G.R. No. 250520. May 05, 2021
FRANCIS LUIGI G. SANTOS, PETITIONER, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE OFFICE OF THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF QUEZON CITY, THE CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL, AND ALL INTERESTED PER…
CAGUIOA, J:
The Facts and Antecedent Proceedings
Petitioner Francis Luigi G. Santos (petitioner) filed a petition for
change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court seeking to change
his surname from “Santos” to “Revilla” in his Certificate of Live Birth.[7]
He alleged that sometime in 1991, his parents, Lovely Maria T. Guzman
(Lovely Guzman) and Jose Marie Bautista, Jr. also known as Ramon Bong
Revilla, Jr. (Bong Revilla), met and engaged in an intimate
relationship.[9] He was later born in Quezon City on January 9, 1992 as “Francis Luigi Guzman.”[10]
Lovely Guzman and Bong Revilla were never married as the latter was already married to Lani Mercado.[11] Thus, petitioner’s Certificate of Live Birth did not bear the Revilla surname and his father was marked as unknown.[12] However, on April 24, 1996, Bong Revilla executed an Affidavit of Acknowledgment recognizing petitioner as his son.[13]
In 1999, Lovely Guzman married Patrick Joseph P. Santos (Patrick
Santos), who, in turn, legally adopted petitioner. Thus, petitioner’s
name was changed from “Francis Luigi Guzman” to “Francis Luigi G.
Santos.”[14]
Although petitioner lived with his mother, he grew up close to Bong
Revilla and the latter’s wife and children and was treated by the family
as a legitimate son.[15] He also claimed that he used the name “Luigi Revilla” when he entered show business.[16]
Thus, he filed the instant petition in order to “avoid confusion,” “to
show [his] sincere and genuine desire to associate himself to [Bong
Revilla] and to the Revillas,”[17] and to ensure that his records show his true identity as Bong Revilla’s son.[18]
On June 19, 2017, the RTC issued an Order finding the petition to be
sufficient in form and substance and directed that the Order be (1)
published in a newspaper of general circulation for three consecutive
weeks, (2) sent to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), the Office
of the City Prosecutor of Quezon City, the Local Civil Registrar of
Quezon City, and the Philippine Statistics Office,[19] and (3) posted in three public places where petitioner resides.[20]
The Republic of the Philippines, through the OSG, filed its opposition
and sought the dismissal of the petition claiming that there was no
compelling reason to justify the change sought.[21]
The Ruling of the RTC
In its April 30, 2018 Decision,[22]
the RTC denied the petition and held that a change of name was not a
matter of right and could be granted only for compelling reasons.[23]
In the instant case, the RTC held that petitioner failed to show that
there was any valid or justifiable ground for change of name. In fact,
the RTC held that allowing petitioner to use the surname “Revilla”
rather than “Santos” would create further confusion, given that he had
already been legally adopted by Patrick Santos in 2001.[24]
As an adopted child, the RTC held that petitioner was bound to use the
surname “Santos” as adoption legally severs the legal tie between the
adoptee and his or her biological parents.[25]
The RTC further noted that there was no reason to grant the change
sought, given that petitioner has never legally used the name “Revilla”
despite having been acknowledged in 1996, he has used the name “Santos”
for all documentary purposes since his adoption,[26]
and he only began using the surname “Revilla” when he entered show
business. There could thus be no confusion as to his real identity as
the name “Luigi Revilla” was a mere screen name, which may be different
from his legal name.[27]
The Ruling of the CA
In the Assailed Decision, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC
and held that allowing a change of name would create more confusion as
to petitioner’s status and filiation given that he had already been
legally adopted by Patrick Santos. It was of no moment therefore that he
is the biological son of Bong Revilla as the Family Code and Republic
Act No. (R.A.) 8552[28] or the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998 provide that an adopted child shall bear the surname of the adopting parents.[29]
The CA further stated that the corrections sought involved substantial
amendments to petitioner’s birth certificate, as allowing a change in
surname from “Santos” to “Revilla” would constitute a change in his
status from “legitimate” to “illegitimate.” As such, the CA held that
petitioner should have availed himself of the adversarial proceeding
under Rule 108 for cancellation and/or correction of entries rather than
the summary proceeding under Rule 103 for change of name.[30]
Further, as petitioner failed to implead both his biological father and
his adoptive father, the CA held that the proceedings were void under
Section 3, Rule 108 for failure to implead indispensable parties.[31]
Petitioner thus filed the instant Petition claiming, among others, that
(1) the CA erred in ruling that Rule 108 of the Rules of Court applies
and that the proceedings were void for failure to implead indispensable
parties,[32] and (2) that a
change of name from “Santos” to “Revilla” may be allowed under the law
by way of exception to the mandatory provisions on the use of surnames.[33]
In its Comment,[34] the OSG
alleged that the CA did not err (1) in denying the appeal for
petitioner’s failure to comply with the requirements under Rule 108 of
the Rules of Court[35] and (2) in ruling that petitioner has not shown any proper or reasonable cause which may justify the change of his surname.[36]
Issues
Whether the CA erred (1) in holding that Rule 108 rather than Rule 103
applies and (2) in denying the petition to change petitioner’s surname
from “Santos” to “Revilla”.
The Court’s Ruling
The Petition has partial merit. Contrary to the position of the CA,
petitioner correctly availed of a Rule 103 proceeding to effect the
desired change. However, the Court agrees with the CA, as well as the
RTC, that petitioner failed to prove that there was any compelling
reason to justify the change sought.
|
Petitioner correctly availed of a Rule 103 petition for change of name
|
Republic v. Hernandez[37] (Hernandez) discussed the nature of Rule 103 petitions for change of name in this wise:
The official name of a person whose birth is registered in
the civil register is the name appearing therein. If a change in one’s
name is desired, this can only be done by filing and strictly complying
with the substantive and procedural requirements for a special
proceeding for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court,
wherein the sufficiency of the reasons or grounds therefor can be
threshed out and accordingly determined.Under Rule 103, a petition for change of name shall be filed in the
regional trial court of the province where the person desiring to change
his name resides. It shall be signed and verified by the person
desiring the name to be changed or by some other person in his behalf
and shall state that the petitioner has been a bona fide resident
of the province where the petition is filed for at least three years
prior to such filing, the cause for which the change of name is sought,
and the name asked for. An order for the date and place of hearing shall
be made and published, with the Solicitor General or the proper
provincial or city prosecutor appearing for the Government at such
hearing. It is only upon satisfactory proof of the veracity of the
allegations in the petition and the reasonableness of the causes for the
change of name that the court may adjudge that the name be changed as
prayed for in the petition, and shall furnish a copy of said judgment to
the civil registrar of the municipality concerned who shall forthwith
enter the same in the civil register.x x x x
It is necessary to reiterate in this discussion that a person’s name is a
word or combination of words by which he is known and identified, and
distinguished from others, for the convenience of the world at large in
addressing him, or in speaking of or dealing with him. It is both of
personal as well as public interest that every person must have a name.
