G.R. No. L-21180, March 31, 1967
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHANGE OF NAME OF ANTONINA B. OSHITA. ANTONINA B. OSHITA, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

On February 15, 1962, Antonina B. Oshita filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Davao to change her name from “Antonina B. Oshita” to “Antonina Bartolome.” The petition was signed and sworn to by her before the Deputy Clerk of Court, but it was not formally verified as required by Section 6, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court. The Assistant City Attorney, representing the Solicitor General, moved to dismiss the petition on two grounds: (1) lack of jurisdiction due to the absence of proper verification, and (2) failure to state a cause of action. The lower court denied the motion and proceeded to hear the case.
The evidence established that Antonina B. Oshita is the legitimate daughter of Kishimatsu Oshita (a deceased Japanese citizen) and Buena Bartolome (a Filipino). She was born on May 9, 1940, in Davao City, where she has always resided. Upon reaching majority, she elected Philippine citizenship and took her oath of allegiance. She sought to change her surname from “Oshita” to “Bartolome” because she felt embarrassed by her Japanese surname, her older siblings who also elected Philippine citizenship were using “Bartolome,” and she had no criminal record or pending tax liabilities. The opposition presented no evidence, only reiterating the motion to dismiss. The lower court granted the petition, prompting the Solicitor General’s appeal.

ISSUE

1. Whether the lower court had jurisdiction over the petition despite the lack of formal verification.
2. Whether sufficient reasons existed to justify the change of surname.

RULING

1. On Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court held that the requirement for verification under Rule 103, Section 2 of the Rules of Court is not jurisdictional but merely formal. Verification aims to ensure the truthfulness and good faith of allegations. Non-compliance does not render a pleading fatally defective; courts may order correction or waive the requirement to serve justice. Citing precedents (Philippine Bank of Commerce vs. Macadaeg, Tavera vs. El Hogar Filipino, Inc., and land registration cases), the Court ruled that the lower court did not err in denying the motion to dismiss, though it should have required verification before hearing. Jurisdiction was not impaired by the absence of verification.
2. On Sufficient Reason: The Court found sufficient grounds for the change of name. While Article 364 of the Civil Code states that legitimate children principally use the father’s surname, Article 264 allows them to bear the mother’s surname. Here, the petitioner, having elected Philippine citizenship, desired a Filipino surname to avoid embarrassment due to lingering anti-Japanese sentiments from World War II. Her siblings used “Bartolome,” and no fraudulent intent or prejudice to public interest was shown. Citing Uy vs. Republic, the Court emphasized that granting a change of name is within the trial court’s sound discretion, and a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase alien nationality is a proper and reasonable cause.
The decision of the lower court was affirmed, without costs.