G.R. No.

L-20914 December 24, 196

IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF THE MINOR, ENGRACIO GLIGADO, !R. MR". DINTO#
TAN "ARE$, vs. REP%LIC OF THE PHILIPPINE".
FACTS:
The minor Engracio Guligado, Jr. is the son of Capt. Engracio Guligado and Guneng T. Guligado. The
latter is a younger sister of Mrs. Dintoy Suarez (Suarez). Engracio Guligado is, in turn, half-brother of
Suarez husband, Col. Alejandro Suarez, Ret., who has several children by a previous marriage and has
expressly consented to the adoption of said child by his wife. Shortly after the birth of Engracio Guligado,
Jr. in Jolo, Sulu, on May 28, 1951, his parents left him in the custody of Suarez. Since then, the child had
lived continuously with Suarez, whom he regards as his mother, who, in turn, has treated him as such,
and supported him, as well as sent him to school. Meanwhile, his natural parents had left Jolo and are
now residing in San Juan del Monte, Rizal.
Suarez testified that she had written to them about her intention to apply for the adoption of the minor and
that they had given their consent thereto. And understandably so, for, in addition to their close relationship
by consanguinity and affinity, Suarez is fairly well off financially. In fact, she has attached to the petition a
statement, subscribed and sworn to before a notary public, on February 4, 1958, by Captain Engracio
Guligado and his wife Guneng T. Guligado, confirming the foregoing facts, and expressing their
conformity to the adoption of Engracio Guligado, Jr. However, no testimonial evidence, identifying the
signatures on said statement, was introduced by Suarez and, hence, the assistant provincial fiscal who
appeared at the hearing of this case in the lower court, objected to the admission of said statement, when
she offered it as part of her evidence.
The lower court did not err in overruling said objection, admitting said statement in evidence, and
considering, as a proven fact, that the natural parents of the minor being adopted had given their written
consent to the adoption. Apart from the fact that said statement was duly authenticated by a Notary
Public, the other evidence on record strongly indicate that it is what it purports to be.
ISSUE:
Can the minor bear Mrs. Suarez surname although her husband has not joined in the adoption?
RULING:
NO. The minor cannot bear Suarez surname as a married woman, for her husband has not joined in this
petition for adoption and cannot join it, because he has children by a previous marriage.
Since the adoption gives the person adopted the same rights and duties as if he were a legitimate child of
the adopter (Art. 341, par. 1, Civil Code), much confusion would indeed result, as correctly pointed out by
the Solicitor General, if the minor child herein were allowed to use the surname of the spouse who did not
join in the adoption.
For one thing, to allow the minor to adopt the surname of the husband of the adopter, would mislead the
public into believing that she has also been adopted by the husband, which is not the case. And when
later, questions of successional rights arise, the husband's consent to the adoption might be presented to
prove that he has actually joined in the adoption.
It is to forestall befuddling situations that may arise in the future, that this Court is inclined to apply strictly
the provision of the Civil Code to the effect that an adopted child use the surname of the adopter himself
or herself, and not that which is acquired by marriage.
[G.R. No. 139758. January 31, 2000.]
LUCIEN TRAN VAN NGIA, r!"r!#!n$!% &!r!'n (y &'# )'an*+! R,-ITA ERNIE, .#.
,N. RU/U- 0. R,1RIGUE2, Co33'##'on!r on I33'4ra$'on, C,L. ANGELIT, 5.
TAN, C&'!) In$!66'4!n*! 1'.'#'on, Any Guar% an% ENRIC, 7ANER, Ja'6 8ar%!n.
/ACT-9
Lucien Tran Van Nghia (Nghia), a French national, was ordered by the Bureau of
Immigration to leave the country in an order dated February !, "##"$ %e a&&ealed the
order to the 'ffice of the (resident on )&ril *, "##*, which affirmed the Bureau+s order and
dismissed &etitioner+s a&&eal$ Nghia was subse,uently de&orted to (aris on )&ril "", "##- .