The name of an individual has two parts: the given or proper name and
the surname or family name. The given or proper name is that which is
given to the individual at birth or at baptism, to distinguish him from
other individuals. The surname or family name is that which
identifies the family to which he belongs and is continued from parent
to child. The given name may be freely selected by the parents for the
child, but the surname to which the child is entitled is fixed by law.By Article 408 of the Civil Code, a person’s birth must be entered in
the civil register. The official name of a person is that given him in
the civil register. That is his name in the eyes of the law. And once
the name of a person is officially entered in the civil register,
Article 376 of the same Code seals that identity with its precise
mandate: no person can change his name or surname without judicial
authority. This statutory restriction is premised on the interest of the
State in names borne by individuals and entities for purpose of
identification.By reason thereof, the only way that the name of person can be
changed legally is through a petition for change of name under Rule 103
of the Rules of Court. For purposes of an application for change of name
under Article 376 of the Civil Code and correlatively implemented by
Rule 103, the only name that may be changed is the true or official name
recorded in the civil register. As earlier mentioned, a petition for change of name being a proceeding in rem,
impressed as it is with public interest, strict compliance with all the
requisites therefor in order to vest the court with jurisdiction is
essential, and failure therein renders the proceedings a nullity.It must likewise be stressed once again that a change of name is a
privilege not a matter of right, addressed to the sound discretion of
the court which has the duty to consider carefully the consequences of a
change of name and to deny the same unless weighty reasons are shown.
Before a person can be authorized to change his name, that is, his true
or official name or that which appears in his birth certificate or is
entered in the civil register, he must show proper and reasonable cause
or any convincing reason which may justify such change.Jurisprudence has recognized, inter alia, the following
grounds as being sufficient to warrant a change of name: (a) when the
name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or
pronounce; (b) when the change results as a legal consequence of
legitimation or adoption; (c) when the change will avoid confusion; (d)
when one has continuously used and been known since childhood by a
Filipino name and was unaware of alien parentage; (e) when the change is
based on a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of
former alienage, all in good faith and without prejudice to anybody; and
(f) when the surname causes embarrassment and there is no showing that
the desired change of name was for a fraudulent purpose or that the
change of name would prejudice public interest.[38] (Underscoring supplied)
Rule 103 petitions for change of name based on the foregoing
jurisprudential grounds is a separate and distinct remedy from that
provided under Rule 108, which involves cancellations and corrections of
entries in the civil registry.[39] The Court explained the difference between Rule 103 and Rule 108 in Republic v. Mercadera,[40] as follows:
Rule 103 procedurally governs judicial petitions for
change of given name or surname, or both, pursuant to Article 376 of the
Civil Code. This rule provides the procedure for an independent
special proceeding in court to establish the status of a person
involving his relations with others, that is, his legal position in, or
with regard to, the rest of the community. In petitions for change of
name, a person avails of a remedy to alter the “designation by which he
is known and called in the community in which he lives and is best
known.” When granted, a person’s identity and interactions are
affected as he bears a new “label or appellation for the convenience of
the world at large in addressing him, or in speaking of, or dealing with
him.” Judicial permission for a change of name aims to prevent fraud
and to ensure a record of the change by virtue of a court decree.The proceeding under Rule 103 is also an action in rem which
requires publication of the order issued by the court to afford the
State and all other interested parties to oppose the petition. When
complied with, the decision binds not only the parties impleaded but the
whole world. As notice to all, publication serves to indefinitely bar
all who might make an objection. “It is the publication of such notice
that brings in the whole world as a party in the case and vests the
court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it.”Essentially, a change of name does not define or effect a change of
one’s existing family relations or in the rights and duties flowing
therefrom. It does not alter one’s legal capacity or civil status.
However, “there could be instances where the change applied for may be
open to objection by parties who already bear the surname desired by the
applicant, not because he would thereby acquire certain family ties
with them but because the existence of such ties might be erroneously
impressed on the public mind.” Hence, in requests for a change of name,
“what is involved is not a mere matter of allowance or disallowance of
the request, but a judicious evaluation of the sufficiency and propriety
of the justifications advanced x x x mindful of the consequent results
in the event of its grant x x x.”Rule 108, on the other hand, implements judicial proceedings for the
correction or cancellation of entries in the civil registry pursuant to
Article 412 of the Civil Code. Entries in the civil register refer to
“acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of
persons,” also as enumerated in Article 408 of the same law. Before,
only mistakes or errors of a harmless and innocuous nature in the
entries in the civil registry may be corrected under Rule 108 and
substantial errors affecting the civil status, citizenship or
nationality of a party are beyond the ambit of the rule. x x xx x x x
Finally in Republic v. Valencia, the above stated views were adopted by this Court insofar as
even substantial errors or matters in a civil registry may be corrected
and the true facts established, provided the parties aggrieved avail
themselves of the appropriate adversary proceeding. “If the purpose
of the petition is merely to correct the clerical errors which are
visible to the eye or obvious to the understanding, the court may, under
a summary procedure, issue an order for the correction of a mistake.
