.

495, 20, 2006 729

Re blic . B la e
*
G.R. No. 160597. Jul 20, 2006.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, .

ROSELIE ELOISA BRINGAS BOLANTE a.k.a. MARIA
ELOISA BRINGAS BOLANTE, respondent.

C a Na ; S 2 a 3, R 103 R
C a a a
a a a ;N a
aa a a
a a a . Sections

* ECOND DI I ION.

730

730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic s. Bolante

2 and 3, R le 103 of the R les of Co rt prescribe the proced ral

and j risdictional req irements for a change of name. As e
artic lated in R .H .J B a III CFI
C , 132 SCRA 462 (1984), citing pertinent j rispr dence,
noncompliance ith these req irements o ld be fatal to the
j risdiction of the lo er co rt to hear and determine a petition for
change of name.

Sa ; T a a a a
a a a , a
a a a ,
. It is the Rep blic s post re that the fact
that the hearing took place on September 25, 2001, be ond the
fo r-month prohibited period, did not c re the j risdictional
defect since notice of the September 25, 2001 setting ent
np blished. Pressing on, the Rep blic o ld state and
correctl so that the nat re of a change of name
proceeding necessitates strict compliance ith all j risdictional
req irements, partic larl on p blication, in order to est the
co rt ith j risdiction thereo er.

Sa ; I a a
a
a a a a
a a . The Co rt, to be s re, is f ll
a are that the req ired p blication ser es as notice to the hole
orld that the proceeding in q estion has for its object to bar
indifferentl all ho might be minded to make an objection of an
and against the right so ght to be established. It is the
p blication of s ch notice that brings in the hole orld as a
part in the case and ests the co rt ith j risdiction to hear and
decide it.

Sa ; R a Va P a . In the conte t of
Section 3, R le 103 of the R les, p blication is alid if the
follo ing req isites conc r: (1) the petition and the cop of the
order indicating the date and place for the hearing m st be
p blished; (2) the p blication m st be at least once a eek for
three s ccessi e eeks; and, (3) the p blication m st be in some
ne spaper of general circ lation p blished in the pro ince, as the
co rt shall deem best. Another alidating ingredient relates to the
ca eat against the petition being heard ithin 30 da s prior to an
election or ithin fo r (4) months after the last p blication of the
notice of the hearing.

Sa ; T Sa a a a
a a a a a
a a a a ;C a R J
G Wa a a C a Na . On the iss e as to
propriet of the desired change of name, e are

731

OL. 495, JUL 20, 2006 731

Republic s. Bolante

g ided b decisional la on the matter. As e ha e held, the

State has an interest in the names borne b indi id als for
p rposes of identification, and that changing one s name is a
pri ilege and not a right. Accordingl , a person can be a thori ed
to change his name appearing in either his certificate of birth or
ci il registr pon sho ing not onl of reasonable ca se, or an
compelling reason hich ma j stif s ch change, b t also that he
ill be prej diced b the se of his tr e and official name.
J rispr dence has recogni ed certain j stif ing gro nds to
arrant a change of name. Among these are: (a) hen the name is
ridic lo s, dishonorable or e tremel diffic lt to rite or
prono nce; (b) hen the change ill a oid conf sion; (c) hen one
has been contin o sl sed and been kno n since childhood b a
Filipino name, and as na are of alien parentage; (d) hen the
s rname ca ses embarrassment and there is no sho ing that the
desired change of name as for a fra d lent p rpose or that the
change of name ill prej dice p blic interest.

Sa ; T a a a
a a a a a a a a
a . The
matter of granting or den ing petitions for change of name and
the corollar iss e of hat is a proper and reasonable ca se
therefor rests on the so nd discretion of the co rt. The e idence
presented need onl be satisfactor to the co rt; it need not be the
best e idence a ailable. What is in ol ed in special proceedings
for change of name is, to borro from R . C
A a , a a a a a a
, a a a a
a a a ,
a a
a a a
.

