GR 31065; (February, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 31065 February 15, 1990
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. PIO R. MARCOS, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Baguio and Benguet and PANG CHA QUEN representing the minor, MAY SIA alias MANMAN HUANG, respondents.
FACTS
Pang Cha Quen, a Chinese citizen, filed a petition to change the name of her minor daughter, May Sia alias Manman Huang, to Mary Pang De la Cruz. The child was born from Pang Cha Quen’s previous marriage to a Chinese citizen. The child was also known and registered under the name Mary Pang. Pang Cha Quen later married Filipino citizen Alfredo De la Cruz, and the petition sought to add “De la Cruz” to the child’s name out of affection for her stepfather, with his consent. The petition alleged no fraudulent intent or prejudice to any party. After publication and a hearing where no opposition was presented, the trial court granted the petition.
The Republic, through the Solicitor General, appealed, contesting the trial court’s jurisdiction and the sufficiency of the grounds for the name change. The government argued that the published court order and petition caption fatally omitted the child’s other alias, “Mary Pang,” listing only “May Sia alias Manman Huang.” It further contended that the reasons for the change were trivial and that the petition was improperly filed by the mother, not the minor child herself.
ISSUE
The primary issues were whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction despite the omission of an alias in the publication caption, and whether the petition stated proper and reasonable cause for a change of name.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the trial court’s order. On jurisdiction, the Court held that the omission of the alias “Mary Pang” from the caption of both the petition and the published order was a fatal defect. Jurisprudence requires all aliases to be included in the title for publication to be valid, as the ordinary reader typically only scans the caption. The purpose of publication is to notify all interested parties, and omitting a known alias defeats this purpose, depriving the court of jurisdiction over that identity.
On the merits, the Court found no proper cause for the name change. A change of name is a privilege, not a right, and requires weighty reasons such as a ridiculous name, legal consequences like legitimation, or avoidance of confusion. The desire to use a stepfather’s surname is not a valid ground, as it could confuse the child’s paternity, given that Philippine law does not allow legitimate children to adopt the surname of a man not their father. Furthermore, the petition was filed by the wrong party. Under Rule 103, the petition must be filed by the person desiring the change, even if represented. The minor child, upon reaching majority, must make this personal decision herself, as she may not wish to carry the chosen surname later in life. The action was deemed premature.