GR L 29850; (June, 1972) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-29850 June 30, 1972
Republic of the Philippines, petitioner, vs. Hon. Manuel T. Reyes, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Laguna and San Pablo City, and Hermogenes Diangkinay, respondents.
FACTS
Hermogenes Diangkinay filed a verified petition to change his name to Rolando Diangkinay. He alleged that since childhood, he had consistently used and been known as Rolando Diangkinay in all his educational, professional, and personal records, including his marriage certificate, despite his registered birth name being Hermogenes. The City Fiscal opposed the petition, arguing the registered name should stand and other records should be corrected to conform to it. The trial court granted the petition based on the evidence presented.
The Republic appealed, contending the trial court acted without jurisdiction. The core argument was that the petition’s title, “In the matter of Change of Name of Hermogenes Diangkinay,” failed to include the name sought to be adopted, “Rolando Diangkinay.” The Republic cited jurisprudence that such omission in the title constitutes non-compliance with the strict publication requirements for a proceeding in rem, thus depriving the court of jurisdiction.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the petition for change of name despite the failure to include the name sought to be adopted in the title of the petition and the published notices.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s orders. It held that the lower court did not acquire jurisdiction. A petition for change of name is a proceeding in rem. Jurisdiction is acquired through strict compliance with publication requirements, which serve as notice to the whole world. The Court reiterated established doctrine that the title of the petition must include: (1) the petitioner’s real name, (2) all aliases or other names used, and (3) the name sought to be adopted.
The failure to include “Rolando Diangkinay” in the petition’s title, and consequently in the published notices, was a fatal jurisdictional defect. This requirement is substantive, not merely formal, as it ensures proper notice to any party who might object, such as individuals who already bear the desired name or authorities tracking persons under different names. The Court clarified that while “Rolando” was not an alias under the Anti-Alias Law, it was the name sought to be adopted and thus mandatorily required in the caption. The case was dismissed without prejudice to refiling a corrected petition.