JO…

On June 11, 1968 Lua Ong (hereinafter referred to as the respondent), father of
the then minor Baby Ong, filed with the Court of
First Instance of Cebu, with Judge Santiago O. Tañada (hereinafter referred to as the respondent judge)
presiding, a petition for change of the name of his son Baby Ong to Lua An Jok.  On June
25, 1968 the court issued an order setting the petition for hearing
on November 23, 1968 and
directing the publication of the said order in the Cebu Advocate, a newspaper of general circulation in Cebu City
and in the province of Cebu, once a week for three
consecutive weeks.

On the day of the hearing, because no one, not even the
provincial fiscal in representation of the Solicitor General, appeared to
interpose any objection to the petition, the respondent judge referred the case
to his deputy clerk of court, requiring him to submit a report on the evidence
adduced.

On November 26, 1968
the respondent judge issued an order granting the petition, authorizing Baby Ong to use the name An Joc Lua^[1]
and directing the local civil registrar
of Cebu City to cause the proper entry to be made.  On March 5, 1969 the assistant provincial fiscal, on behalf
of the Government of the Republic, interposed an appeal to this Court.  By resolution dated February
2, 1970, we required
the oppositor-appellant to file a petition for review
on certiorari instead of submitting copies of the record on appeal, as
the appeal raises only questions of law. 
On March 12, 1970 the Solicitor General, on behalf of the
Government of the Republic (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner), filed
the present petition for review on certiorari.

This case^[2]
raises only two questions:  the first,
jurisdictional in character, relates to the defective publication of the
respondent judge’s order dated June 25, 1968 and the defective petition of the
respondent; the second relates to the absence of proper and reason­able cause
or compelling reason to justify the change of name applied for.

1.  Anent the first issue, it
is the petitioner’s submission that both the caption of the published order and
the title of the respondent’s petition failed to include the name An Joc Lua, the name allowed by the
court a quo for
use by the applicant.  The non-inclusion
of the name An Joc Lua, or
properly, the name Lua An Jok, in the caption of the published order and in the title
of the petition, constitutes a jurisdic­tional omission, and hence the
respondent judge erred in assuming jurisdiction to hear and determine the
respondent’s petition.  On the other
hand, the respondent avers that the name Lua An Jok is not an alias of
Baby Ong and therefore should not be included in the
title of the petition and in the caption of the published order.  He alleges that Lua
An Jok is the true and
correct name of the applicant – Lua as the surname,
and An Jok the first name.

An action for change of name constitutes a judicial proceeding in
rem, and a court acquires jurisdiction to hear
and determine the corresponding petition only after publication of the order
reciting the purpose of the petition and
setting the date and place for the hearing thereof at least once a week for
three successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation.^[3]  Such publication, however, to be valid and
effective, should contain the correct information as to (1) the name or names of
the applicant, (2) the cause for the change of name, and (3) the new name
sought.  Moreover, the title of the
petition should include (1) the applicant’s real name and (2) his aliases
or other names, if any.^[4]  The title should also recite the name sought
to be adopted.^[5]  All these, notwithstanding that the body of the petition or of the
order includes all the information aforementioned.

Notices published in the newspapers often appear in the back
pages thereof or in pages least read or paid attention to. The reader, as
usually happens, merely scans these pages and glances fleetingly at the
captions of the published orders or the titles of the petitions.  Only if the caption or the title strikes him
does the reader proceed to read on.  And
the probability is great that the reader does not at all notice the other names
and/ or aliases of the applicant if these are mentioned only in the body
of the order or petition.  The
non-inclusion of all the names and/or aliases of the applicant in the
caption of the order or the title of the petition defeats
the very purpose of the required publication.^[6]

The respondent claims that the name Lua
An Jok is not an alias
of the applicant but his true and correct name. Concededly, the name Lua An Jok
does not constitute an alias within the definition set forth in section
1^[7]
of Commonwealth Act 142, otherwise known as the Anti-Alias Law, for it is the
name by which the applicant has been known since his childhood.  As the respondent avers, and this averment
remains unrebutted on record, the applicant has been
using the name Lua An Jok since birth. 
This same name the applicant has used in school and in the community,
and in his dealings with his friends and the Government authorities.  The applicant, the respondent alleges, never
made himself known as Baby Ong and has never made use
of such name in any record.  Therefore,
the respondent concludes, no necessity exists for the inclusion of the name Lua An Jok
in the title of the petition or the caption of the published order.

The respondent’s argument, however, instead of supporting his
stance, weakens the same.  Thus, aside
from, requiring the in­clusion of the name Lua An Jok in the title of the petition and in the caption of the
published order because such name constitutes the new name sought by the
respondent for his son, the foregoing provides another reason for such
inclusion.  With the non-inclusion of the
name Lua An Jok in the
title of the petition and in the caption of the published order, persons who know the applicant Lua An Jok and who have an
interest contra the petition, upon reading the title of the petition or
the caption of the published order, would not readily know that Lua An Jok and Baby Ong refer to one and the same person and would not thereby
be afforded the opportunity to come forward with anything affecting the
petition.