However, as repeatedly construed, changes which may affect the civil status from legitimate to illegitimate, as well as sex, are substantial and controversial
alterations which can only be allowed after appropriate adversary
proceedings depending upon the nature of the issues involved. Changes which affect the civil status or citizenship of a party are substantial in character
and should be threshed out in a proper action depending upon the nature
of the issues in controversy, and wherein all the parties who may be
affected by the entries are notified or represented and evidence is
submitted to prove the allegations of the complaint, and proof to the
contrary admitted x x x.” “Where such a change is ordered, the Court
will not be establishing a substantive right but only correcting or
rectifying an erroneous entry in the civil registry as authorized by
law. In short, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court provides only the
procedure or mechanism for the proper enforcement of the substantive law
embodied in Article 412 of the Civil Code and so does not violate the
Constitution.x x x x
It appears from these arguments that there is, to some extent, confusion
over the scope and application of [Rule] 103 and Rule 108. Where a
“change of name” will necessarily be reflected by the corresponding
correction in an entry, as in this case, the functions of both rules are
often muddled. While there is no clear-cut rule to categorize petitions
under either rule, this Court is of the opinion that a resort to the
basic distinctions between the two rules with respect to alterations in a
person’s registered name can effectively clear the seeming perplexity
of the issue. Further, a careful evaluation of circumstances alleged in
the petition itself will serve as a constructive guide to determine the
propriety of the relief prayed for.The “change of name” contemplated under Article 376 and Rule 103 must
not be confused with Article 412 and Rule 108. A change of one’s name
under Rule 103 can be granted only on grounds provided by law. In order
to justify a request for change of name, there must be a proper and
compelling reason for the change and proof that the person requesting
will be prejudiced by the use of his official name. To assess the
sufficiency of the grounds invoked therefor, there must be adversarial
proceedings.In petitions for correction, only clerical, spelling, typographical
and other innocuous errors in the civil registry may be raised.
Considering that the enumeration in Section 2, Rule 108 also includes
“changes of name,” the correction of a patently misspelled name is
covered by Rule 108. Suffice it to say, not all alterations allowed in
one’s name are confined under Rule 103. Corrections for clerical errors
may be set right under Rule 108.This rule in “names,” however, does not operate to entirely limit Rule
108 to the correction of clerical errors in civil registry entries by
way of a summary proceeding. As explained above, Republic v. Valencia
is the authority for allowing substantial errors in other entries like
citizenship, civil status, and paternity, to be corrected using Rule 108
provided there is an adversary proceeding. “After all, the role of the
Court under Rule 108 is to ascertain the truths about the facts recorded
therein.”[41] (Italics in the original; underscoring supplied)
Notably, the foregoing rules were modified by the enactment of R.A. 9048,[42]
which amended Articles 376 and 412 of the Civil Code and vested primary
jurisdiction over the correction of certain clerical or typographical
errors and changes of first name with the civil registrar.[43] In 2012, R.A. 10172[44]
expanded the coverage of the summary administrative procedure provided
under R.A. 9048 to include clerical corrections in the day and/or month
in the date of birth, or in the sex of the person, where it is patently
clear that there was a clerical or typographical error or mistake in the
entry.[45] Presently
therefore, when an entry falls within the coverage of R.A. 9048 as
amended by R.A. 10172, a person may only avail of the appropriate
judicial remedies under Rule 103 or Rule 108 after the petition in the administrative proceedings is first filed and later denied.[46]
Failure to comply with the administrative procedure generally renders
the petition dismissible for failure to exhaust administrative remedies
and for failure to comply with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.[47]
The Court, in Bartolome v. Republic,[48] summarized the rules as follows:
1. A person seeking 1) to change his or her first name, 2) to correct clerical or typographical errors in the civil register, 3) to change/correct the day and/or month of his or her date of birth, and/or 4) to change/correct his or her sex,
where it is patently clear that there was a clerical or typographical
error or mistake, must first file a verified petition with the local
civil registry office of the city or municipality where the record being
sought to be corrected or changed is kept, in accordance with the
administrative proceeding provided under R.A. 9048 in relation to R.A.
10172. A person may only avail of the appropriate judicial remedies
under Rule 103 or Rule 108 in the aforementioned entries after the petition in the administrative proceedings is filed and later denied.2. A person seeking 1) to change his or her surname or 2) to change both his or her first name and surname may file a petition for change of name under Rule 103, provided that the jurisprudential grounds discussed in Republic v. Hernandez are present.
3. A person seeking substantial cancellations or corrections of entries in the civil registry may file a petition for cancellation or correction of entries under Rule 108. As discussed in Lee v. Court of Appeals and more recently, in Republic v. Cagandahan,
R.A. 9048 “removed from the ambit of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court the
correction of such errors. Rule 108 now applies only to substantial
changes and corrections in entries in the civil register.”[49] (Underscoring in the original; emphasis supplied)
Based on the foregoing, the Court holds that petitioner correctly
availed himself of the remedy under Rule 103 in order to change his
surname from “Santos” to “Revilla.” Contrary to the findings of the CA,
Rule 108 is inapplicable as petitioner does not allege or identify any
erroneous entry that requires substantial rectification or cancellation.
It is a threshold principle that the nature of a proceeding is
determined by the allegations in the petition and the ultimate reliefs
sought. In the instant case, it is apparent that petitioner does not
seek to correct any clerical or substantial error in his birth
certificate or to effect any changes in his status as an adopted child
of Patrick Santos.[50] As
such, neither Rule 108 nor R.A. 9048 as amended applies. Rather, the
petition is unequivocal that petitioner merely desires to change and
replace his surname “Santos” with the surname “Revilla” in accordance
with Hernandez in order to “avoid confusion,”[51]
“to show [his] sincere and genuine desire to associate himself to
[Bong] Revilla[,] Jr. and to the Revillas, and to show that he accepts
and embraces his true identity.”[52]
He alleges that while he grew up close to his biological father and his
family and was purportedly publicly known as “Bong Revilla’s son,”[53] “there is nothing in his name that would associate him and identify him as one of the Revillas.”[54]
These allegations show that petitioner ultimately seeks to “alter the
‘designation by which he is known and called in the community in which
he lives and is best known'”[55]
and not to effect any clerical or substantial corrections. Thus, he
properly availed himself of the procedure prescribed under Rule 103.
In this regard, the CA gravely erred in holding that petitioner should
have availed himself of the adversarial proceeding under Rule l 08
instead of the “summary proceeding” under Rule 103[56]
as allowing petitioner to change his surname from “Santos” to “Revilla”
would constitute a change in his status from “legitimate” to
“illegitimate.”[57]
First. While a change in status may legally result in a change of
name, such as in marriages, annulments, legitimations, or adoptions, et al., the reverse is not equally true. In Yu v. Republic,[58] the Court already held that a change of surname under Rule 103 does not necessarily result in a change of petitioner’s status, i.e., from legitimate to illegitimate, viz.:
x x x [A] change of name as authorized under Rule 103 does
not by itself define, or effect a change in, one’s existing family
relations, or in the rights and duties flowing therefrom; nor does it
create new family rights and duties where none before were existing. It
does not alter one’s legal capacity, civil status[,] or citizenship.