and was barred from again entering the (hili&&ines$ %owever, Nghia was able to enter the
country on /ecember 0, "##1, using the name Lucien 2arcel Tran Van Nghia$ Thus, he
was arrested by agents of the Bureau of Immigration and the 3estern (olice /istrict on
November *, "##!, for having entered the country illegally$ %e was subse,uently charged
with violation of 4ection *5(d) of the (hili&&ine Immigration )ct of "#*0, as amended$
'n /ecember "##!, Nghia filed a &etition for habeas cor&us before the 6egional Trial 7ourt,
2anila, Branch 50$ %e alleged that he was arrested and maltreated by immigration and 3(/
agents, and that his continued detention is without legal basis$ The 6T7 denied his &etition,
after finding legal basis for the detention of &etitioner$ %e a&&ealed the decision to the
7ourt of )&&eals but this a&&eal was later abandoned, after &etitioner filed with this 7ourt a
&etition for certiorari$ %owever, the &etition was dismissed$
Then on 4e&tember !, "###, Nghia filed before the 4u&reme 7ourt (47) the &resent
&etition, alleging that his arrest and detention by the Bureau of Immigration are illegal, and
&raying for the issuance of a writ of habeas cor&us$ 7onsidering the foregoing &rocedural
antecedents, 47 found that this is the second &etition for habeas cor&us filed by Nghia
before the courts$ It alleges substantially the same matters and contains the same &rayer
for the issuance of a writ of habeas cor&us as the first one filed in "##!$ 7learly, the &resent
&etition is barred by res 8udicata$
I--UE9
Can a :r'$ o) &a(!a# *or"u# (! '##u!%;
RULING9
No$ The writ of habeas cor&us will not issue where the &erson alleged to be restrained of his
liberty is charged with an offense in the (hili&&ines$ "* %ere, &etitioner is charged with
violation of 4ection *5(d) of the (hili&&ine Immigration )ct of "#*0, as amended, vi9:8
;4ection *5 (d)$ )ny &erson who$ < Being an alien, enters the (hili&&ines without ins&ection
and admission by the immigration officials, or obtains entry into the (hili&&ines by wilful,
false or misleading re&resentation or wilful concealment of a material fact= shall be guilty of
an offense, and u&on conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than one thousand &esos,
and im&risoned for not more than two years, and de&orted if he is an alien$;
%e is now detained because of said charge$ )nd while we do not wish to &re>em&t the
8udgment on the merits of the charge against him, we find his &lea for release on a writ of
habeas cor&us at this time &atently without merit$
G.R. No. 1&''02 No(ember 1), 2004
IN RE* THE +RIT OF HA%EA" CORP" FOR RE#NALDO DE ,ILLA -.e/012e. 0/ /3e Ne4 %151b1.
Pr16o26, M72/125780 C1/9: !NE DE ,ILLA, vs. THE DIRECTOR, NE+ %ILI%ID PRI"ON".
FACTS:
Aileen Mendoza, 12 years old, was raped by her uncle, Reynaldo de illa in !heir ho"e in #asi$. %er
pre$nancy pro"p!ed !he &ilin$ o& char$es by her paren!s a$ains! 'e illa. 'e illa alle$es !he &ollowin$: 1.sic(ness,
old a$e o& )* rendered "e incapable o& erec!ion+ 2.Mendozas bear a $rud$e a$ains! "e+ ,.Ali bi : in
ho"e!own o& San -ui s, -a$una a! !i"e o& cri"e. The RTC &ound de illa $uil!y beyond reasonable doub!
o& .uali&ied rape, sen!enced !o dea!h. The case was au!o"a!ically eleva!ed !o SC &or au!o"a!ic review due !o penal!y
i"posed. The SC a&&ir"ed RTC decision, "odi&ied by awardin$ "oral da"a$es. SC &ound da!e o& bir!h o& Aileen/s child,
-eahlyn "edically consis!en! wi!h !i"e o& rape. 0une de illa, son o& accused, alle$ed !ha! !he de&ense counsel only learned
o& '1A !es!in$ !o resolve pa!erni!y issue a! !i"e o& pendency o& SC au!o"a!ic review. %is 2 MRs o& !he case prayin$ &or
'1A !es!s !o be conduc!ed were denied. '1A !es!s ob!ained &ro" 2illy de illa, $randson o& Reynaldo, and -eahlyn
showed !ha! de illa could no! have sired !he la!!er. 0une !hus &iled pe!i!ion &or wri! o& habeas corpus &or his &a!her.
3SS45:
Can a wri! o& habeas corpus be a proper re"edy in !he ins!an! case6
R4-317:
No. Plainly stated, the writ obtains immediate relief for those who have been illegally confined or imprisoned
without sufficient cause. The writ, however, should not be issued when the custody over the person is by virtue of a
judicial process or a valid judgment. The most basic criterion for the issuance of the writ, therefore, is that the
individual seeking such relief is illegally deprived of his freedom of movement or placed under some form of illegal
restraint. If an individual's liberty is restrained via some legal process, the writ of habeas corpus is unavailing.
;G.R. No. 1&6<4<. Oc/ober 1', 2004=
!OE# D. %RIONE", vs. MARICEL P. MIGEL, FRANCI"CA P. MIGEL 02. LORETA P. MIGEL.
F)7T4:
n !arch ", #$$# %oey &. 'riones filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus against !aricel Pineda !iguel and (rancisca
Pineda !iguel, to obtain custody of his minor child !ichael )evin Pineda, his illegitimate son with *oreta P.
!iguel. *oreta was working in Japan and eventually brought the child out of the country to live with her
there. %oey insis!s !ha! cus!ody should be awarded !o hi" whenever she leaves &or 0apan and durin$ !he
period !ha! she s!ays !here. 3n o!her words, he wan!s 8oin! cus!ody over !he "inor, such !ha! !he "o!her
would have cus!ody when she is in !he coun!ry. 2u! when she is abroad, he 99 as !he biolo$ical &a!her 99
should have cus!ody. + ,rit of Habeas Corpus was issued by this -ourt on !arch .., #$$# ordering the !iguels
to produce before this -ourt the living body of the minor !ichael )evin Pineda on !arch #., #$$# at #/$$ o0clock
in the afternoon.
