G.R. No. L-16384; April 26, 1962
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO CHANGE THE NAME OF GO CHANG TO JAYME S. TAN, JAYME S. TAN, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Go Chang, a Chinese citizen born in the Philippines, filed a petition to change his name to Jayme S. Tan. He alleged he was registered as Go Chang but had been enrolled in school from Grade I through college under the name Jayme S. Tan, with “Tan” being his uncle’s surname and “S” representing his mother’s surname, Lim Sy. He claimed the change was necessary to correct an error and avoid confusion, particularly because the Board of Medical Examiners allegedly refused to issue him a medical student number due to the discrepancy between his school records and his alien certificate of registration, unless he secured a court order authorizing the use of “Jayme S. Tan.”
The Provincial Fiscal, representing the State, did not file a written opposition but cross-examined the petitioner at the hearing. The trial court granted the petition, finding the petitioner’s purpose to be in good faith and justified under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court. The State appealed, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction due to a defective publication and that no proper reason for the change was established.

ISSUE

The primary issues were: (1) whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the petition despite a discrepancy in the spelling of the petitioner’s name between the petition and the published order; and (2) whether the petitioner presented proper and reasonable grounds to warrant a change of name.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and denied the petition. On jurisdiction, the Court ruled that petitions for change of name are proceedings in rem, requiring strict compliance with publication requirements to vest the court with jurisdiction. A substantial defect existed because the verified petition spelled the desired name as “Jayme S. Tan,” while the published order and the publisher’s affidavit used “Jaime S. Tan.” This discrepancy in spelling misidentified the party and misled the public, making it virtually impossible for interested parties to oppose the petition effectively. Thus, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction.
On the merits, the Court found no reasonable grounds for the change. The petitioner’s claim of consistent use of “Jayme S. Tan” in school was contradicted by his baptismal certificate showing “Jaime Descals Go Chang” and a college enrollment certificate for a “Jaime S. Tan.” His allegation that the Board of Medical Examiners required the change was uncorroborated. The Court held that a person’s real and official name is that in the Civil Register, not a name adopted through use. Changing the official record to match an unofficially used name would create, not avoid, confusion. Furthermore, as an alien, he was ineligible to take Philippine medical board examinations, negating his stated practical purpose. The Court also noted that using “Jayme S. Tan” without authority violated the Anti-Alias Law, and granting the petition would sanction this illegal act.