What is altered is only the name, which is that word or combination of
words by which a person is distinguished from others and which he bears
as the label of appellation for the convenience of the world at large in
addressing him, or in speaking of or dealing with him (38 Am. Jur.
596). x x xTo be sure, there could be instances where the change applied for may be
open to objection by parties who already bear the surname desired by
the applicant, not because he would thereby acquire certain family ties
with them but because the existence of such ties might be erroneously
impressed on the public mind. But this is precisely the purpose of the
judicial application to determine whether there is proper and reasonable
cause for the change of name. As held by this Court in several cases,
in which pertinently enough the petitioners were aliens, the change is
not a matter of right but of judicial discretion, to be exercised in the
light of the reasons adduced and the consequences that will likely
follow x x x.[59]
Indeed, petitioner cannot change his status as an adopted child of
Patrick Santos to an “illegitimate” child of Bong Revilla by the mere
expedient of changing his name as an adoption may only be rescinded in
accordance with law.[60] In any event, petitioner was unequivocal that he does not seek to change his status or to rescind his adoption:
x x x [H]e is an adoptee of Patrick Santos and an
illegitimate son of Bong Revilla. He seeks to alter his last name from
“Santos” to “Revilla”, the designation by which he is known and called
in the community in which he lives and is best known to avoid confusion.
Changing Luigi’s last name from “Santos” to “Revilla” will not
affect his civil status, as the decision in the matter of his adoption
is included and registered in the official record file of OLC-QC. He
does not seek to change his status from legitimate to illegitimate.
Patrick Santos remains to be the named father in his birth certificate,
being his adoptive father.[61] (Underscoring in the original omitted; underscoring supplied)
Second. Contrary to the statement of the CA, both Rule 108 and
Rule 103 involve substantial matters and require adversarial
proceedings. As explained, “[a] change of one’s name under Rule 103 can
be granted, only on grounds provided by law. In order to justify a
request for change of name, there must be a proper and compelling reason
for the change and proof that the person requesting will be prejudiced
by the use of his official name. To assess the sufficiency of the
grounds invoked therefor, there must be adversarial proceedings.”[62] It is an action in rem
which requires publication of the order issued by the court to afford
the State, through the OSG, and all other interested parties to oppose
the petition.[63]
In relation thereto, the Court finds that the CA erred in holding that the instant proceedings were void under Section 3,[64]
Rule 108 as petitioner failed to implead both his adoptive father and
his biological father as indispensable parties. Notably, while Rule 108
expressly requires that the petitioner implead all persons who have or
claim any interest which would be affected, no such requirement appears
in Rule 103. The relevant sections provide:
RULE 108
CANCELLATION OR CORRECTION OF ENTRIES IN THE CIVIL REGISTRYx x x x
SEC. 3. Parties. – When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register is sought, the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby shall be made parties to the proceeding.
SEC. 4. Notice and publication. – Upon the filing of the
petition, the court shall, by an order, fix the time and place for the
hearing of the same, and cause reasonable notice thereof to be given to
the persons named in the petition. The court shall also cause the order
to be published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a
newspaper of general circulation in the province.SEC. 5. Opposition. – The civil registrar and any person having
or claiming any interest under the entry whose cancellation or
correction is sought may, within fifteen (15) days from notice of the
petition, or from the last date of publication of such notice, file his
opposition thereto.RULE 103
CHANGE OF NAMEx x x x
SEC. 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, as the court shall deem
best. The date set for the hearing shall not he within thirty (30) days
prior to an election nor within four (4) months after the last
publication of the notice.SEC. 4. Hearing. – Any interested person may appear at the
hearing and oppose the petition. The Solicitor General or the proper
provincial or city fiscal shall appear on behalf of the Government of
the Republic.SEC. 5. Judgment. – Upon satisfactory proof in open court on the
date fixed in the order that such order has been published as directed
and that the allegations of the petition are true, the court shall, if
proper and reasonable cause appears for changing the name of the
petitioner, adjudge that such name be changed in accordance with the
prayer of the petition. (Underscoring supplied)
Notably, unlike Rule 108, Rule 103 only requires that the order reciting
the purpose of the petition and the date and place of the hearing be
published and that any interested person be allowed to appear and oppose
the petition.[65] By virtue
of the publication, “all interested parties were deemed notified and the
whole world considered bound by the judgment therein.”[66]
In sum, the Court holds that petitioner correctly availed himself of a
Rule 103 petition. Further, the failure to implead petitioner’s
biological father and adoptive father did not render the proceedings
void as said requirement does not apply to Rule 103.
However, the Court agrees with the CA and the RTC that petitioner failed
to prove that there is any compelling reason to justify a change of
surname from “Santos” to “Revilla”.