I44?@:
7an !he na!ural &a!her, "ay be denied !he cus!ody and paren!al care o& his own child in !he absence
o& !he "o!her who is away6
6?LINA:
1o. An ille$i!i"a!e child is under !he sole paren!al au!hori!y o& !he "o!her. 3n !he e:ercise o& !ha!
au!hori!y, she is en!i!led !o (eep !he child in her co"pany. The Cour! will no! deprive her o& cus!ody,
absen! any i"pera!ive cause showin$ her un&i!ness !o e:ercise such au!hori!y and care.
2e !ha! as i! "ay, no less !han !he Supre"e Cour! o& !he #hilippines enuncia!ed !ha! !he paren!al au!hori!y
o& a "o!her over !he person o& her ille$i!i"a!e child "ay be !a(en away &ro" her and awarded !o ano!her
person due !o so"e co"pellin$ reasons such as ne$lec! or abandon"en!, une"ploy"en!, i""orali!y,
habi!ual drun(enness, dru$ addic!ion, "al!rea!"en! o& !he child, insani!y, and a&&lic!ion wi!h a
co""unicable disease !ha! would render her un&i! !o per&or" her du!ies as !he cus!odian o& !he child .
Merely working abroad while entrusting the child to the care of the maternal grandparents or other immediate family
member does not seem to be one of the grounds for taking away custody from the mother. It cannot be considered
as abandonment or neglect as well.
G.R. No. 16491& M0rc3 10, 2006
ERIC !ONATHAN #, #e!i!ioner,
vs.
CAROLINE T. #, Responden!.
FACTS:
;n 0anuary 11, 2<<2, 5ric 0ona!han =u, residen! o& #asi$ ci!y, &iled a pe!i!ion &or habeas corpus be&ore !he Cour! o&
Appeals alle$in$ !ha! his es!ran$ed wi&e Caroline Tanchay9=u, residen! o& #asay Ci!y, unlaw&ully wi!hheld &ro" hi"
!he cus!ody o& !heir "inor child 2ianca. The pe!i!ion, which included a prayer &or !he award !o hi" o& !he sole cus!ody
o& 2ianca. Subse.uen!ly or on March ,, 2<<2, Caroline &iled a pe!i!ion a$ains! 5ric be&ore !he #asi$ Re$ional Trial
Cour! >RTC? &or declara!ion o& nulli!y o& "arria$e and dissolu!ion o& !he absolu!e co""uni!y o& proper!y. The pe!i!ion
included a prayer &or !he award !o her o& !he sole cus!ody o& 2ianca and &or !he &i:in$ o& schedule o& pe!i!ioner/s
visi!in$ ri$h!s @sub8ec! only !o !he &inal and e:ecu!ory 8ud$"en! o& !he Cour! o& AppealsA.
The Resolu!ion o& March 21, 2<<2, awarded 5ric &ull cus!ody o& 2ianca durin$ !he pendency o& !he habeas corpus
case, wi!h &ull visi!a!ion ri$h!s o& Caroline. To !he Mo!ion, pe!i!ioner &iled an ;pposi!ion wi!h Mo!ion !o Ci!e
Responden! &or Con!e"p! o& Cour! in li$h! o& her &ilin$ o& !he pe!i!ion &or declara!ion o& nulli!y o& "arria$e be&ore !he
#asi$ RTC which, so he con!ended, cons!i!u!ed &oru" shoppin$. %owever, Caroline &iled be&ore !he appella!e cour! a
Mo!ion &or !he Modi&ica!ion o& her visi!in$ ri$h!s under !he 3n!eri" isi!a!ion A$ree"en!. ;n 0uly 2B, 2<<,, Caroline,
be&ore !he #asay RTC &iled a pe!i!ion &or habeas corpus, which she deno"ina!ed as @A"ended #e!i!ion,@ prayin$ &or,
a"on$ o!her !hin$s, !he award o& !he sole cus!ody !o her o& 2ianca or, in !he al!erna!ive, pendin$ !he hearin$ o& !he
pe!i!ion, !he issuance o& an order @replica!in$ and rei!era!in$ !he en&orceabili!y o& !he 3n!eri" isi!in$ A$ree"en!@
which was approved by !he appella!e cour!.
1o! !o be ou!done, 5ric &iled on 0uly 2C, 2<<, be&ore !he #asi$ RTC in his pe!i!ion &or declara!ion o& nulli!y o& "arria$e
an ur$en! "o!ion prayin$ &or !he cus!ody o& 2ianca &or !he dura!ion o& !he case.
3SS45:
Should !he cus!ody over 2ianca be li!i$a!ed be&ore !he #asay RTC or be&ore !he #asi$ RTC6
R4-317:
0ud$"en! on !he issue o& cus!ody in !he nulli!y o& "arria$e case be&ore !he #asi$ RTC, re$ardless o& which par!y
would prevail, would cons!i!u!e res judicata on !he habeas corpus case be&ore !he #asay RTC since !he &or"er has
8urisdic!ion over !he par!ies and !he sub8ec! "a!!er. There is iden!i!y in !he causes o& ac!ion in #asi$ and #asay
because !here is iden!i!y in !he &ac!s and evidence essen!ial !o !he resolu!ion o& !he iden!ical issue raised in bo!h
ac!ions D whe!her i! would serve !he bes! in!eres! o& 2ianca !o be in !he cus!ody o& pe!i!ioner ra!her !han responden!
or vice versa.
