Professional Documents
Culture Documents
At the hearing of the petition for change of name by the trial court,
the OSG manifested that it was opposing the petition. It participated
in the proceedings by cross-examining the private respondent
Cynthia Vicencio, (petitioner a quo) and her witnesses.
Disregarding the OSGs contention, the trial court ruled that there is
no valid cause for denying the petition. Further, the trial court stated
that it could not compel private respondents step-father to adopt
her, as adoption is a voluntary act; but failure to resort to adoption
should not be a cause for disallowing private respondent to legally
change her name.[if !supportFootnotes][4][endif] Hence, it granted the
change of surname of private respondent from Vicencio to Yu.
The decision of the trial court was affirmed by the appellate court,
which held that it is for the best interest of petitioner that her
surname be changed. The appellate court took into account the
testimonies of private respondent and her witnesses that allowing
the change of surname would give her an opportunity to improve
her personality and welfare.[if !supportFootnotes][5][endif] It likewise noted
that the discrepancy between her original surname, taken from her
biological father; and the surname of her step-father, who has been
socially recognized as her father, caused her embarrassment and
inferiority complex.[if !supportFootnotes][6][endif]
The main issue before us is whether the appellate court erred in
affirming the trial courts decision allowing the change of private
respondents surname to that of her step-fathers surname.
In Republic vs. Hernandez [if !supportFootnotes][7][endif] , we have
recognized inter alia, the following as sufficient grounds to warrant
a change of name: (a) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or
extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (b) when the change is 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.
Private respondent asserts that her case falls under one of the
justifiable grounds aforecited. She says that confusion has arisen
as to her parentage because ever since childhood, Ernesto Yu has
acted as her father, assuming duties of rearing, caring and
supporting her. Since she is known in society as the daughter of
Ernesto Yu, she claims that she has been subjected to inquiries
regarding her use of a different surname, causing her much
humiliation and embarrassment. However, it is not denied that
private respondent has used Vicencio as her surname in her school
records and related documents. But she had used the surname of
her step-father, Yu, when she participated in public functions, such
as entering beauty contests, namely, with the Lions Club and the
Manila Red Cross, and when she celebrated her debut at the
Manila Hotel.[if !supportFootnotes][8][endif]
The Solicitor General however argues that there is no proper and
reasonable cause to warrant private respondents change of
surname. Such change might even cause confusion and give rise
to legal complications due to the fact that private respondents stepfather has two (2) children with her mother. In the event of her stepfathers death, it is possible that private respondent may even claim
inheritance rights as a legitimate daughter. In his memorandum, the
Solicitor General, opines that Ernesto Yu has no intention of
making Cynthia as an heir because despite the suggestion made
before the petition for change of name was heard by the trial court
that the change of family name to Yu could very easily be achieved
by adoption, he has not opted for such a remedy.[if !supportFootnotes][9]
[endif]
Middle Name
As correctly submitted by both parties, there is no law regulating
the use of a middle name. Even Article 176[11] of the Family Code,
as amended by Republic Act No. 9255, otherwise known as An Act
Allowing Illegitimate Children To Use The Surname Of Their Father,
is silent as to what middle name a child may use.
The middle name or the mothers surname is only considered in
Article 375(1), quoted above, in case there is identity of names and
surnames between ascendants and descendants, in which case,
the middle name or the mothers surname shall be added.
Notably, the law is likewise silent as to what middle name an
adoptee may use. Article 365 of the Civil Code merely provides
that an adopted child shall bear the surname of the adopter. Also,
Article 189 of the Family Code, enumerating the legal effects of
adoption, is likewise silent on the matter, thus:
"(1) For civil purposes, 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 adopters;
xxx
However, as correctly pointed out by the OSG, the members of the
Civil Code and Family Law Committees that drafted the Family
Code recognized the Filipino custom of adding the surname of
the childs mother as his middle name. In the Minutes of the Joint
Meeting of the Civil Code and Family Law Committees, the
members approved the suggestion that the initial or surname of
the mother should immediately precede the surname of the
father, thus
Justice Caguioa commented that there is a difference between the
use by the wife of the surname and that of the child because the
fathers surname indicates the family to which he belongs, for which
reason he would insist on the use of the fathers surname by the
child but that, if he wants to, the child may also use the surname of
the mother.
Justice Puno posed the question: If the child chooses to use the
surname of the mother, how will his name be written? Justice
Caguioa replied that it is up to him but that his point is that it
should be mandatory that the child uses the surname of the
father and permissive in the case of the surname of the
mother.
Prof. Baviera remarked that Justice Caguioas point is covered by
the present Article 364, which reads:
Legitimate and legitimated children shall principally use the
surname of the father.
Justice Puno pointed out that many names change through no
choice of the person himself precisely because of this
misunderstanding. He then cited the following example: Alfonso
Ponce Enriles correct surname is Ponce since the mothers
surname is Enrile but everybody calls him Atty. Enrile. Justice Jose
Gutierrez Davids family name is Gutierrez and his mothers
surname is David but they all call him Justice David.
Justice Caguioa suggested that the proposed Article (12) be
modified to the effect that it shall be mandatory on the child to
use the surname of the father but he may use the surname of
the mother by way of an initial or a middle name. Prof. Balane
stated that they take note of this for inclusion in the Chapter on Use
of Surnames since in the proposed Article (10) they are just
enumerating the rights of legitimate children so that the details can
be covered in the appropriate chapter.
xxx
Justice Puno remarked that there is logic in the simplification
suggested by Justice Caguioa that the surname of the father
should always be last because there are so many traditions like the
American tradition where they like to use their second given name
and the Latin tradition, which is also followed by the Chinese
wherein they even include the Clan name.
xxx
Justice Puno suggested that they agree in principle that in the
Chapter on the Use of Surnames, they should say that initial or
surname of the mother should immediately precede the surname of
the father so that the second name, if any, will be before the
surname of the mother. Prof. Balane added that this is really the
Filipino way. The Committee approved the suggestion. [12]
(Emphasis supplied)
In the case of an adopted child, the law provides that the adopted
shall bear the surname of the adopters.[13] Again, it is silent whether
he can use a middle name. What it only expressly allows, as a
matter of right and obligation, is for the adoptee to bear the
surname of the adopter, upon issuance of the decree of adoption.
[14]
ISSUES
5.
6.
APPLICATION
1. The petitioner used her maiden first name and her
husbands last name, thus, Maria Virginia V. Remo. This is
in accord to Article 370(2), Title XIII of the Civil Code of the
Philippines.
2. it is not obligatory for a married woman to use her
husbands name. Use of maiden name is allowed in
passport application only if the married name has not
been used in previous application. The Implementing
The Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the May 27,
2005 Decision and August 2, 2005 Resolution of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 87710.