G.R. No. 273935, August 18, 2025
DENISE ELLISON M. VIÑA, PETITIONER, vs. STEPHANIE OTEYZA TY, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

This case originated from a Petition for Adoption with Application for Change of Name filed by respondent Stephanie Oteyza Ty before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City to adopt her son, Brandon Tyler Ty Viña. Brandon was born on January 19, 2013. Stephanie is his biological mother, and petitioner Denise Ellison M. Viña is his biological father. After Brandon’s birth, Stephanie and Denise married on March 17, 2013, but their marriage was later declared null and void due to the lack of authority of the solemnizing officer, rendering Brandon a nonmarital child with sole parental authority granted to Stephanie. Stephanie initiated the adoption petition, and Denise signed an Affidavit of Consent. However, Denise later filed an Opposition and a Repudiation and Withdrawal of the Affidavit, claiming he was misled into signing it for “legitimization” and not adoption, and that he had been providing financial support. The RTC denied the petition for adoption due to lack of consent from the biological father. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the denial of adoption but granted the prayer to change Brandon’s name from “Brandon Tyler Ty Viña” to “Brandon Tyler Ty,” citing Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended, which states nonmarital children shall use the surname of their mother. Denise filed this Petition for Review, arguing the CA erred in granting the change of name as it was an incidental relief to the denied adoption and should be the subject of a separate proceeding.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting respondent Stephanie Oteyza Ty’s prayer to change the name of her minor child from Brandon Tyler Ty Viña to Brandon Tyler Ty.

RULING

The Petition is meritorious. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ ruling on the change of name. The application for change of name was an incidental relief sought in the petition for adoption. Under the law, the change of surname is a natural and necessary consequence of a granted adoption. Conversely, the denial of the petition for adoption forecloses the need to act upon the incidental application for change of name, as it was contingent upon the main action. Therefore, the CA erred in granting the change of name after affirming the denial of adoption. The proper remedy for a change of name is to file a separate petition under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, which requires strict compliance with jurisdictional requirements and proof of proper and compelling reasons. The Court further clarified that, under Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 9255, nonmarital children are entitled to use the surname of their father if the father has recognized their filiation in an authentic manner, such as through the record of birth appearing in the civil register or an admission in a public document or private handwritten instrument. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine if the father, Denise, had recognized Brandon in such a manner, which would entitle Brandon to use the surname “Viña.”