2y 5ric/s &ilin$ o& !he case &or declara!ion o& nulli!y o& "arria$e be&ore !he #asi$ RTC he au!o"a!ically sub"i!!ed !he
issue o& !he cus!ody o& 2ianca as an inciden! !hereo&. A&!er !he appella!e cour! subse.uen!ly dis"issed !he habeas
corpus case, !here was no need &or pe!i!ioner !o replead his prayer &or cus!ody &or, as above9.uo!ed provisions o& !he
Fa"ily Code provide, !he cus!ody issue in a declara!ion o& nulli!y case is dee"ed pleaded. Tha! !ha! is so $ains li$h!
&ro" Sec!ion 21 o& !he @Rule on 'eclara!ion ;& Absolu!e 1ulli!y ;& oid Marria$es and Annul"en! o& oidable
Marria$es@

which provides: Sec. 21. -i.uida!ion, par!i!ion and dis!ribu!ion, cus!ody, suppor! o& co""on children and
delivery o& !heir presu"p!ive le$i!i"es.4pon en!ry o& !he 8ud$"en! $ran!in$ !he pe!i!ion, or, in case o& appeal, upon
receip! o& !he en!ry o& 8ud$"en! o& !he appella!e cour! $ran!in$ !he pe!i!ion, /3e F0m159 Co7r/, o2 mo/1o2 o> e1/3er
80r/9, 63055 8rocee. 41/3 /3e 51?71.0/1o2, 80r/1/1o2 02. .16/r1b7/1o2 o> /3e 8ro8er/1e6 o> /3e 68o76e6,
12c57.12@ c76/o.9, 6788or/ o> commo2 c315.re2 and delivery o& !heir presu"p!ive le$i!i"es pursuan! !o Ar!icles C<
and C1 o& !he Fa"ily Code unless such "a!!ers had been ad8udica!ed in previous 8udicial proceedin$s.
Since !his i""edia!ely9.uo!ed provision direc!s !he cour! !a(in$ 8urisdic!ion over a pe!i!ion &or declara!ion o& nulli!y o&
"arria$e !o resolve !he cus!ody o& co""on children, by "ere "o!ion o& ei!her par!y, i! could only "ean !ha! !he &ilin$
o& a new ac!ion is no! necessary &or !he cour! !o consider !he issue o& cus!ody o& a "inor.
G.R. No. ''202 December 14, 199'
REP%LIC OF THE PHILIPPINE", pe!i!ioner,
vs.
CORT OF APPEAL" 02. C#NTHIA ,ICENCIO, responden!s.
Fac!s:
Cyn!hia icencio was born on 1E 0anuary 1E*1 a! !he Capi!ol Medical Cen!er, Fuezon Ci!y, !o !he spouses #ablo
Cas!ro icencio and Fe 5speranza de e$a -eabres+ on 1< 0anuary 1E*2, a&!er a "ari!al spa!, #ablo icencio le&!
!heir con8u$al abode !hen si!ua!ed a! Meycauayan, 2ulacan+ since !hen #ablo icencio never reappeared nor sen!
suppor! !o his &a"ily and i! was 5rnes!o =u who had co"e !o !he aid o& Fe 5speranza -abres and her children+ on 2E
0une 1E*), Fe 5speranza -eabres &iled a pe!i!ion in !he !hen 0uvenile and 'o"es!ic Rela!ions Cour! o& Manila &or
dissolu!ion o& !heir con8u$al par!nership, which was $ran!ed in a decision rendered by !he %on. Re$ina C. ;rdoGez
2eni!ez on 11 0uly 1E**+ so"e!i"e in 1EH,, Cyn!hiaIs "o!her &iled ano!her pe!i!ion &or chan$e o& na"e, !ha! is !o drop
!he surna"e o& her husband and a&!er hearin$ a decision was rendered on C 0uly 1EH, by !he %on. 5"e!erio C. Cui
o& 2ranch JJ o& !his Cour! approvin$ !he pe!i!ion+ in 1EHB, Cyn!hiaIs "o!her a$ain &iled ano!her pe!i!ion wi!h !his
Cour!, &or !he declara!ion o& #ablo icencio as an absen!ee, and which pe!i!ion was $ran!ed on 2) April 1EHB in a
decision rendered by !he %on. Corona 3bay9So"era+ on 1C April 1EH), Cyn!hiaIs "o!her and 5rnes!o =u were 8oined
in "a!ri"ony in a cere"ony sole"nized by Mayor 2en8a"in S. Abalos o& Mandaluyon$, Me!ro Manila.