The caption of the
verified petition dated June 11, 1968 reads:

“IN THE MATTER
OF THE CHANGE

OF NAME OF BABY ONG, A MINOR

“LUA ONG,

Petitioner.”

The caption of the published order dated June 25, 1968 reads:

“CHANGE OF NAME OF BABY ONG,

“LUA ONG,

Petitioner.”

The incomplete and, consequently, invalid
publication of the order dated June 25, 1968 does not effectively confer
jurisdiction upon the court a quo to take cognizance of the respondent’s
petition.

En passant, the petitioner imputes to the applicant
a violation of the Anti-Alias Law for using the name Lua
An Jok which is different
from Baby Ong, the name of the said applicant
appearing in the local civil registry. 
Contrary to the petitioner’s stand, we observe that section 1 of
Commonwealth Act 142, in prohibiting the use of a name different from that by
which one has been known since childhood, by necessary implication, allows the
use of the latter.^[8]  Thus, one who, like the applicant, uses a
name by which he has been known since childhood incurs no violation of the
Anti-Alias Law.^[9]

2.  Assuming that the court a
quo acquired jurisdiction over the petition for change of name, still,
the Government argues, the said petition should have been denied because the
respondent offered no proper and reasonable cause or compelling reason to
warrant the change of name.  The
respondent, in answer, claims that he seeks the change of name for his son to avoid confusion. He alleges
that the attending midwife of the hospital where his wife gave birth to Lua An Jok
erred in reporting his son’s name as Baby Ong, the
name appear­ing in the certificate of birth in the local civil registry.  This erroneous entry he discovered only when
the Bureau of Immigration required him to secure his son’s birth certificate.
And since his son has been using the
name Lua An Jok since birth, he filed the petition in order to set the
record straight.

To justify a change of name there must exist
a proper and reasonable cause or compelling reason. The following have been
held to constitute pro­per and reasonable causes or compelling reasons: (1) a
ridiculous name, a name tainted with dishonor, or a name extremely difficult to
write or pronounce; (2) a change of civil status; and (3) need to avoid
confusion.^[10]

We are urged by the respondent to consider, as constituting a
compelling reason, the uncontroverted fact that his
son has been known since birth as Lua An Jok and by no other name,
pointing to the improbability that a child would at birth be given a name such
as “Baby Ong.” Our perceptive study of the
record persuades us that the respondent’s sub­mission is not without
reason.  Lua Ong is the name of the respondent who is a Chinaman; Lua is his family name, Ong his
first name. The attending midwife was apparently never advised by the child’s
parents of the name the latter gave to it. 
So, perfunctorily accomplishing the required report to the civil
registrar, the midwife found it expedient to place therein the name “Baby Ong.”  The
resulting mistake was obviously engendered by an erroneous impression on the
part of the reporting mid­wife that “Ong”
is the family name of the father, because “Ong”
follows “Lua.” Hence the
name “Baby Ong.” Under the
circumstances above stated, the insistence of the respondent that the entry
“Baby Ong” in the civil registry be changed
to “Lua An Jok” could very well be motivated, there being no
evidence to the contrary, solely by an honest desire to make the civil registry
speak the truth.

The above notwithstanding, the petition below cannot be given due
course because of the fatal failure, hereinbefore adverted to, on the part of
the respondent to comply with jurisdictional requirements.

ACCORDINGLY, the order a quo dated November 26, 1968 is set aside, and
the petition below dated June 11, 1968
is dismissed, without prejudice to the respondent’s son filing and prosecuting
the proper petition in accordance with our observations above.  No pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal,
Zaldivar, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, and
Villamor, JJ., concur.

Makasiar, J., no part.

^[1]
Although the respondent sought the name Lua An Jok for his son, the respondent
judge ordered the change of name ins ead to An Joc Lua, without offering any explanation therefor.

^[2]
Submitted for decision without the respondent’s brief.

^[3]
Tan vs. Republic, 4 SCRA 1128; Ng Yao Siong vs. Republic, 16 SCRA 483.

^[4]
Ng Yao Siong
vs. Republic, supra.

^[5]
Republic vs. Lee Wai
Lam, 28 SCRA 1043.

^[6]
Ng Yao Siong vs. Republic, supra;
Republic vs. Lee Wai Lam, supra;
Chan Chin vs. The Local Civil Registrar of Manila, 29 SCRA 448.

^[7]
Section 1 provides:

“Except as a pseudonym for
literary purposes, no person shall use any name different from the one with
which he was christened or by which he has been known since his childhood, or
such substitute name as may have been authorized by a competent court. The name
shall comprise the patronymic name and one or two surnames.”

^[8]
People vs. Uy Jui Pio,
550G 8463.

^[9]
Albano, etc. vs. Republic; 56 OG 4750.

^[10]
Yu Chi Han vs. Republic, 15 SCRA
454; Haw Liong vs. Republic, 16 SCRA 677; Chiu
Hap Chiu vs. Republic, 16 SCRA 864; Rep­ublic vs. Lee Wai Lam, supra.