GR L 19141; (October, 1964) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-19141; October 31, 1964
JUAN MALICDEM and SATURNINA AQUINO, petitioners-appellees, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
The spouses Juan Malicdem and Saturnina Aquino filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan to change the name of the minor Henry Tomelden to Henry Malicdem. They alleged that Henry is their legitimate son. However, due to a local superstitious belief intended to break a perceived chain of child mortality in their family, they had Henry registered at birth as the son of Lope Tomelden and Eugenia Aquino, Saturnina’s sister. The minor has always lived with the petitioners, knows they are his real parents, and now wishes to use his true surname.
At the hearing, the petitioners, the minor, and Eugenia Aquino all testified consistently with the petition’s allegations. The lower court found their testimony credible. Consequently, it granted the petition, ordering the change of name from Henry Tomelden to Henry Malicdem upon finding that Henry is indeed the legitimate child of the petitioners.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in granting the petition for change of name based on testimonial evidence that contradicted the official entry in the civil register.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Solicitor General argued that testimonial evidence could not override the official civil registry entry showing Henry as the child of the Tomeldens. The Court rejected this, clarifying that while entries in the civil register are prima facie evidence of the facts stated (Article 410, Civil Code), they are not conclusive. The law expressly allows for the correction or cancellation of such entries by judicial order in proper cases (Article 412, Civil Code).
In this instance, the trial court, after evaluating the evidence, made a factual finding that the minor is the legitimate child of the petitioners Malicdem, notwithstanding the contrary registry entry. This finding of fact is binding on the Supreme Court in this direct appeal. The Court also addressed the argument that the proceeding was unnecessary because a legitimate child has the right to his father’s surname. Citing Asensi v. Republic, it held that while such a petition might be superfluous, there is no legal prohibition against it, as it merely confirms a legal right and is not contrary to law, customs, or morals. Therefore, the appealed decision was affirmed.