3! was also es!ablished !ha! even since her childhood, Cyn!hia had no! (nown "ush less re"e"bered her real &a!her
#ablo icencio, and her (nown &a!her had been and s!ill is 5rnes!o =u+ despi!e o& which she had been usin$ !he
&a"ily na"e @icencio@ in her school and o!her rela!ed ac!ivi!ies !herein+ !ha! in view o& such si!ua!ion, con&usion
arose as !o her paren!a$e and she had been sub8ec!ed !o in.uiries why she is usin$ icencio as her &a"ily na"e,
bo!h by her class"a!es and !heir nei$hbors, causin$ her e:!re"e e"barrass"en!+ on !wo >2? occassions when she
ran as a beau!y con!es!an! in a -ions Club a&&air and in Manila Red Cross pa$ean!, her na"e was en!ered as Cyn!hia
-. =u+ her s!ep9&a!her had been priorly consul!ed abou! !his pe!i!ion and had $iven his consen! !here!o+ !ha! in &ac!
5rnes!o =u !es!i&ied &or pe!i!ioner and con&ir"ed his consen! !o !he pe!i!ion as he had always !rea!ed pe!i!ioner as his
own dau$h!er ever since.
The !rial cour! ruled !ha! !here is no valid cause &or denyin$ !he pe!i!ion. Fur!her, !he !rial cour! s!a!ed !ha! i! could no!
co"pel priva!e responden!Is s!ep9&a!her !o adop! her, as adop!ion is a volun!ary ac!+ bu! &ailure !o resor! !o adop!ion
should no! be a cause &or disallowin$ priva!e responden! !o le$ally chan$e her na"e.

%ence, i! $ran!ed !he chan$e
o& surna"e o& Cyn!hia &ro" icencio !o =u.
3ssue:
'id !he appella!e cour! erred in a&&ir"in$ !he !rial cour!Is decision allowin$ !he chan$e o& Cyn!hia/s surna"e !o !ha! o&
her s!ep9&a!herIs surna"e6
Rulin$:
Bes$ @The !ouchs!one &or !he $ran! o& a chan$e o& na"e is !ha! !here be "proper and reasonable cause" &or which !he
chan$e is sou$h!.@ The assailed decision as a&&ir"ed by !he appella!e cour! does no! persuade us !o depar!
&ro" !he applicabili!y o& !he $eneral rule on !he use o& surna"es speci&ically !he law which re.uires !ha!
le$i!i"a!e children shall principally use !he surna"e o& !heir &a!her .
Cyn!hia icencio is !he le$i!i"a!e o&&sprin$ o& Fe -eabres and #ablo icencio. A le$i!i"a!e child $enerally bears !he
surna"e o& his or her &a!her. 3! "us! be s!ressed !ha! a chan$e o& na"e is a privile$e, no! a "a!!er o& ri$h!, addressed
!o !he sound discre!ion o& !he cour!, which has !he du!y !o consider care&ully !he conse.uences o& a chan$e o& na"e
and !o deny !he sa"e unless wei$h!y reasons are shown.
Con&usion indeed "i$h! arise wi!h re$ard !o priva!e responden!Is paren!a$e because o& her surna"e. 2u! even, "ore
con&usion wi!h $rave le$al conse.uences could arise i& we allow priva!e responden! !o bear her s!ep9&a!herIs
surna"e, even i& she is no! le$ally adop!ed by hi". Khile previous decisions have allowed children !o bear !he
surna"e o& !heir respec!ive s!ep9&a!hers even wi!hou! !he bene&i! o& adop!ion, !hese ins!ances should be dis!in$uished
&ro" !he presen! case. T here is no assurance !he end resul! would no! be even "ore de!ri"en!al !o her person, &or
ins!ead o& brin$in$ a s!op !o .ues!ions, !he very chan$e o& na"e, i& $ran!ed, could !ri$$er "uch deeper in.uiries
re$ardin$ her paren!a$e.
G.R. No. L-<106& Febr70r9 1&, 1990
REP%LIC OF THE PHILIPPINE", pe!i!ioner,
vs.
HON. PIO R. MARCO", !7.@e o> /3e Co7r/ o> F1r6/ I26/02ce o> %0@71o 02. %e2@7e/ 02. PANG CHA AEN
re8re6e2/12@ /3e m12or, MA# "IA 05106 MANMAN HANG, responden!s.
F)7T4:
#an$ Cha Fuen, aci!izen o& 1a!ionalis! China, is !he "o!her o& MaySia alias Man"an %uan$. She re$is!ered her child
under !he na"e o& Mary #an$, bearin$ !he "a!ernal surna"e, because !he child/s biolo$ical &a!her alle$edly
abandoned !he". A &ew years la!er, she "arried Al&redo de la Cruz, a &ilipino ci!izen.
#an$ Cha Fuen la!er on &iled a pe!i!ion &or chan$e o& na"e &or her dau$h!er on !he $rounds !ha! her dau$h!er $rew
up wi!h, and learned !o love and reco$nize Al&redo de la Cruz as her own &a!her and, !o a&&ord !he child a &eelin$ o& securi!y.
Moreover, she alle$es !ha! Al&redo de la Cruz a$rees !o !he pe!i!ion, and even si$ni&ied his con&or"i!y a! !he &oo! o& !he
pleadin$.
