GR L 35605; (October, 1984) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-35605 October 11, 1984
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF BRANCH III OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CEBU and ANDREW BARRETTO, respondents.
FACTS
Respondent Andrew Barretto, then a minor, filed a petition with the Court of First Instance of Cebu to change his surname from “Barretto” to “Velez,” the surname of his stepfather with whom he was living. The Republic opposed the petition, arguing the ground was insufficient and that the court lacked jurisdiction due to procedural defects. Specifically, the Republic contended that the petition’s title and the published court order failed to state the new name sought, “Velez,” and that the publication was therefore defective.
The trial court denied the Republic’s motion to dismiss and subsequently granted the petition for change of name. The Republic elevated the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari. Respondent Barretto, in his answer, admitted the facts and legal arguments set forth by the Solicitor General and manifested his inability to resist the petition in light of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Republic vs. Reyes.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the petition for change of name despite the alleged procedural defects in its title and publication.
RULING
No, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction. The Supreme Court set aside the trial court’s decision, declaring it null and void. The legal logic is anchored on strict compliance with jurisdictional requirements under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court. For a court to acquire jurisdiction in a change of name proceeding, the petition and the order for its publication must contain in their title or caption the applicant’s real name, any aliases, and the new name sought to be adopted. This requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional.
In this case, both the caption of the petition and the published court order failed to include the proposed new name “Velez.” Consequently, the publication was defective and ineffective for the purpose of notifying the public and any possible interested parties. Following established jurisprudence, such a failure to comply with the formal requirements deprives the court of jurisdiction to hear and decide the petition. Since jurisdiction was never validly acquired, the trial court’s decision is void. The Court found it unnecessary to delve deeply into the sufficiency of the grounds for the name change, as the jurisdictional defect was dispositive.