REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. ROSELIE ELOISA BRINGAS BOLANTE A.K.A. MARIA ELOISA BRINGAS BOLANTE, RESPONDENT.

Republic versus Bolante

The Case

This is the Republic of the Philippines against Roselie Eloisa Bringas Bolante, also known as Maria Eloisa Bringas Bolante. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, challenges a lower court's grant of her petition to change her registered name. The case matters because it teaches the bar candidate two things at once: how strictly the jurisdictional rules on publication in a change of name proceeding are applied, and when a court may nonetheless treat those rules as satisfied. It also gives us the settled grounds for a change of name and the standard of proof the petitioner must meet.

Procedural History

Bolante filed a petition for change of name before the Regional Trial Court of Bangued, Abra. The trial court found the petition sufficient in form and substance, ordered compliance with the jurisdictional requirements of notice and publication, and set the initial hearing. After several resettings, the hearing was actually held on September 25, 2001. The trial court then rendered judgment granting the petition and directed the Municipal Registrar of Bangued, Abra to change her name in her record of birth and to record the decision in the Civil Registry.

The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, appealed to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court affirmed the trial court in full. The Republic then came to the Supreme Court by a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which the Court resolved in this decision.

Facts

Bolante is a Filipino, of legal age, married, born to Floriano B. Bolante and Paula B. Bringas, and a resident since birth of Bangued, Abra. Her registered name in the Office of the Municipal Civil Registrar is Roselie Eloisa Bringas Bolante. But, as far as she could remember, she never used that name. From her school days, through her years as a government employee, and in all her public and private records, she used the name Maria Eloisa Bringas Bolante. Her married name is Maria Eloisa B. Bolante-Marbella.

To prevent confusion, she asked that her registered name be changed to conform to the name she had always carried and used. She presented her birth certificate, her professional license issued by the Professional Regulation Commission, a certificate from the Philippine Institute of Certified Public Accountants, a Quick Count document, and her marriage license, all in the name Maria Eloisa. She testified that she had never been accused of any crime under either her registered name or her present name. On cross examination she said she wanted the change so she could secure a passport in her correct name, and on clarificatory questioning she said she realized there would be complications upon her retirement.

The procedural wrinkle is this. The petition was filed on October 18, 2000 and first set for hearing on February 20, 2001. The notice was published in the Norluzonian Courier on November 23 and 30, 2000 and December 7, 2000. Counted from the last publication, the February 20, 2001 setting fell within the four-month prohibited period. The trial court, realizing the error, rescheduled the hearing several times with due notice to all concerned, finally settling on September 25, 2001, when the hearing was actually held. The provincial prosecutor of Abra, deputized by the Solicitor General, appeared and interposed no objection to the exhibits offered to prove the jurisdictional requirements.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent's substantial compliance with Section 3 of Rule 103 of the Rules of Court is sufficient to vest the trial court with jurisdiction over the petition for change of name.
• Whether or not the respondent's testimony, unsupported by other evidence, is sufficient to prove that the change of name is not sought for an illegal purpose.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2 of Rule 103 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 2. Contents of petition. A petition for change of name shall be signed and verified by the person desiring his name changed, or some other person on his behalf, and shall set forth: (a) That the petitioner has been a bona fide resident of the province where the petition is filed for at least three (3) years prior to the date of such filing; (b) The cause for which the change of the petitioner's name is sought; (c) The name asked for.

This fixes what the petition must allege, including the three-year residency and the cause for the change.

Section 3 of Rule 103 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 3. Order for hearing. If the petition filed is sufficient in form and substance, the court, by an order reciting the purpose of the petition, shall fix a date and place for the hearing thereof, and shall direct that a copy of the order be published before the hearing at least once a week for three (3) successive weeks in some newspaper of general circulation published in the province. The date set for the hearing shall not be within thirty (30) days prior to an election nor within four (4) months after the last publication of the notice.

This is the jurisdictional heart of the case: the publication and the four-month cooling period are what bring the whole world into the proceeding and vest the court with jurisdiction.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction. It conceded that the February 20, 2001 setting was indeed within the four-month prohibited period. But the trial court corrected its mistake by rescheduling the hearing, with notice to all concerned, to September 25, 2001, which was outside the prohibited period. The Court stressed that publication serves as notice to the whole world, and that the Solicitor General, represented here by the deputized provincial prosecutor, was fully apprised of the new dates. There was therefore no actual need for republication. The prosecutor interposed no objection to the exhibits proving the jurisdictional requirements, so the Republic fully and knowingly acquiesced in the trial court's jurisdiction.

On the second issue, the Court held that the testimony was sufficient. It reminded that changing one's name is a privilege, not a right, and that the petitioner must show a reasonable or compelling cause and that prejudice would result from using the official name. The recognized grounds include when the change will avoid confusion. Here, Bolante had used the name Maria Eloisa since she started schooling, and her scholastic records, driver's license, professional license, and the Quick Count document all attested to it. The Court held that the evidence need only be satisfactory to the court; it need not be the best evidence available. It rejected the argument that police and National Bureau of Investigation clearances are required, holding that her open court testimony under pain of perjury, subject to cross examination, sufficiently established the bona fides of her request.

Doctrine

A petition for change of name is a proceeding in rem. Strict compliance with the jurisdictional requirements of publication under Section 3 of Rule 103 is the general rule, because publication brings the whole world in as a party and vests the court with jurisdiction. But where the trial court itself corrects a defective setting by rescheduling the hearing outside the prohibited period, with notice to all concerned, and the government's representative appears without objection, the Republic is deemed to have acquiesced in jurisdiction, and republication is not required.

Changing one's name is a privilege, not a right. The petitioner must show a reasonable or compelling cause and that prejudice will result from using the official name. Among the recognized grounds is when the change will avoid confusion. The evidence need only be satisfactory to the court, and the grant rests on the sound discretion of the court. No police or National Bureau of Investigation clearance is required by Rule 103.

Disposition

The petition was denied and the decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed, with no pronouncement as to costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a change of name is a privilege, not a right, and publication under Section 3 of Rule 103 is jurisdictional, though the government may acquiesce by appearing without objection. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of publication, the four-month prohibited period, and the grounds and standard of proof for a change of name.