0ud$e #io R. Marcos $ran!ed he pe!i!ion &or chan$e o& na"e under Rule 1<, o& !he Rules o& Cour! and issued an order
au!horizin$ !he na"e o& !he "inor, May Sia alias Man"an%uan$, also (nown as Mary #an$, !o be chan$ed !o Mary #an$
'e la Cruz. The 7overn"en!, !hrou$h !he Solici!or 7eneral, &iled !he presen! pe!i!ion &or review be&ore !he Supre"e Cour!
on !he $round !ha! !he cour!Is order is con!rary !o law.
I44?@:
/id the court erred in granting the &etitionC
6?LINA:
=es. The pe!i!ion &or chan$e o& na"e "us! be &iled by !he person desirin$ !o chan$e hisLher na"e, even i& i! "ay be
si$ned and veri&ied by so"e o!her person in his behal&. 3n !his case, however, !he pe!i!ion was &iled by #an$ Cha
Fuen no! by May Sia.
%ence, only May Sia hersel&, alias Man"an %uan$, alias Mary #an$, when she shall have reached !he a$e o&
"a8ori!y, "ay &ile !he pe!i!ion !o chan$e her na"e. The decision !o chan$e her na"e, !he reason &or !he chan$e, and
!he choice o& a new na"e and surna"e shall be hers alone !o "a(e. 3! "us! be her personal decision. 1o one else
"ay "a(e i! &or her. The reason is obvious. Khen she $rows up !o adul!hood, she "ay no! wan! !o use her
s!ep&a!herIs surna"e, nor any o& !he aliases chosen &or her by her "o!her.
As poin!ed ou! by !he Solici!or 7eneral, !he S!a!e has an in!eres! in !he na"e borne by each individual &or purposes o&
iden!i&ica!ion and !he sa"e should no! be chan$ed &or !rivial reasons li(e !he ins!an! case. A chan$e o& na"e is a
"ere privile$e and no! a "a!!er o& ri$h! and because !he pe!i!ion !o chan$e !he na"e o& !he "inor May Sia is no!
suppor!ed by wei$h!y reasons, !he !rial cour! erred in $ran!in$ i!.
G.R. No. L-1'9)1 !0270r9 29, 196'
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHANGE OF NAME OF A%NDIO ROTAAIO.
A%NDIO ROTAAIO, pe!i!ioner9appellee,
vs.
REP%LIC OF THE PHILIPPINE", opposi!or9appellan!
F)7T4:
;n 1ove"ber *, 1E)< Abundio Ro!a.uio &iled a pe!i!ion wi!h !he above9na"ed cour! &or a chan$e o& his surna"e !o
@Ro!a@, alle$in$ !ha! he was "arried and a bona &ide residen! o& 'avao Ci!y since 1EBC+ !ha! !wo o& his &our "inor
children have been carryin$ !he &a"ily na"e o& @Ro!a@ in !heir school records+ !ha! his &a"ily na"e >Ro!a.uio? sounds
li(e a Chris!ian na"e and so"e!i"es crea!es con&usion a"on$ his &riends and ac.uain!ances+ !ha! !he use o& !he
&a"ily na"e @Ro!a.uio@ by hi" and his !wo o!her children so"e!i"es evo(e un&avorable co""en!s causin$ hi"
e"barrass"en!+ and &inally, !ha! said &a"ily na"e has always been a handicap in his social, business and o&&icial
dealin$s.
3! appears !ha! Abundio is a "arried residen! o& !he ci!y o& 'avao+ !ha! he has &our children o& school a$e, !wo o&
who" >An!onio and Celes!ina?, &or one reason or ano!her, were enrolled under, and carry !he &a"ily na"e Ro!a, while
!he o!her !wo >ic!or and 5di!ha? were enrolled under, and carry !he surna"e Ro!a.uio+ !ha! even when pe!i!ioner
was sin$le, his surna"e was o&!en !a(en &or his Chris!ian or $iven na"e, and on "any occasions his ac.uain!ances
addressed hi" as @Ta.uio@, or @Ta$s@ or @Ta(oy@ or as @A(oy@. A&!er due publica!ion o& !he pe!i!ion and a&!er hearin$
!he sa"e, as well as !he opposi!ion &iled by !he #rovincial Fiscal o& 'avao, !he lower cour! rendered !he appealed
8ud$"en!.
I44?@:
3s !here no proper and reasonable cause &or allowin$ Abundio !o chan$e his &a"ily na"e6
6?LINA:
Bes$ The S!a!e has an in!eres! in !he na"e borne and used by individuals &or purposes o& iden!i&ica!ion, and !ha! !he
chan$e o& na"e is a "ere privile$e and no! a "a!!er o& ri$h!, bu! i! is li(ewise !rue !ha! !he au!hori!y "ay be $ran!ed
by !he cour!s i& !here is su&&icien! reason !here&or: as when !he chan$e is necessary !o avoid con&usion.
