ELAINE A. MOORE, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLEE.

Elaine A. Moore filed a petition before the Court of First Instance of Rizal praying that her child by a former marriage, William
Michael Velarde, be permitted to change his name so
as to read William Michael Velarde Moore.

After publishing the petition as required by law, trial was held during
which the parties submitted a stipulation of facts. Thereafter, the trial court
issued an order denying the petition, whereupon petitioner interposed the
present appeal.

Petitioner is an American citizen formerly married to Joseph P. Velarde, also an American citizen, out of whose wedlock a child
by a name William Michael Velarde was born. This
child, now 14 years old, was born on January
19, 1947 at Los Angeles, California,
U.S.A.

The marriage of petitioner to Velarde was
subsequently dissolved by a decree of divorce issued by the Superior Court of
the State of California on May 31, 1949. After said decree
became final, petitioner contracted a second marriage with Don C. Moore on September 29, 1956 at Los
Angeles, California, U.S.A.,
and thereafter the minor lived continuously with the spouses up to the present
time. He was supported by Moore who has always treated him with love and
affection as if he were his true father. In view of this harmonious relation it
is petitioner’s desire that the minor be able to use the name Moore
after his family name Velarde.

The government opposes the petition and now poses the following issues: (1)
whether under our laws a minor may be permitted to adopt and use the surname of
the second husband of his mother; (2) whether justifiable reasons exist to
allow such change of name; and (3) whether petitioner, as mother of the minor,
has the authority or personality to ask for such a change.

Anent the first issue, the government sustain a
negative stand for the reason that our laws do not authorize a legitimate child
to use the surname of a person who is not his father, for, as a matter of fact,
Article 364 of the Civil Code specifically provides that legitimate children
shall principally use the surname of their father. Mention is also made on
Article 369 of the same Code which provides that in case of annulment of a voidable marriage the children conceived before the
annulment shall principally use the surname of the father, and considering by
analogy the effect of a decree of divorce, it is concluded that the children
who are conceived before such a decree should also be understood as carrying
the surname of the real father, which, in this case, is Velarde.

We find tenable this observation of government’s counsel. Indeed, if a child
born out of a lawful wedlock be allowed to bear the surname of the second
husband of mother, should the first husband die or be separated by a decree of
divorce, there may result a confusion as to his real paternity. In the long run
the change may redound to the prejudice of the child in the community.

While the purpose which may have animated petitioner is plausible and may
run along the feeling of cordiality and spiritual relationship that pervades
among the members of the Moore family, our hand is deterred by a legal barrier
which we cannot at present overlook or brush aside.

Another factor to be reckoned with is the fact that the child concerned is
still a minor who for the present cannot fathom what would be his feeling when
he comes to a mature age. Any way, if that time comes, he may decide the matter
for himself and take such action as our law may permit. For the present we deem
the action taken by petitioner premature.

Wherefore, the order appealed from is affirmed. No costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Labrador,
Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L. Barrera, Paredes, Dizon, Regala, and Makalintal, JJ., concur.