IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF THE MINOR ROSSANA E. CRUZ ROSALINA E. CRUZ, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELANT.

Appeal from the decree of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga
City, in its Special Case No. 609, granting a petition for adoption on
the sole issue of the said court’s jurisdiction.

Petitioner-appellee Rosalina E. Cruz filed with the court a quo
a petition to adopt a minor. Satisfied as to the sufficiency of the
petition, and it appearing that the child’s parents, Lucilo Bucoy and
Ana E. Bucoy, had given their written consent to the adoption, the
court, in an order on 11 January 1962, set the petition for hearing
and directed the publication of the order once a week for three
consecutive weeks in the “Zamboanga Times”.

The court a quo found the following facts: The petitioner, Rosalina
E. Cruz, of 39 years of age, is the childless wife of Francisco de la
Cruz and is a resident of Zamboanga. Francisco de la Cruz gave his
consent to the adoption by his wife, in an affidavit attached to the
petition,and also testified thereabout. The minor child sought to be
adopted was born on 26 December 1959 and recorded in the local civil
registrar’s office as Rossana Esperat Bucoy (Exh. “E”); but said child
was baptized on 19 September 1960 as Rossana E. Cruz (Exh. “C”); already
following the surname of the would-be adopting parent, who reared and
took care of the girl since birth, and who has developed a strong
maternal love for her. The child’s parents by nature, aside from their
written consent, testified in court on their consent to the adoption.^[1]

The child’s name in the petition for adopt ion, and as published in
the newspaper, is Rossana E. Cruz, her baptismal name, instead of
Rossana E. Bucoy, her name in the record of birth; thus
oppositor-appellant Republic of the Philippines claims that “the loner
court erred in taking cognizance of the instant petition for adoption
despite the fact that it did not acquire jurisdiction over the case by
reason of a substantial defect in the petition and the published order
of hearing”.

We agree with the view taken by the Solicitor-General.

The name of a person as recorded in the civil register, and not his
baptismal name, is, for legal purposes, bis real name, baptismal names
having never been legally recognized, nor the practice of using
baptismal names sanctioned by the law (Chomi vs. Local Civil Registrar
of Manila, 99 Phil. 1004). It follows, therefore, that the use of the
baptismal name of the child to be adopted, instead of its name in the
civil register, would countenance or permit that which has always been
frowned upon.

A proceeding in adoption is a proceeding in rem (Ellis, et al., vs.
Republic, L-16922, 30 April 1963; Van Matre vs. Sankey, 148 111. 536;
36 ME 628) in which notice is made through publication (Sec. 4 of
former Rule 100, now Section 4 of Rule 99) to protect the interests of
all persons concerned (3 Moran 534, 1963 Ed.). Said interests will not
be protected if the notice by publication does not carry the true name
of the child to be adopted because the persons to be served by the
notice have the right to expect the use of the child’s officially
recorded name. The defect, in the present case, amounts to a failure of
service by publication, and the court a quo acquired no jurisdiction over the case (cf. Yu Seco vs. Republic, L-13441, 30 June 1960).

For the foregoing reasons, the appealed decision is hereby reversed,
and the petition for adoption dismissed, but without Prejudice to
reinstituting the proceedings in conformity with law. Costs against the
petitioner-appellee.

Concepcion, C. J., Barrera, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, Zaldivar, Sanchez and Ruiz Castro, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] The main reason for their consent is that petitioner, who is the sister of Mrs. Bucoy, is
childless while Mrs. Bucoy has 10 children and her husband earns
little. (T.s.n., 17 March 1962, pp. 16-17) This point was not stated in
the appealed decision.