GR L 28274; (April, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-28274. April 30, 1982.
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME. DOLORES GEMORA PADILLA, in representation of her minor children MICHAEL, ABIGAIL, RAFAEL, GABRIEL and ANNABELLE, all surnamed COPUACO, except the last whose surname is CO, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
FACTS
Dolores Gemora Padilla filed a petition before the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, seeking to change the surnames of her five minor children from “Copuaco” or “Co” to “Padilla.” The children were the legitimate offspring of her first marriage to Vincent Co, a Chinese national. Vincent Co abandoned the family in November 1960 and was subsequently declared an absentee by the court in 1964. In 1965, Dolores contracted a second marriage to Sgt. Edward Padilla, an American serviceman.
The children had been living with and were generously supported by their stepfather, Edward Padilla, who treated them with affection. Alleging that this harmonious family relationship justified the change, Dolores Gemora Padilla petitioned for the alteration of the minors’ surnames to that of her current husband. The lower court granted the petition, prompting the Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, to appeal the decision.
ISSUE
Whether the legitimate minor children of a first marriage can legally be allowed to change their surname to that of their mother’s second husband.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and dismissed the petition. The Court held that Philippine laws do not authorize legitimate children to adopt the surname of a person who is not their biological father. Article 364 of the Civil Code explicitly mandates that legitimate children shall principally use the surname of their father. Allowing the minors to use “Padilla” would create confusion as to their true paternity and could cast unwarranted suspicion on their legitimate status, as they were born during the coverture of their mother’s first marriage.
The Court cited the precedent of Moore vs. Republic, which involved similar facts, and reiterated that such a change could prejudice the children in the community by obscuring their legitimate filiation. The Court emphasized that the well-intentioned desire for family unity and the stepfather’s support, while commendable, could not override this clear legal principle designed to protect the identity and status of legitimate children. Furthermore, the Court deemed the petition premature, stating that the matter of changing one’s surname is a personal decision better left to the children themselves upon reaching the age of majority, at which time they could take appropriate legal action if they so desired.