GR 31065; (February, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 31065 February 15, 1990
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. PIO R. MARCOS, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Baguio and Benguet and PANG CHA QUEN representing the minor, MAY SIA alias MANMAN HUANG, respondents.
FACTS
Pang Cha Quen, a Chinese citizen, filed a petition to change the name of her minor daughter, May Sia alias Manman Huang, to Mary Pang De la Cruz. The child was born from Pang Cha Quen’s previous marriage to a Chinese citizen but was registered under the name Mary Pang. Pang Cha Quen later married Filipino citizen Alfredo De la Cruz, and the petition alleged the child’s desire to adopt her stepfather’s surname out of affection. The petition was published and heard without opposition. The trial court granted the petition. The Republic, through the Solicitor General, appealed, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction due to a defective publication and that no proper cause for the name change was established.
ISSUE
The primary issues were whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the petition despite the alleged defect in publication, and whether a proper and reasonable cause existed to justify the change of the minor’s name.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the trial court’s order. On the jurisdictional issue, the Court held that the publication was fatally defective. The caption of both the petition and the published court order omitted one of the minor’s aliases, “Mary Pang,” listing only “May Sia alias Manman Huang.” Citing precedents like Jesus Ng Yao Siong vs. Republic, the Court ruled that for publication to be valid and confer jurisdiction, the title must include all names and aliases the applicant wishes to change. The purpose is to alert any interested party who might recognize the individual by any of those names. The omission of “Mary Pang” from the caption defeated this purpose, depriving the court of jurisdiction.
On the substantive issue, the Court found no proper cause for the name change. A change of name is a privilege, not a right, and requires weighty reasons such as a ridiculous name, legal consequences like legitimation, or avoidance of confusion. The desire to use a stepfather’s surname, based on affection, is not a valid ground. The Court emphasized that legitimate children cannot adopt the surname of a person not their father, as this would confuse paternity. Furthermore, the petition was filed by the mother, not by the minor herself upon reaching majority. The decision to change one’s name is deeply personal; the minor, upon adulthood, may not wish to carry the surname chosen for her. Therefore, the petition was premature and unsupported by compelling reasons. The State’s interest in maintaining names for clear identification outweighs such a request.