|
There is no compelling reason to grant the change of surname
|
It has long been settled that “the State has an interest in the names
borne by individuals and entities for purposes of identification and
that a change of name is a privilege and not a matter of right x x x.”[67] In In Re: Petition for Change of Name and/or Correction of Entry in the Civil Registry of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang[68] (Wang), the Court held:
In granting or denying petitions for change of name, the
question of proper and reasonable cause is left to the sound discretion
of the court. The evidence presented need only be satisfactory to the
court and not all the best evidence available. What is involved is not a
mere matter of allowance or disallowance of the request, but a
judicious evaluation of the sufficiency and propriety of the
justifications advanced in support thereof, mindful of the consequent
results in the event of its grant and with the sole prerogative for
making such determination being lodged in the courts.x x x x
A discussion on the legal significance of a person’s name is relevant at this point. We quote, thus:
“x x x For all practical and legal purposes, a man’s name is
the designation by which he is known and called in the community in
which he lives and is best known. It is defined as the word or
combination of words by which a person is distinguished from other
individuals and, also, as the label or appellation which he bears for
the convenience of the world at large addressing him, or in speaking of
or dealing with him. Names are used merely as one method of indicating
the identity of persons; they are descriptive of persons for
identification, since, the identity is the essential thing and it has
frequently been held that, when identity is certain, a variance in, or
misspelling of, the name is immaterial.The names of individuals usually have two parts: the given name or
proper name, and the surname or family name. The given or proper name is
that which is given to the individual at birth or baptism, to
distinguish him from other individuals. The name or family name is that
which identifies the family to which he belongs and is continued from
parent to child. The given name may be freely selected by the parents
for the child; but the surname to which the child is entitled is fixed
by law.A name is said to have the following characteristics: (1) It is
absolute, intended to protect the individual from being confused with
others. (2) It is obligatory in certain respects, for nobody can be
without a name. (3) It is fixed, unchangeable, or immutable, at least
at the start, and may be changed only for good cause and by judicial
proceedings. (4) It is outside the commerce of man, and, therefore, inalienable and intransmissible by act inter vivos or mortis causa. (5) It is imprescriptible.”[69] (Underscoring supplied)
To emphasize, the surname identifies the family to which a person
belongs. While the first name may be freely selected by the parents for
the child, the surname to which the child is entitled is fixed by law.[70]
This rule, however, is not absolute. Precisely, Article 376 of the Civil
Code as implemented by Rule 103 is a remedy allowed by way of exception
to the mandatory provisions of the Civil Code on the use of surnames.[71]
To justify a change of name however, a person “must show not only some
proper or compelling reason x x x but also that he will be prejudiced by
the use of his true and official name.”[72]
The following have been considered as valid grounds for change of name:
“(a) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult
to write or pronounce; (b) when the change results as a legal
consequence, as in legitimation; (c) when the change will avoid
confusion; (d) when one has continuously used and been known since
childhood by a Filipino name, and was unaware of alien parentage; (e) a
sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of former
alienage, all in good faith and without prejudicing anybody; and (f)
when the surname causes embarrassment and there is no showing that the
desired change of name was for a fraudulent purpose or that the change
of name would prejudice public interest.”[73]
Applying the foregoing principles to the instant case, there can be no
question that petitioner, as the legally adopted child of Patrick
Santos, properly bears the surname “Santos”. Notably, the Civil Code
provides:
TITLE XIII
Use of Surnames (n)ARTICLE 364. Legitimate and legitimated children shall principally use the surname of the father.
ARTICLE 365. An adopted child shall bear the surname of the adopter. (Underscoring supplied)
Consistent therewith, Article 189 of the Family Code states that “the
adopted shall be deemed to be a legitimate child of the adopters and
both shall acquire the reciprocal rights and obligations arising from
the relationship of parent and child, including the right of the adopted to use the surname of the adopter.”[74] The Family Code provisions on Adoption were superseded by R.A. 8552,[75] which now provides:
ARTICLE V
EFFECTS OF ADOPTIONSEC. 16. Parental Authority. – Except in cases where the
biological parent is the spouse .of the adopter, all legal ties between
the biological parent(s) and the adoptee shall be severed and the same
shall then be vested on the adopter(s).SEC. 17. Legitimacy. – The adoptee shall be considered the
legitimate son/daughter of the adopter(s) for all intents and purposes
and as such is entitled to all the rights and obligations provided by
law to legitimate sons/daughters born to them without discrimination of
any kind. To this end, the adoptee is entitled to love, guidance,
and support in keeping with the means of the family. (Underscoring
supplied)
R.A. 8552 likewise states that upon adoption, “[a]n amended certificate
of birth shall be issued by the Civil Registry, as required by the Rules
of Court, attesting to the fact that the adoptee is the child of the
adopter(s) by being registered with his/her surname.”[76] As held therefore in Republic v. Court of Appeals,[77]
it may be inferred from the very wording of the law “that the use of
the surname of the adopter by the adopted child is both an obligation and a right.”[78]
Upon issuance of the decree of adoption, the change of the adoptee’s
surname shall follow that of the adopter as a natural and necessary
consequence of a grant of adoption, even if not specifically prayed for.[79]
Although properly surnamed “Santos”, petitioner prays that he be allowed
to change his surname from “Santos” to “Revilla” to “avoid confusion, x
x x to show [his] sincere and genuine desire to associate himself to
[Bong] Revilla[,] Jr. and to the Revillas, x x x to show that he accepts
and embraces his true identity,”[80] and “to show his true and genuine love to his biological father.”[81] Unfortunately, none of these reasons justify, in law, the desired change.
First. The Court agrees with the RTC that the use of the surname
“Revilla” would create further confusion rather than avoid it, given
that: (1) petitioner has never legally used the name “Revilla” despite
having been acknowledged in 1996; (2) he was legally adopted by Patrick
Santos in 2001; (3) he has used the name “Santos” for all documentary
purposes since his adoption; (4) although he is publicly known to be the
son of Bong Revilla, he is known by his peers as “Luigi Santos”; (5)
even after a change of surname, Patrick Santos shall continue to be the
father named in his birth certificate; and (5) he only began using the
surname “Revilla” when he entered show business.[82] The following factual findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, are binding on the Court:
“In the case at bar, the only reason advanced for the
dropping of his surname Santos to Revilla is to show his lineage and
identity as Revilla. However, the compelling reason how such change of
name is necessary to show his lineage as a Revilla is not clearly
established. As petitioner himself and his witnesses testified, he has
been a (sic) known as the son of Bong Revilla all his life and yet never
used the surname despite being acknowledged by his biological father in
1996. As testified on by his mother, it was never a secret that he was
(sic) the son of Bong Revilla, everybody knew he was (sic) a Revilla.
All of his mother’s family, friends, co-parent in school know him as
Luigi Santos, son of Bong Revilla. He has been using Santos since his
adoption until college, then he started doing teleserye in GMA that was
when he started using Revilla. The other witness, Bryan Revilla, even
testified that petitioner has always been using Santos for documentary
purposes up to the present and it was only when he entered show business
that petitioner started using Revilla. He also testified that
petitioner is loved by both his parents, Bong Revilla and Lani Mercado
and that they always treat petitioner as their brother. Hence, it is
clear that the perceived confusion came about when petitioner entered
show business and started using the surname Revilla as his screen name.
