GR L 55538; (March, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-55538 March 15, 1982
In the Matter of the Change of Names of DIONESIO DIVINAGRACIA, JR., and BOMBI ROBERTO DIVINAGRACIA to DIONESIO NALDOZA and BOMBI ROBERTO NALDOZA, respectively. ZOSIMA NALDOZA, as natural guardian and guardian ad litem of said minors, petitioner-appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and JUDGE FERNANDO S. RUIZ of the Court of First Instance of Bohol, Branch IV, respondents-appellees.
FACTS
Zosima Naldoza, married to Dionesio Divinagracia, is the mother of two legitimate minor children, Dionesio Jr. and Bombi Roberto. Their father abandoned the family after Zosima confronted him about a prior marriage and is facing criminal estafa charges. The children were allegedly teased by classmates about their father’s criminal activities. Seeking to sever this connection, Zosima filed a petition to change her children’s surname from Divinagracia to Naldoza, her maiden surname. The trial court dismissed the petition, finding the grounds insufficient.
ISSUE
Whether the minors should be allowed to discontinue using their father’s surname and use only their mother’s surname.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial. The legal logic centers on the primacy of a legitimate child’s right and obligation to bear the father’s surname under Article 364 of the Civil Code, and the stringent requirements for a change of name under Rule 103. The Court distinguished this case from precedents like Oshita and Alfon, where the petitioners were of age and the changes avoided confusion or were based on compelling reasons like national sentiment. Here, the petitioners are minors, and the change is sought not by them but by their mother. The reasons—the father’s abandonment and criminality—while unfortunate, are not substantial enough to override the legal presumption of legitimacy and the importance of paternal lineage. Allowing the change would create confusion regarding the children’s legitimate status, as carrying only the maternal surname could falsely suggest illegitimacy. The Court emphasized that such a significant decision, which removes prima facie evidence of paternity, should ideally be made by the children themselves upon reaching maturity, when they can fully appreciate the circumstances and decide for their own welfare. The mother’s desire alone is an insufficient basis.