GR 148311; (March, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 148311. March 31, 2005.
Honorato B. Catindig, petitioner.
FACTS
Petitioner Honorato B. Catindig filed a petition to adopt his minor illegitimate child, Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia. Stephanie had been using her mother’s surname, Garcia, as her own surname and Astorga as her middle name. The trial court granted the adoption, ordering that Stephanie shall henceforth be known as “Stephanie Nathy Catindig,” thereby dropping her original middle name. Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, praying that Stephanie be allowed to retain “Garcia,” her natural mother’s surname, as her middle name. The trial court denied the motion, holding no law or jurisprudence permits an adopted child to use the biological mother’s surname as a middle name.
ISSUE
May an illegitimate child, upon being adopted by her natural father, use the surname of her natural mother as her middle name?
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court granted the petition, allowing Stephanie to use “Garcia” as her middle name. The legal logic proceeds from the principle that adoption is primarily for the welfare and best interest of the child. While Article 365 of the Civil Code mandates that an adopted child shall bear the surname of the adopter, there is no statutory prohibition against an adopted child having or retaining a middle name. A middle name is not synonymous with a surname; it is part of the given name. Customarily, a Filipino’s middle name is the maternal surname, a practice recognized under the Civil Code and Family Code provisions on the use of surnames. Permitting the use of the biological mother’s surname as a middle name serves practical purposes: it preserves a record of the child’s natural filiation, which remains relevant for successional rights as the child is still an intestate heir of the natural mother under Article 189 of the Family Code. This avoids future confusion and upholds the child’s best interests by mitigating any stigma of illegitimacy and maintaining a link to her maternal lineage, without contravening the law on the use of the adopter’s surname. The Court emphasized that the right to a name, including a middle name, is a personal right that should not be unduly restricted when no law expressly forbids its exercise in this context.