GR 27298; (March, 1976) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-27298 March 4, 1976
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME MARIO PABELLAR, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
Mario Pabellar filed a petition to change his surname to Carandang. He was baptized as Mario Pabellar, the illegitimate child of Teofila Pabellar with an unknown father. However, he testified that his biological father is Esteban Carandang, with whom his mother lived in a common-law relationship. The petitioner presented evidence that he had consistently used the name Mario Carandang since childhood in his school records, employment documents, GSIS policy, and the birth certificates of his children.
The City Fiscal opposed the petition, arguing that the change was not justified and that, as an illegitimate child, he had no right to use his father’s surname. The Court of First Instance of Quezon granted the petition. The Republic appealed, contending a lack of reasonable justification and non-compliance with jurisdictional requirements for publication.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court correctly granted the petition for change of name.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision. The petition was devoid of factual and legal justification. Factually, the petitioner failed to prove his official name in the civil register. He only presented a baptismal certificate, a private document with limited probative value, and no certified copy of his birth record. Legally, the change was unnecessary. Under Commonwealth Act No. 142 , a person is allowed to use a name by which they have been known since childhood. The petitioner had already publicly used “Carandang” for over three decades in official records without objection, rendering a judicial change superfluous.
Furthermore, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction due to defective publication. The title of the petition did not include the petitioner’s alias (Mario Carandang) or the name sought to be adopted. The published court order also failed to state the cause for the change of name. For a change of name proceeding, which is in rem, strict compliance with these publication requirements is mandatory to vest the court with jurisdiction. The deficiencies in the petition’s title and the published order were fatal, warranting the dismissal of the petition.