G.R. No. 88202 December 14, 1998
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and CYNTHIA VICENCIO, respondents.

FACTS

Cynthia Vicencio was born to spouses Pablo Vicencio and Fe Leabres. After a marital spat in 1972, Pablo abandoned the family and never returned or provided support. Fe was subsequently aided by Ernesto Yu, whom she later married. Cynthia grew up knowing Ernesto Yu as her father, as he supported and treated her as his own daughter. However, she used the surname “Vicencio” in her school records, which caused her confusion and embarrassment among peers and neighbors, as she was socially known as Cynthia Yu, including in beauty pageants. Her mother had previously obtained a decree of dissolution of conjugal partnership and a declaration of Pablo as an absentee.
Cynthia filed a petition to change her surname from “Vicencio” to “Yu.” The Regional Trial Court granted the petition, finding it for her best interest to avoid embarrassment and align her legal surname with her social identity. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The Republic, through the OSG, opposed, arguing no proper cause existed and that the change could create legal confusion regarding paternity and potential inheritance claims from Ernesto Yu, who was not her biological father.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s decision allowing the change of private respondent’s surname from “Vicencio” to “Yu.”

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and denied the petition for change of name. The Court acknowledged that while grounds for a name change include avoiding confusion or embarrassment, such a change must not create greater legal confusion or prejudice. The legal logic centered on the principle that a surname indicates lineage and paternity. Changing Cynthia’s surname to that of her stepfather, Ernesto Yu, would misrepresent her filiation, as he is not her biological or adoptive father. This could lead to public misconception about her legitimate status as a child born during her mother’s prior marriage and create potential legal complications regarding inheritance rights.
The Court cited precedents, such as Republic v. Hernandez and Padilla v. Republic, which held that allowing a child to adopt the surname of a stepfather could confuse paternity and cast doubt on the child’s legitimate status. The sincere desire to bear the stepfather’s surname for social harmony, while understandable, is insufficient to overcome the legal barrier that a surname is a symbol of legal affiliation. The change would not serve the best interest of the child, as it might provoke deeper inquiries into her parentage. The Court emphasized that the remedy of adoption was available but not resorted to, and a change of name cannot substitute for the legal establishment of a father-daughter relationship.