G.R. No. L-28549. September 23, 1976.
In the Matter of the Change of Name of Milagros Llerena Telmo. MILAGROS LLERENA TELMO, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Petitioner Milagros Llerena Telmo, a lawyer and former justice of the peace, sought to change the spelling of her husband’s surname from “Telmo” to “Thelmo.” She married Pedro M. Telmo in 1930/1931, and their four adult sons had long used “Thelmo” since kindergarten. Her husband, while in the United States, adopted the spelling “Thelmo,” as reflected in his university diploma. The petitioner alleged she used “Thelmo” in various documents, including professional incorporations and communications, and desired to legalize this usage. She also stated the change would distinguish her sons from other “Telmos” who were illegitimate children of her husband’s relatives. Her husband did not join the petition but submitted an affidavit of no objection, and two sons expressed conformity. The City Fiscal opposed, arguing the real parties in interest were the husband and sons.
The trial court granted the petition. On appeal, the Solicitor General argued the reasons were insufficient, the change concerned the sons more than the petitioner, and allowing only the wife to change the spelling while the husband and sons could still legally use “Telmo” would cause confusion. The Solicitor General also suggested the petitioner’s motive might stem from administrative cases filed against her under the name “Telmo.”

ISSUE

Whether the trial court validly acquired jurisdiction over the petition and whether there exists sufficient legal justification to grant the petitioner’s request to change the spelling of her husband’s surname from “Telmo” to “Thelmo.”

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order and dismissed the petition. The ruling was grounded on jurisdictional and substantive deficiencies. First, the Court held the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction because the petition’s title and the published order for hearing were defective. The title failed to indicate the name sought to be adopted (“Thelmo”). As a change of name is a proceeding in rem, jurisdiction is acquired only after proper publication of an order containing specific data, including the new name in the title. This defect rendered the publication invalid, following precedents like Pabellar vs. Republic.
On the merits, the Court found no substantial justification for the change. A married woman may use her husband’s surname under Article 370 of the Civil Code, but if she seeks to alter its spelling, the husband should properly initiate the proceeding. Here, the anomaly was that the husband did not petition for the change. While he gave an affidavit of conformity, this did not prevent him or their children from continuing to use “Telmo,” potentially creating confusion. The petitioner’s reasons—long-standing usage and a desire to distinguish her sons from relatives—were deemed neither cogent nor substantial enough to warrant judicial approval. The Court emphasized that mere length of use, without more, is insufficient, and the stated concern pertained more to her adult sons than to herself. Thus, the petition failed both procedurally and substantively.