[With Resolution of June 30, 1961]

Manuel versus Republic

The Case

This is the case of Manuel versus Republic, a petition for change of name filed by Juan Manuel and his four children, Alexander, Gloria, Jack, and Victor, all surnamed Manuel, in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. Juan Manuel asked the court to allow him to change his name from Juan Manuel to Juan M. Eaton, and asked that his children be allowed to change their surname from Manuel to Eaton. The petition was grounded on two reasons: first, that there were several persons in the Municipality of Lingayen whose names were identical to his, causing confusion; and second, that he was a child born outside of wedlock of one John Eaton, an American, and Maria Arachea Manuel, a Filipina, and he desired to carry the surname of his father. The case matters because it draws a firm line between the legitimate purpose of avoiding confusion in one's name and the illegitimate purpose of acquiring a surname that the law does not permit one to use.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed their petition for change of name in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. The petition was duly published in the Pangasinan Courier once a week for three consecutive weeks. The Solicitor General filed an opposition on certain procedural grounds. After due trial, during which only the petitioners appeared and adduced their evidence, the trial court granted the petition. From this decision, the oppositor, the Republic of the Philippines, appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court rendered its decision on March 27, 1961, reversing the trial court and denying the petition. The petitioners then filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Supreme Court denied in its resolution of June 30, 1961.

Facts

Juan Manuel is the father of Alexander, Gloria, Jack, and Victor, all surnamed Manuel. They are all of legal age, except Gloria, Jack, and Victor, who were then twenty, eighteen, and sixteen years of age, respectively. They are Filipinos and residents of Castillo Street, Municipality of Lingayen, Province of Pangasinan, and have been bona fide residents of that municipality since birth.

Juan Manuel desired to change his name because there were several persons not only in the street where he resides but in the whole municipality of Lingayen whose names were identical to his, causing confusion, particularly whenever a letter is addressed simply to Juan Manuel, it could not be determined with certainty who is the person referred to. Another reason for his desire to change his name is that he is the child born outside of wedlock of one John Eaton, an American, and Maria Arachea Manuel, a Filipina, both now deceased. When Juan Manuel was baptized, he used the family name of his mother; now, however, he desired to follow the name and surname of his father. The other petitioners, Alexander, Gloria, Jack, and Victor, naturally and logically desired to follow their father's family name. Juan Manuel desired to change his name to John M. Eaton, and the children desired to change their names to Alexander, Gloria, Jack, and Victor, all surnamed Eaton.

The petition was duly published in the Pangasinan Courier once a week for three consecutive weeks. The Solicitor General filed an opposition on certain procedural grounds. After due trial, during which only the petitioners appeared and adduced their evidence, the trial court granted the petition. The oppositor appealed.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in granting the petition for change of name of Juan Manuel from Juan Manuel to Juan M. Eaton, when the effect of the change would be to give judicial sanction to the use of the surname of his alleged natural father, John Eaton, who had not acknowledged him.
• Whether or not the other petitioners, the children of Juan Manuel, may likewise be allowed to change their surname from Manuel to Eaton.
• Whether or not the Supreme Court may pass upon the question of the granting of the petition of Juan Manuel, even though the oppositor Republic of the Philippines failed to assign that as an error in its brief.

Applicable Provisions

Article 366 of the Civil Code provides:

A natural child may use the father's surname if he is acknowledged by both parents. Should he be recognized by only one of the parents, the natural child shall employ the surname of such recognizing parent.

This provision governs the use of surnames by natural children and bars Juan Manuel from using the surname Eaton, since there is no evidence that he was acknowledged by both his natural father and mother.

Section 5 of Rule 53 of the Rules of Court provides:

Questions that are not raised in the briefs of the parties may be passed upon by the appellate court if they are plain enough and are necessary to a just determination of the case.

This provision supports the Court's authority to pass upon the granting of Juan Manuel's petition even though the Republic failed to assign it as an error in its brief.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition for change of name from Juan Manuel to Juan M. Eaton was prompted not only by the inconveniences his present name brings to him but also by his desire to carry and use the surname of his putative father. The granting of the petition would not only result in the change of the name by which he is customarily known, but would also give judicial sanction to the use by petitioner, who admittedly was born out of wedlock to Maria Arachea Manuel and one John Eaton, of his alleged father's surname. Under the Civil Code, a natural child may use the father's surname if he is acknowledged by both parents. Should he be recognized by only one of the parents, the natural child shall employ the surname of such recognizing parent. There is no evidence on record that Juan Manuel was duly recognized by his alleged father. The Court acknowledged that the question of paternity is not the issue in the case, and that there may really be some need for a change of his name, yet petitioner should not be allowed to use a surname which otherwise he is not permitted to employ under the law.

On the second issue, the Court held that with the above conclusion, it follows that the prayer of the other petitioners must also be denied.

On the third issue, in its resolution denying the motion for reconsideration, the Court held that while it is true that the oppositor Republic of the Philippines failed to assign as an error in its brief the granting of the petition of Juan Manuel, the same is plain enough for the Court not to take notice thereof. Thus, under Section 5 of Rule 53 of the Rules of Court, the Court may properly pass upon said question.

The Court also rejected the petitioners' reliance on the case of Valencia versus Rodriguez. The Court held that the ruling in that case is not applicable, first, because it was decided before the effectivity of the new Civil Code when there was no specific legal provision regulating the use of surnames, whereas under the prevailing law a natural child may only use the father's surname if he is acknowledged by both parents; and second, unlike in the Valencia case where the father was found to have acquiesced to the use by the illegitimate children of his surname, there is no evidence in the instant case that Juan Manuel has previously used the surname Eaton with the consent or acquiescence of the putative father. On the contrary, his petition specifically alleged that he had always been using the name Juan Manuel and signified the intention to adopt his alleged natural father's surname only in 1958 when he filed the petition, and after the demise of the latter.

Doctrine

A natural child may use the father's surname only if he is acknowledged by both parents. Should he be recognized by only one of the parents, the natural child shall employ the surname of such recognizing parent. This is the rule of Article 366 of the Civil Code, and it bars a petition for change of name whose real purpose is to give judicial sanction to the use of a surname that the law does not permit the petitioner to employ.

The need for a change of name, such as the confusion caused by an identical name, does not justify granting a petition where the change would enable the petitioner to use a surname he is not legally entitled to use. The Court will not allow a petitioner to use a surname which otherwise he is not permitted to employ under the law.

The ruling in Valencia versus Rodriguez, allowing an unacknowledged natural child to use the surname of the natural father, is not applicable under the new Civil Code, because that case was decided before its effectivity when there was no specific legal provision regulating the use of surnames, and because in that case the father was found to have acquiesced to the use of his surname, which acquiescence must be shown by evidence.

Under Section 5 of Rule 53 of the Rules of Court, an appellate court may pass upon a question not assigned as an error in the brief if it is plain enough and necessary to a just determination of the case.

Disposition

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the trial court and denied the petitions for change of name of Juan Manuel and his children, without pronouncement as to costs. The motion for reconsideration was denied for lack of merit.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is this: a natural child may use the father's surname only if he is acknowledged by both parents; if recognized by only one, he shall employ the surname of such recognizing parent. Examiners like to use this case to test whether a petitioner may use a change of name to acquire a surname he is not legally entitled to use, and to test the rule that a court may pass upon a plain question not assigned as an error in the brief.