REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. HON. FLORENDO P. AQUINO, JUDGE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NUEVA ECIJA AND JOHN LI KAN WA, RESPONDENTS.

This is a petition for review of the decision dated September 9, 1970 of the Court of
First Instance of Nueva Ecija,
Cabanatuan City,
granting the petition of John Li Kan Wa for change of
name.

Records disclose that John Li Kan Wa
filed a peti­tion for change of his name to John Sotto, alleging (a) change of
his status from Chinese to Filipino as a result of his election of Filipino
Citizenship; and (b) the previous confusion resulting from being registered as
John Li Kan Wa and using a different name since childhood
which is John Sotto.  Finding the
petition sufficient in substance, the court issued an order giving notice to
all interested parties to appear before the court and state their objections,
and directed that the order be published in the Monday Post, a newspaper of
general circulation in the province
of Nueva Ecija
and Cabanatuan
City.  The Republic filed an opposition to the
petition.

After due hearing, the court granted the petition for change of
name; hence, the instant petition for review, filed by the Republic, thru the
Solicitor General, present­ing the following for resolution:

(a)                
Whether or not respondent judge had acquired
jurisdiction to hear the petition filed by John Li Kan Wa.

(b)                
Whether or not respondent Li Kan Wa has presented a proper and reasonable cause for the
change of name.

We find merit in the petition. 
Under Section 2, Rule 103
of the New Rules of Court, the petition for change shall set forth inter
alia, the name asked for.  The requirement is mandatory and compliance
therewith is essential, for it is by such means that the court acquires
jurisdiction.  It was held in Republic
vs. Reyes,^[1]
that failure to include the name sought to be adopted in the title of the
petition, and consequently in the notices published in newspapers is a substantial
jurisdictional infirmity.  As enunciated
in Go Chiu Beng vs. Republic,^[2]
for publication to be effective, it must give a correct information.  To inform, the publication should recite,
among others, the following facts:  (a)
the name or names of applicant; (b) the cause for which the change of name is
sought; and (c) the new name asked for.

In Ng Yao Siong
vs. Republic,^[3]
the rationale of the requirement to include in the title of the petition the
name sought to be adopted was expressly made clear, thus:

“xxx Notices in the newspaper, like the one under
consideration, usually appears in the back pages.  The reader as is to be expected, merely
glances at the title of the petition.  It
is only after he has satisfied himself that the title interests him that he
proceeds to read down further.  The
probability that the portion heretofore quoted will escape the reader’s
notice.  The purpose of which the publication
is made, that is, to inform, may thus be served.”

It appears from respondent’s exhibits 3-A
and 3-B that only the name Li Kan Wa was given in the
title, and the name John Sotto was not mentioned.  Omission in the title of the petition of the
name asked for is fatal, and the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the
case.  Noncompliance with the rules did
not vest the court with authority to act on the petition and therefore, the
questioned decision is null and void.

In view of the conclusion reached, there is no further need to
pass upon the other issue as to whether or not respondent presented a
reasonable or compelling cause for change of name.

WHEREFORE, the decision dated September 9, 1970 is hereby annulled and set aside and
without prejudice to the amendment of the petition, and further proper
proceedings thereafter as prescribed by law.

No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Guerrero, and
Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

Fernandez, J., took no part.

^[1]
L-29850, June 30, 1972, 45 SCRA 570.

^[2]
L-29574, August 18, 1972,
46 SCRA 617.

^[3]
L-20306, March 31, 1966, 16
SCRA 483.