From then on, he would introduce himself as Luigi Revilla. And as
testified on by petitioner, not being able to use the surname Revilla
makes him incomplete, he however admitted that even if he use[s] the
surname Santos, there would be no confusion.x x x x
“There is no question that petitioner may file the instant petition, but
change of name is a privilege and not a right. And as such, he must
show proper or reasonable cause, or any compelling reason which may
justify such change. In the case at hand, although petitioner did not
deny his legitimacy, he failed to show proper and reasonable cause to
justify the change sought or any compelling reason which may justify the
change. A petitioner’s convenience can never be a ground for a change
of name x x x. Convenience cannot be considered as one of, or a
recognized ground for change of name.”[83]
Indeed, these factual circumstances starkly differ from meritorious
petitions for change of name where it was alleged and proved that
petitioners publicly used their requested names in legal documents
and/or school records since childhood and that a change would indeed
avoid confusion, among other reasons.[84]
Second. While petitioner may factually identify and associate
with his biological father and his family, he remains to be the
legitimate son of Patrick Santos by virtue of the adoption. The latter
and not the former is thus his true legal identity. It bears reiterating that adoption:
x x x (1) sever[s] all legal ties between the biological parent(s) and the adoptee, except when the biological parent is the spouse of the adopter; (2) deem[s] the adoptee as a legitimate child of the adopter;
and (3) give[s] adopter and adoptee reciprocal rights and obligations
arising from the relationship of parent and child, including but not
limited to: (i) the right of the adopter to choose the name the child is
to be known; and (ii) the right of the adopter and adoptee to be legal
and compulsory heirs of each other. Therefore, even if emancipation
terminates parental authority, the adoptee is still considered a
legitimate child of the adopter with all the rights of a legitimate
child such as: (1) to bear the surname of the father and the
mother; (2) to receive support from their parents; and (3) to be
entitled to the legitime and other successional rights. Conversely, the
adoptive parents shall, with respect to the adopted child, enjoy all the
benefits to which biological parents are entitled such as support and
successional rights.[85] (Underscoring supplied)
As adoption severs all legal ties between the adoptee and his or her
biological parents, there is no basis to allow petitioner to change his
name to “Revilla” simply because he is, biologically, the son of Bong
Revilla and wants to associate himself with the Revilla family.
Finally, it bears emphasis that a change of name is a privilege
and not a matter of right. It is addressed to the sound discretion of
the court. In Wang, the Court denied a petition to drop a minor’s
middle name, even though the middle name would purportedly cause the
minor undue embarrassment and become an obstacle to his social
acceptance and integration in the Singaporean community.[86]
The Court noted that the only reason advanced by petitioner therein for
the dropping of his middle name was convenience and found this
justification to be amorphous and unmeritorious.[87] Similarly, in Yu Chi Han v. Republic[88] (Yu Chi Han),
petitioner sought to change his name from “Yu Chi Han” to “Alejandro Go
Yu,” because he wanted to avoid confusion and to embrace the Catholic
faith after he was baptized in accordance with Catholic rites. The Court
denied the petition and held that the confusion was mainly due to
petitioner’s unauthorized use of a name other than his true name, which
could be easily remedied by simply asking his friends and business
associates to call him by his true name.[89]
In the instant case, the Court finds that the reasons proffered do not
fall under any of the jurisprudential grounds for change of name. They
cannot even be considered as “akin to” any of the aforementioned
grounds. The mere fact that petitioner began using a different name, i.e.,
“Luigi Revilla”, when he joined show business does not constitute a
proper and reasonable cause to legally authorize a change of name.[90] As in Yu Chi Han,
any confusion created by the use of said name is mainly due to the
unauthorized use of a name other than petitioner’s true legal name. As
in Wang, convenience is not a recognized ground for change of
name, which may be allowed only for compelling reasons that must be
alleged and proved.[91]
The Court is aware that it has previously allowed an adopted child named
“Maximo Wong” to revert to “Maximo Alcala, Jr.,” his name prior to his
adoption, even though the adoption was never rescinded. In Republic v. Court of Appeals and Maximo Wong[92] (Wong), the Court held:
While it is true that the statutory fiat under Article 365
of the Civil Code is to the effect that an adopted child shall bear the
surname of the adopter, it must nevertheless be borne in mind that the change of the surname of the adopted child is more an incident rather than the object of adoption proceedings. The act of adoption fixes a status, viz.,
that of parent and child. More technically, it is an act by which
relations of paternity and affiliation are recognized as legally
existing between persons not so related by nature. It has been defined
as the taking into one’s family of the child of another as son or
daughter and heir and conferring on it a title to the rights and
privileges of such. The purpose of an adoption proceeding is to effect
this new status of relationship between the child and its adoptive
parents, the change of name which frequently accompanies adoption being
more an incident than the object of the proceeding. The welfare of the
child is the primary consideration in the determination of an
application for adoption. On this part, there is unanimous agreement.It is the usual effect of a decree of adoption to transfer from the
natural parents to the adoptive parents the custody of the child’s
person, the duty of obedience owing by the child, and all other legal
consequences and incidents of the natural relation, in the same manner
as if the child had been born of such adoptive parents in lawful
wedlock, subject, however, to such limitations and restrictions as may
be by statute imposed. More specifically under the present state of our
law, the Family Code, superseding the pertinent provisions of the Civil
Code and of the Child and Youth Welfare Code on the matter, relevantly
provides in this wise with regard to the issue involved in this case:“Art. 189. Adoption shall have the following effects:
(1) For civil purposes, the adopted shall be deemed to be the legitimate
child of the adopters and both shall acquire the reciprocal rights and
obligations arising from the relationship of parent and child, including
the right of the adopted to use the surname of the adopters;” (Emphasis supplied.)x x x x
The Solicitor General maintains the position that to sustain the change
of name would run counter to the behest of Article 365 of the Civil Code
and the ruling in Manuel vs. Republic that “one should not be
allowed to use a surname which otherwise he is not permitted to employ
under the law,” and would set a bad example to other persons who might
also seek a change of their surnames on lame excuses.While we appreciate the Solicitor General’s apprehensions and concern,
we find the same to be unfounded. We do not believe that by reverting to
his old name, private respondent would then be using a name which he is
prohibited by law from using. True, the law prescribes the surname that
a person may employ; but the law does not go so far as to unqualifiedly
prohibit the use of any other surname, and only subjects such recourse
to the obtention of the requisite judicial sanction. What the law does
not prohibit, it permits.If we were to follow the argument of the Solicitor General to its
conclusion, then there will never be any possibility or occasion for any
person, regardless of status, to change his name, in view of the
supposed subsequent violation of the legal imperative on the use of
surnames in the event that the petition is granted. Rule 103 of the
Rules of Court would then be rendered inutile. This could hardly have
been the intendment of the law.A petition for change of name is a remedy allowed under our law only
by way of exception to the mandatory provisions of the Civil Code on the
use of surnames. The law fixes the surnames that may be used by a
person, at least inceptively, and it may be changed only upon judicial
permission granted in the exercise of sound discretion. Section 1 of
Rule 103, in specifying the parties who may avail of said remedy, uses
the generic term “persons” to signify all natural persons regardless of
status. If a legitimate person may, under certain judicially accepted
exceptional circumstances, petition the court for a change of name, we
do not see any legal basis or logic in discriminating against the
availment of such a remedy by an adopted child. In other words, Article
365 is not an exception, much less can it bar resort, to Rule 103.[93] (Italics in the original; underscoring supplied)
While the Court agrees that any person, whether legitimate,
illegitimate, or adopted, may petition the court for change of name for
compelling reasons,[94] the factual circumstances in Wong wholly differ from the case at bar.