3n !he presen! case, Ke believe !ha!, as pe!i!ioner con!ends, his !rue surna"e $ives rise !o con&usion because people
o&!en !a(e i! as his Chris!ian na"e. The chan$e !hereo&, !here&ore, can no! be considered as arbi!rary or whi"sical,
especially !here bein$ in !his case no clai" or pre!ense !ha! pe!i!ioner see(s !he chan$e !o achieve so"e unlaw&ul
purpose.
G.R. No. 1<02)) M09 9, 2002
MA. LORDE" %ARRIENTO" ELEO"IDA, >or 02. 12 be305> o> 3er m12or c315., CHARLE" CHRI"TIAN
ELEO"IDA, pe!i!ioner,
vs.
LOCAL CI,IL REGI"TRAR OF AE$ON CIT#, 02. CARLO" ,ILLENA %OR%ON, responden!s.
F)7T4:
;n 0anuary ,<, 1EE*, pe!i!ioner Ma. -ourdes 5leosida &iled a pe!i!ion be&ore !he Re$ional Trial Cour! o& Fuezon Ci!y
see(in$ !o correc! !he &ollowin$ en!ries in !he bir!h cer!i&ica!e o& her son, Charles Chris!ian: &irs!, !he surna"e @2orbon@
should be chan$ed !o @5leosida+@ second, !he da!e o& !he paren!sI weddin$ should be le&! blan(+ and !hird, !he
in&or"an!Is na"e should be @Ma. -ourdes 2. 5leosida,@ ins!ead o& @Ma. -ourdes 5. 2orbon.@ 3n suppor! o& her pe!i!ion,
-ourdes alle$ed !ha! she $ave bir!h !o her son ou! o& wedloc( on May 2B, 1EE2+ !ha! she and !he boyIs &a!her, Carlos
2orbon, were never "arried+ and !ha! !he child is !here&ore ille$i!i"a!e and should &ollow !he "o!herIs surna"e. The
pe!i!ion i"pleaded !he -ocal Re$is!rar o& Fuezon Ci!y and Carlos illena 2orbon as responden!s.
I44?@:
3s !he correc!ions o& en!ries in !he cer!i&ica!e o& live bir!h pursuan! !o Ar!icle B12 o& !he Civil Code, in rela!ion !o Rule
1<H o& !he Rules o& Cour! "ay be allowed even i& !he errors !o be correc!ed are subs!an!ial and no! "erely clerical
errors o& a har"less and innocuous na!ure6
6?LINA:
=es. Rule 1<H o& !he Revised Rules o& Cour! provides !he procedure &or cancella!ion or correc!ion o& en!ries in !he
civil re$is!ry. The proceedin$s under said rule "ay ei!her be su""ary or adversary in na!ure. 3& !he correc!ion sou$h!
!o be "ade in !he civil re$is!er is clerical, !hen !he procedure !o be adop!ed is su""ary. 3& !he rec!i&ica!ion a&&ec!s !he
civil s!a!us, ci!izenship or na!ionali!y o& a par!y, i! is dee"ed subs!an!ial, and !he procedure !o be adop!ed is
adversary.
3! is !rue in !he case a! bar !ha! !he chan$es sou$h! !o be "ade by pe!i!ioner are no! "erely clerical
or har"less errors bu! subs!an!ial ones as !hey would a&&ec! !he s!a!us o& !he "arria$e be!ween
pe!i!ioner and Carlos 2orbon, as well as !he le$i!i"acy o& !heir son, Charles Chris!ian. Chan$es o&
such na!ure, however, are now allowed under Rule 1<H. The &ore$oin$ sa!is&y all !he re.uire"en!s o& Rule
1<H !o "a(e i! an adversary proceedin$. 3! was !here&ore an error &or !he !rial cour! !o dis"iss !he pe!i!ion motu
proprio wi!hou! allowin$ !he pe!i!ioner !o presen! evidence !o suppor! her pe!i!ion and all !he o!her persons who have
an in!eres! over !he "a!!er !o oppose !he sa"e.
G.R. No. 1'602) December ', 2010
REP%LIC OF THE PHILIPPINE", #e!i!ioner,
vs.
MERL#N MERCADERA /3ro7@3 3er A//or2e9-12-F0c/, E,EL#N M. OGA, Responden!.
F)7T4:
;n 0une ), 2<<C, Merlyn Mercadera >Mercadera?, represen!ed by her sis!er and duly cons!i!u!ed A!!orney9in9Fac!, 5velyn M. ;$a
>;$a?, sou$h! !he correc!ion o& her $iven na"e as i! appeared in her Cer!i&ica!e o& -ive 2ir!h &ro" Marilyn -. Mercadera !o Merlyn -.
Mercadera be&ore !he ;&&ice o& !he -ocal Civil Re$is!rar o& 'ipolo$ Ci!y pursuan! !o Republic Ac! 1o. E<BH. 4nder R.A. 1o. E<BH,
!he ci!y or "unicipal civil re$is!rar or consul $eneral is now au!horized !o e&&ec! !he chan$e o& &irs! na"e or nic(na"e and !he
correc!ion o& clerical or !ypo$raphical errors in civil re$is!ry en!ries. The ;&&ice o& !he -ocal Civil Re$is!rar o& 'ipolo$ Ci!y, however,
re&used !o e&&ec! !he correc!ion unless a cour! order was ob!ained @because !he Civil Re$is!rar !herein is no! ye! e.uipped wi!h a
per"anen! appoin!"en! be&ore he can validly ac! on pe!i!ions &or correc!ions &iled be&ore !heir o&&ice as "anda!ed by R.A. 1o.
