GR 31760; (May, 1977) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-31760 May 25, 1977
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME. GIL GO, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
Petitioner Gil Go, born and registered as Gil Co, filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Leyte to change his name to Henry Yao. He alleged that since childhood, he had been known as Henry Yao among relatives and associates, but used his registered name, Gil Co, for official transactions. He claimed his father had adopted the surname “Yao” following a Chinese custom, and that an immigration clerk’s error led to his Alien Certificate of Registration listing him as Gil Go. He sought the change to avoid confusion arising from these multiple names. The city fiscal opposed the petition, but the lower court granted it, prompting the Republic’s appeal.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in granting the petition for change of name.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order. The ruling was based on two primary legal grounds. First, the court lacked jurisdiction due to a fatal defect in the publication of the petition. The proceeding for a change of name is in rem, and jurisdiction is acquired through proper publication of an order setting the hearing. This order must contain specific data, including the new name sought, which should also be indicated in the petition’s title. Here, neither the petition’s title nor the published order stated that the petitioner sought to change his name to Henry Yao. This deficiency prevented the publication from serving its essential notice function to the public, thereby depriving the court of jurisdiction.
Second, the petitioner’s evidence was insufficient to justify a change of name. The Court emphasized that a change of name is a privilege, not a right, granted only for weighty reasons due to the state’s interest in the stability of personal identification. Gil Go’s claim of using the name Henry Yao was supported solely by his own uncorroborated testimony, without any documentary evidence or witness collaboration. He failed to substantiate his allegations regarding his father’s name change or the purported business convenience. His testimony even contradicted his verified petition regarding his christened name. Consequently, the petitioner did not meet the stringent evidentiary standard required for such a judicial concession. The order was reversed, with costs against the petitioner-appellee.