In Wong, petitioner alleged and proved that he was
severely prejudiced by the use of the surname “Wong,” which embarrassed
and isolated him from friends and relatives in view of a suggested
Chinese ancestry when in reality he is a Muslim Filipino residing in a
Muslim community. He alleged and proved that the continued use of said
surname hampered his business and social life,[95] viz.:
“The purpose of the law in allowing a change of name as
contemplated by the provisions of Rule 103 of the Rules of Court is to
give a person an opportunity to improve his personality and to provide
his best interest. (Calderon vs. Republic, 19 SCRA 721). In granting or
denying the petition for change of name, the question of proper and
reasonable cause is left to the discretion of the court. The evidence
presented need only be satisfactory to the court and not all the best
evidence available is required. (Uy vs. Republic, L-22712, Nov. 25,
1965; Nacionales vs. Republic, L-18067, April 29, 1966; both cases cited
in 1 SCRA 843). In the present case, We believe that the court a quo had exercised its discretion judiciously when it granted the petition.“From the testimony of petitioner-appellee and of his adopter mother
Concepcion Ty-Wong, We discern that said appellee was prompted to file
the petition for change of name because of the embarrassment and
ridicule his family name ‘Wong’ brings in his dealings with his
relatives and friends, he being a Muslim Filipino and living in a Muslim
community. Another cause is his desire to improve his social and business life. It has been held that in the absence of prejudice to the state or any individual, a
sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of a former
alien nationality which only hamper(s) social and business life, is a
proper and reasonable cause for change of name (Uy vs. Republic,
L-22712, Nov. 25, 1965, Que Liong Sian vs. Republic, L-23167, Aug. 17,
1967, 20 SCRA 1074). Justice dictates that a person should be allowed to
improve his social standing as long as in doing so, he does not cause
prejudice or injury to the interest of the State or of other persons
(Calderon vs. Republic, supra). Nothing whatsoever is shown in
the record of this case that such prejudice or injury to the interest of
the state or of other persons would result in the change of
petitioner’s name.[96] (Underscoring supplied)
No similar compelling reason was alleged nor proved in this case. A
sincere desire to associate oneself to a certain person or family,
without more, does not justify a change of surname. In view of the
foregoing, the Petition must be denied.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED. The petition for change of name in Spec. Proc. No. R-QZN-17-04454 is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Gesmundo, C. J., (Chairperson), Carandang, Zalameda, and Rosario,* JJ., concur.
* Designated additional Member per Raffle dated December 14, 2020 vice Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan.
[1] Rollo, pp. 16-55.
[2] Id. at 59-69. Penned by
Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando, with Associate Justices
Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a Member of the Court) and Germano Francisco D.
Legaspi concurring.
[3] Id. at 70-73.
[4] Id. at 75-81. Penned by Presiding Judge Maria Luisa Lesle G. Gonzales-Betic.
[5] Id. at 83-87.
[6] Also Sp. Proc. No. R-QZN-17-04454-SP and Spl. Proc. No. R-QZN-17-04454 in some parts of the rollo.
[7] Id. at 60.
[8] Jose Mari Bautista, Jr. in some parts of the rollo.
[9] Rollo, p. 89.
[10] Id. at 89, 96.
[11] Id. at 75.
[12] Id. at 89, 96.
[13] Id.
[14] Id. at 75-76, 89-90.
[15] Id. at 90.
[16] Id. at 76-77.
[17] Id. at 91.
[18] Id. at 90.
[19] Now Philippine Statistics Authority.
[20] Rollo, pp. 60-61.
[21] Id. at 61.
[22] Supra note 4.
[23] See id. at 78.
[24] Id. at 80.
[25] See id. at 80-81, citing R.A. 8552, Secs. 16 and 17; see also id. at 83-84.
[26] Id. at 86.
[27] Id. at 80.
[28] AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE
RULES AND POLICIES ON THE DOMESTIC ADOPTION OF FILIPINO CHILDREN AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES, approved on February 25, 1998.
[29] Rollo, p. 67.
[30] Id. at 64-65.
[31] Id. at 65-67.
[32] See id. at 32-33.
[33] Id. at 33.
[34] Id. at 317-333.
[35] Id. at 321.
[36] Id. at 327.
[37] G.R. No. 117209, February 9, 1996, 253 SCRA 509.
[38] Id. at 523-535. Citations omitted.
[39] See Republic v. Capote, G.R. No. 157043, February 2, 2007, 514 SCRA 76, 81.
[40] G.R. No. 186027, December 8, 2010, 637 SCRA 654.
[41] Id. at 663-668. Citations omitted.
[42] AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE
CITY OR MUNICIPAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OR THE CONSUL GENERAL TO CORRECT A
CLERICAL OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN AN ENTRY AND/OR CHANGE OF FIRST NAME
OR NICKNAME IN THE CIVIL REGISTER WITHOUT NEED OF A JUDICIAL ORDER
AMENDING FOR THIS PURPOSE ARTICLES 376 AND 412 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, approved on March 22, 2001.
[43] See Republic v. Gallo, G.R. No. 207074, January 17, 2018, 851 SCRA 570, 593.
[44] AN ACT FURTHER
AUTHORIZING THE CITY OR MUNICIPAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OR THE CONSUL GENERAL
TO CORRECT CLERICAL OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS IN THE DAY AND MONTH IN THE
DATE OF BIRTH OR SEX OF A PERSON APPEARING IN THE CIVIL REGISTER WITHOUT
NEED OF A JUDICIAL ORDER, AMENDING FOR THIS PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT NUMBER
NINETY FORTY-EIGHT, approved on August 15, 2012.
