GR 28051; (July, 1970) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-28051 July 28, 1970
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHANGE OF NAME OF MA CHIK KIN A MINOR, MA ING CHAO, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
Petitioner Ma Ing Chao filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City to change the name of his adopted minor son from Ma Chik Tong to Ma Chik Kin. The grounds were: (1) the September 11, 1953 adoption order directed the child’s surname to be “Ma,” making his full name Ma Chik Tong; (2) however, the child’s Alien Certificate of Registration (ACR) issued on September 25, 1953, was in the name Ma Chik Kin; (3) since beginning school in 1955, the child had been using and was known by the name Ma Chik Kin; and (4) the petitioner wanted his son to continue using Ma Chik Kin as it appeared on his ACR and was the name he was commonly known by. After publication and hearing, the lower court granted the petition despite opposition from the Solicitor General.
ISSUE
Whether the lower court validly acquired jurisdiction to grant the petition for change of name.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s order and denied the petition. The ruling was based on two grounds:
1. Lack of Jurisdiction due to Defective Publication: The title of the case, the court’s order for publication, and the published notice all referred to the change of name of “Ma Chik Kin.” However, according to the petitioner’s own allegations, the child’s true name—the name to be changed—was either Chik Tong, Ma Tong, or Ma Chik Tong (per the adoption order). Citing precedents (Ng Yao Siong v. Republic and Tan v. Republic), the Court held that the failure to set forth the true name to be changed in the title of the case and the published notice is a fundamental non-compliance with statutory publication requirements. This defect is fatal and prevents the court from acquiring jurisdiction over the proceedings.
2. Failure to Prove Allegations: The allegations in the petition were not duly established. The only witness, Vicente Osorio, was not competent to prove that Ma Chik Kin was the same person as the adopted child Chik Tong. He admitted he did not prepare the registration, did not know the person, and was not sure the ACR (Exhibit B) was based on the adoption papers. Neither the petitioner nor the child testified. Therefore, the identity of the person whose name was to be changed was not proven.