Republic of the Philippines

vs.
Court of Appeals and Cynthia Vicencio
G.R. No. 88202 December 14, 1998

Facts :

The petitioner was born at Capitol Medical Center in Quezon City on January 19, 1971 to
parents Pablo Castro Vicencio and Fe Esperanza de Vega Leabres. On January 10, 1927, after a
marital disagreement, Vicencio left their Meycauayan Bulacan conjugal property and never
returned nor gave support to his family. Leabres found an ally in Ernesto Yu who would later
end up as her husband. On June 29, 1976, Leabres filed a petition , known as Civil case number
E-02009 with the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court for the dissolution of her conjugal
partnership with Vicencio. In a decision given by Hon Regina C. Ordoñez Benitez dated July
11, 1977, the petition was granted. The petitioner’s mother filed another petition in 1983 to drop
the surname of her husband therefrom and this, known as Special Proclamation 8316346 was
again approved in a decision rendered by Hon. Emeterio C. Cui of Branch XXV. Yet again,
under Special Proclamation number 84-22605, Leabres filed a petition to declare Pablo Vicencio
an absentee. Hon. Corona Ibay- Somera decided in favour of the petitioner’s mother on April 26,
1984. The positive results of these petitions paved the way for the marriage of the petitioner’s
mother and Ernesto Yu on April 15, 1986.

Evidence was established that the petitioner had not remembered much her real father, Pablo
Vicencio, and that in his absence, it was Ernesto Yu who had taken Vicencio’s place. Although
petitioner uses the surname Vicencio in her school and other related activities, she contends that
in such situations, confusion arose as to her parentage leading to inquiries as to why she is using
Vicencio as surname ; causing much embarrassment on her part. In two occasions when she ran
as a beauty contestant for Lion’s Club Affair and Manila Red Cross, her name was registered as
Cynthia L. Yu. His stepfather had given his consent thereto upon prior consultation with him.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) , having participated in the cross examination of
Cynthia Vicencio and her witnesses, manifested opposition over the petition. The court argued
that there was no valid cause for the denial of the petition and that taking into account the fact
that the court cannot compel the stepfather of the petitioner to consider adoption , failure to
observe the process should not be a cause for disallowing petitioner to legally change her name,
in addition to the opportunity of the respondent to improve her personality and welfare under a
socially recognized surname, that of her stepfather. On August 31, 1987, the Manila Regional
Trial Court Branch 52 granted private respondent Cynthia Vicencio’s petition for change of
surname from Vicencio to Yu. The same was affirmed by the decision of the Court of Appeals
dated April 28, 1989.

Issue :

Whether or not the appellate court made a mistake or violated standards in affirming the decision
of the trial court to allow the change in private respondent’s surname to that of her stepfather’s
surname.
Decision :

Recognized inter alia in Republic vs. Hernandez, the following are sufficient grounds to warrant
a change in 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 an alien parentage, e) when the change is
based on sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase sign of former alienage, in good faith
without prejudice to anybody and f) when the surname causes embarrassment and there is no
showing that desired change of name was far a fraudulent purpose or would prejudice public
interest.

Private respondent asserts that she falls under one of the justifiable grounds, specifically under
avoidance of confusion since she has been recognized by society as the daughter of Ernesto Yu
although she admits to having used Vicencio in beauty pagents and in her debut.

In the argument of the Solicitor General , it argues that change in surname might give rise to
legal complications since her stepfather has two other children with her mother and such
complications may affect even the issue of inheritance should the stepfather die.The OSG
further argues that change of name would be easy through adoption which Ernesto Yu did not
opt for.

The court contends that though confusion may arise with regard to parentage , more confusion
with grave legal consequences could arise if private respondent is to use his stepfather’s surname
even if she is not legally adopted by him. Legal constraints lead the court to reject private
respondent’s desire to use her step-father’s surname and no assurance exists that the end result
would not be even more detrimental to her person, as it may trigger deeper inquiries regarding
her parentage. It is also noteworthy that as a result of Republic Act 6809, the private respondent
although already 18 when the appellate court rendered its decision , was still considered a minor.

The court reversed and set aside the appealed decision to allow private respondent’s change of
name from Vicencio to Yu and granted the instant petition to retain surname due to lack of
legally justifiable cause for allowing such change.

Reference :

Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 243 SCRA 239

Digested By :

Karen G. Tolentino