[45] R.A. 10172, Sec. 1.
[46] Bartolome v. Republic, G.R. No. 243288, August 28, 2019, p. 8; see also Republic v. Gallo, supra note 43, at 595 and Republic v. Sali, 808 Phil. 343, 349-350 (2017).
[47] See Republic v. Gallo, id. at 606-607.
[48] Supra note 46.
[49] Id. at 8. Citations omitted.
[50] See Petition for Change of Name, rollo, pp. 88-93.
[51] Id. at 91.
[52] Id. at 91.
[53] Id. at 19.
[54] Id. at 90.
[55] Republic v. Mercadera, supra note 40, at 663.
[56] Rollo, pp. 64-65.
[57] Id. at 65-67.
[58] No. L-20874, May 25, 1966, 17 SCRA 253.
[59] Id. at 256. Citations omitted. See also Republic v. Gallo, supra note 43; Republic v. Mercadera, supra note 40 and Calderon v. Republic, No. L-18127, April 5, 1967, 19 SCRA 721.
[60] R.A. 8552, Article VI provides:
SEC. 19. Grounds for Rescission of Adoption. – Upon
petition of the adoptee, with the assistance of the Department if a
minor or if over eighteen (18) years of age but is incapacitated, as
guardian/counsel, the adoption may be rescinded on any of the following
grounds committed by the adopter(s): (a) repeated physical and verbal
maltreatment by the adopter(s) despite having undergone counseling; (b)
attempt on the life of the adoptee; (c) sexual assault or violence; or
(d) abandonment and failure to comply with parental obligations.Adoption, being in the best interest of the child, shall not be subject
to rescission by the adopter(s). However, the adopter(s) may disinherit
the adoptee for causes provided in Article 919 of the Civil Code.SEC. 20. Effects of Rescission. – If the petition is granted, the
parental authority of the adoptee’s biological parent(s), if known, or
the legal custody of the Department shall be restored if the adoptee is
still a minor or incapacitated. The reciprocal rights and obligations of
the adopter(s) and the adoptee to each other shall be extinguished.The court shall order the Civil Registrar to cancel the amended
certificate of birth of the adoptee and restore his/her original birth
certificate.Succession rights shall revert to its status prior to adoption, but only
as of the date of judgment of judicial rescission. Vested rights
acquired prior to judicial rescission shall be respected.All the foregoing effects of rescission of adoption shall be without
prejudice to the penalties imposable under the Penal Code if the
criminal acts are properly proven.
[61] Rollo, p. 43.
[62] Republic v. Gallo, supra note 43, at 592, citing Republic v. Mercadera, supra note 40, at 667.
[63] Id. at 588, citing Republic v. Mercadera, id. at 663. See also RULES OF COURT, Rule 103, Sec. 4.
[64] SEC. 3. Parties.-
When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register is
sought, the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any
interest which would be affected thereby shall be made parties to the
proceeding.
[65] See also Republic v. Capote, supra note 39, at 84-85.
[66] Id. at 85.
[67] Yu Chi Han v. Republic, No. L-22040, November 29, 1965, 15 SCRA 454, 456.
[68] G.R. No. 159966, March 30, 2005, 454 SCRA 155.
[69] Id. at 161-162. Citations omitted.
[70] Id. at 162.
[71] Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97906, May 21, 1992, 209 SCRA 189, 202.
[72] In Re: Petition for Change of Name and/or Correction of Entry in the Civil Registry of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang, supra note 68, at 160.
[73] Id. at 160-161.
[74] FAMILY CODE, Art. 189. Underscoring supplied.
[75] Melencio S. Sta. Maria, Jr., PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS LAW (5th
ed., 2010), p. 664 explains that “[t]he provisions on adoption
contained from Articles 183 to 193 of the Family Code have been repealed
and replaced by Republic Act Numbered 8552 approved by President Fidel
V. Ramos on February 25, 1998.”
[76] R.A. 8552, Sec. 14.
[77] Republic v. Court of Appeals, supra note 71.
[78] Id. at 195. See also Republic v. Hernandez, supra note 37, at 522.
[79] Republic v. Hernandez, id.
[80] Rollo, p. 91.
[81] Id. at 20.
[82] Id. at 80-81, 86.
[83] Id. at 67-68.
[84] See for instance, Alanis III v. Court of Appeals, G.R. 216425, November 11, 2020; Chua v. Republic, G.R. No. 231998, November 20, 2017, 845 SCRA 407 and Alfon v. Republic, No. L-51201 May 29, 1980, 97 SCRA 35.
[85] In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle P. Lim, Monina P. Lim, G.R. Nos. l68992-93, May 21, 2009, 588 SCRA 98, 108-109.
[86] In Re: Petition for Change of Name and/or Correction of Entry in the Civil Registry of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang, supra note 68, at l59.
[87] See id. at 165.
[88] Supra note 67.
[89] Id. at 457.
[90] See Republic v. Hernandez, supra note 37, at 535.
[91] See Republic v. Court of Appeals, supra note 71, at 196.
[92] G.R. No. 97906, May 21, 1992, 209 SCRA 189.
[93] Id. at 200-202. Citations omitted. See also Calderon v. Republic, supra note 59.
[94] See Calderon v. Republic, id. at 725, where the Court held:
x x x “While it is true that the Code provides that a
natural child by legal fiction as the petitioner herein shall
principally enjoy the surname of the father, yet, this does not mean
that such child is prohibited by law from taking another surname with
the latter’s consent and for justifiable reasons.” If under the law a
legitimate child may secure a change of his name through judicial
proceedings, upon a showing of a “proper and reasonable cause”. We do
not see any reason why a natural child cannot do the same. The purpose
of the law in allowing a change of name, as contemplated by the
provisions of Rule 103 of the Rules of Court is to give a person an
opportunity to improve his personality and to promote his best
interests. We are satisfied that the facts and circumstances as borne
out by the record amply justify the change of the surname of the
petitioner as ordered by the lower court. x x x
[95] See Republic v. Hernandez, supra note 37 at 537, citing Republic v. Court of Appeals, supra note 71, at 192-193.
[96] Republic v. Court of Appeals, id. at 198-199.