G.R. No. L-31563 November 29, 1971
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. SANTIAGO O. TAÑADA, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu and LUA ONG representing the minor BABY ONG, alias LUA AN JOK, respondents.

FACTS

Lua Ong filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Cebu, presided by Judge Santiago O. Tañada, to change his minor son’s name from Baby Ong to Lua An Jok. The court issued an order setting the petition for hearing and directing its publication in a newspaper of general circulation. At the hearing, no opposition was presented, not even from the provincial fiscal representing the Solicitor General. Consequently, the respondent judge granted the petition, authorizing the minor to use the name An Joc Lua and ordering the civil registrar to make the corresponding entry.
Subsequently, the Republic, through the Solicitor General, filed a petition for review on certiorari. The petitioner raised two primary issues: first, that the court lacked jurisdiction due to defective publication of the hearing order and a defective petition caption; and second, that there was an absence of proper and compelling reason to justify the change of name. The petitioner specifically contended that the published order and the petition’s title failed to include the new name sought, Lua An Jok.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the petition despite the alleged defective publication and petition caption, and (2) whether there existed a proper and compelling reason to grant the change of name.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Republic, setting aside the lower court’s order and dismissing the petition. On the jurisdictional issue, the Court held that an action for change of name is a proceeding in rem. Jurisdiction is acquired only after valid publication of the order, which must contain the correct information, including the new name sought. The title of the petition and the caption of the published order must include not only the applicant’s present name but also the new name desired.
In this case, the captions only read “IN THE MATTER OF THE CHANGE OF NAME OF BABY ONG” and “CHANGE OF NAME OF BABY ONG.” They omitted “Lua An Jok,” the name to be adopted. This omission was fatal. Even if Lua An Jok was argued to be the applicant’s true name and not an alias, its exclusion from the caption defeated the purpose of publication. Persons who knew the child as Lua An Jok would not recognize the proceeding as concerning him, thus depriving them of the opportunity to oppose. Therefore, the publication was incomplete and invalid, and the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction.
Regarding the substantive merit, the Court found a potential compelling reason for the change. The record suggested that the entry “Baby Ong” was a mistake by the midwife, who erroneously used “Ong” as a surname. The child had allegedly been known since birth as Lua An Jok. The change could be motivated by an honest desire to correct the record. However, due to the fatal jurisdictional defect, the Court could not affirm the grant. The dismissal was without prejudice to filing a new petition that complies with all jurisdictional requirements.