E<BH.@
Mercadera !hen &iled a #e!i!ion For Correc!ion o& So"e 5n!ries as Appearin$ in !he Cer!i&ica!e o& -ive 2ir!h under Rule 1<H be&ore
!he Re$ional Trial Cour! o& 'ipolo$ Ci!y >RTC?. 4pon receip! o& !he pe!i!ion &or correc!ion o& en!ry, !he RTC issued an order, da!ed
0une 1<, 2<<C, &or !he hearin$ o& said pe!i!ion. The ;&&ice o& !he Solici!or 7eneral >;S7? depu!ized !he ;&&ice o& !he Ci!y #rosecu!or
!o assis! in !he case. Ki!hou! any ob8ec!ion &ro" !he Ci!y #rosecu!or, !he !es!i"ony o& ;$a and several pho!ocopies o& docu"en!s
were &or"ally o&&ered and "ar(ed as evidence !o prove !ha! Mercadera never used !he na"e @Marilyn@ in any o& her public or priva!e
!ransac!ions. The RTC $ran!ed !he pe!i!ion and ruled !ha! !he docu"en!ary evidence presen!ed by Mercadera su&&icien!ly suppor!ed
!he circu"s!ances alle$ed in her pe!i!ion. The ;S7 !i"ely appealed prayin$ &or !he reversal and se!!in$ aside o& !he RTC decision.
For !he ;S7, !he correc!ion in !he spellin$ o& Mercadera/s $iven na"e @is in !ru!h a "a!erial correc!ion as i! would "odi&y or
increase subs!an!ive ri$h!s@, which would have been proper had she &iled a pe!i!ion under Rule 1<, and proved any o& !he $rounds
!here&or. The CA was no! persuaded. 3n i!s 'ece"ber E, 2<<H 'ecision, !he appella!e cour! a&&ir"ed !he .ues!ioned RTC order. ;n
March ), 2<<E, !he ;S7 &iled !he presen! pe!i!ion. ;n behal& o& Mercadera, !he #ublic A!!orney/s ;&&ice >#A;? &iled i!s Co""en! on
0uly ,, 2<<E.
I44?@:
'3' T%5 C;4RT ;F A##5A-S 5RR5' ;1 A F45ST3;1 ;F -AK 31 7RA1T317 T%5 C%A175 31 R5S#;1'51T/S 1AM5
41'5R R4-5 1<,.
6?LINA:
=es. Rule 1<, procedurally $overns 8udicial pe!i!ions &or chan$e o& $iven na"e or surna"e, or bo!h, pursuan! !o Ar!icle ,*) o& !he
Civil Code. This rule provides !he procedure &or an independen! special proceedin$ in cour! !o es!ablish !he s!a!us o& a person
involvin$ his rela!ions wi!h o!hers, !ha! is, his le$al posi!ion in, or wi!h re$ard !o, !he res! o& !he co""uni!y. 5ssen!ially, a chan$e o&
na"e does no! de&ine or e&&ec! a chan$e o& one/s e:is!in$ &a"ily rela!ions or in !he ri$h!s and du!ies &lowin$ !here&ro". 3! does no!
al!er one/s le$al capaci!y or civil s!a!us. Rule 1<H, on !he o!her hand, i"ple"en!s 8udicial proceedin$s &or !he
correc!ion or cancella!ion o& en!ries in !he civil re$is!ry pursuan! !o Ar!icle B12 o& !he Civil Code. 5n!ries in
!he civil re$is!er re&er !o @ac!s, even!s and 8udicial decrees concernin$ !he civil s!a!us o& persons,@ also as
enu"era!ed in Ar!icle B<H o& !he sa"e law.
Thus, !he pe!i!ion &iled by Mercadera be&ore !he RTC correc!ly &alls under Rule 1<H as i! si"ply sou$h! a correc!ion o& a "isspelled
$iven na"e. To correc! si"ply "eans @!o "a(e or se! ari$h!+ !o re"ove !he &aul!s or error &ro".@ To chan$e "eans @!o replace
so"e!hin$ wi!h so"e!hin$ else o& !he sa"e (ind or wi!h so"e!hin$ !ha! serves as a subs!i!u!e.@ Fro" !he alle$a!ions in her pe!i!ion,
Mercadera clearly prayed &or !he lower cour! @!o re"ove !he &aul!s or error@ &ro" her re$is!ered $iven na"e @MAR3-=1,@ and @!o
"a(e or se! ari$h!@ !he sa"e !o con&or" !o !he one she $rew up !o, @M5R-=1.@ The CA did no! allow Mercadera !he chan$e o& her
na"e. Kha! i! did allow was !he correc!ion o& her "isspelled $iven na"e which she had been usin$ ever since she could
re"e"ber.