GR L 15549; (June, 1962) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-15549; June 30, 1962
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ONG TE TO CHANGE HIS NAME. ONG TE, petitioner-appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellee.
FACTS
Petitioner-appellant Ong Te, a Chinese citizen and a resident of Cagayan, filed a petition to change his name to “Antonio Ong Ang.” He alleged he was a bona fide resident, held an Alien Certificate of Registration, had no criminal record, and did not intend to evade any obligation. During the hearing, Ong Te testified that his primary reasons for seeking the change were the existence of several other persons bearing the name “Ong Te” and his long-standing use of the name “Antonio.”
The Court of First Instance of Cagayan denied the petition. The lower court reasoned that the desired change was invalid because Ong Te was not baptized with the name “Antonio.” The petitioner appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the lower court correctly dismissed Ong Te’s petition for a change of name.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, albeit on different grounds from the lower court. The Court first rejected the trial court’s baptismal reasoning, stating that baptism is not a prerequisite for a name change, as such a standard would effectively bar most applications. However, the Court independently found that Ong Te failed to establish a “proper and reasonable cause” for the change as required by Section 5, Rule 103 of the Rules of Court.
The Court held that the alleged duplication of names was insufficiently proven to cause prejudice to the petitioner, as his testimony was uncorroborated. Furthermore, the mere fact of being known by a different name (“Antonio”) does not, by itself, constitute proper and reasonable cause, as established in prior jurisprudence (Ong Peng Oan vs. Republic). The Court also noted that the proposed new name, “Antonio Ong Ang,” would likely create more confusion than his current simple name, “Ong Te.” Consequently, the petition was correctly denied for lack of a compelling legal basis. The decision was affirmed with costs against the petitioner.