PETITION for re ie on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
T S G for petitioner.
E B. for pri ate respondent.
732

732 C A A D
Re blic . B la e

GARCIA, J.:

In this petition for re ie under Rule 45 of the Rules of

Court, the Republic of1 the Philippines assails and seeks to
set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated
October 21, 2003 in CA-G.R. C N . 74398 affirming that
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bangued, Abra in
Special Proceeding Case No. 1916, a petition for change of
name thereat commenced b herein respondent Roselie
Eloisa Bringas Bolante also kno n as Maria Eloisa Bringas
Bolante.
In her petition before the RTC, respondent alleged,
among other things, the follo ing:

1. That she is a Filipino, of legal age, married, born to

spouses Floriano B. Bolante and Paula B. Bringas
and a resident since birth of Bangued, Abra;
2. That per records in the Office of the Municipal Ci il
Registrar, Bangued, Abra, her registered name is
Roselie Eloisa Bringas Bolante hich name, as
far as she can remember, she did not use but
instead the name Maria Eloisa Bringas Bolante;
3. That the name Maria Eloisa appears in all her
school as ell as in her other public and pri ate
records; and
4. That her married name is Maria Eloisa B. Bolante-
Marbella.

Thus, to pre ent confusion, Ms. Bolante pra ed that her

registered name be changed to conform to the name she
has al a s carried and used.
Finding the petition sufficient in form and substance,
the trial court ordered respondent, as petitioner thereat, to
compl ith the jurisdictional requirements of notice and
publication, and set the hearing on Februar 20, 2001.
At the scheduled Februar 20, 2001 initial hearing, the
trial court issued an Order gi ing respondent fi e (5) da s
ithin hich to file a ritten formal offer of e idence to
establish jurisdictional facts and

1 P A J R V. C
A J M C. C R A -
V ;R , . 37-42.

733

. 495, 20, 2006 733

Re blic . B la e

set the presentation of e idence proper on March 26, 2001.

In the afternoon of Februar 20, respondent filed her O
E M I P
P J F .
 On June 5, 2001, the branch clerk of court, acting upon
the trial court s e press March 26, 2001 directi e for a
resetting, issued a notice for a Jul 18, 2001 hearing.
Follo ing another resetting, hat actuall ould be the
initial hearing as, after notice, scheduled on September
25, 2001 and actuall held. At that session, respondent
presented and marked in e idence se eral documents
ithout an objection on the part of herein petitioner
Republic, represented b the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG), thru the dul deputi ed pro incial prosecutor of
Abra. Among the documents thus submitted and marked in
e idence ere the follo ing:

E . A T P
E . B T N I H
E . C T C P
E . D T A S G
E . E T A O P
P
E . F T A P
E . F- T N C
I
E . G T N C
E . A N C
H

Shortl after the trial court has declared its acquisition of

jurisdiction o er the case, respondent took the itness
stand to state that the purpose of her petition as to ha e
her registered name changed to that hich she had
actuall been using thru the ears. She also categoricall
stated she had not been accused of an crime under either
her registered name or her present correct name.
An e cerpt of other portions of her testimon , as recited
in the Republic s petition hich cited the decision of the
trial court:

At the itness stand the petitioner [herein respondent Bolante]

testified, among others, that she is no married to Jorge
Marbella, Jr. and pres

734

734 C A A D
Re blic . B la e
entl residing at Bliss Angad, Bang ed, Abra since 1995 b t
before she resided in Zone 4, Bang ed, Abra since birth. She
presented her birth certificate and as marked as E hibit J to
establish s ch fact of birth and to effect that the name Roselie
Eloisa B. Bolante entered therein is not her tr e and correct name
b t instead Maria Eloisa Bolante hich she had been sing
d ring her school da s, hile being a go ernment emplo ee, and
in all her p blic and pri ate records.
She presented her professional license iss ed b the
Professional Reg lation Commission, Certificate iss ed b the
Philippine Instit te of Certified P blic Acco ntant and a Q ick
Co nt doc ment all iss ed in her name Maria Eloisa B. Marbella,
hich doc ments ere marked as E hibit K and E hibit L and
E hibit M respecti el . She like ise marked her marriage
license as E hibit N to pro e her marriage .

On cross she stated that the p rpose of filing the petition is

that, she anted to sec re a passport and anted that the same
be iss ed in her correct name and that she o ld not ha e filed
the petition as ( ) it not for the passport.
On clarificator q estion b the Co rt she said that her reason
in filing the petition is her reali ation that there ill be a
2
complication pon her retirement. (Words in bracket added.)

On Januar 23, 2002, the trial court rendered judgment

granting the basic petition, disposing as follo s:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this petition is hereb

appro ed and is granted b this Co rt for being meritorio s.
The M nicipal Registrar of Bang ed, Abra, is hereb directed:

a) To change the name of the petitioner in her record of birth

from R E a B a B a Ma a E a
B a B a ; and,
b) To record this decision in the Ci il Registr in accordance
ith Registr Reg lations.

F rnish cop of this Order to the M nicipal Ci il Registrar of

Bang ed, Abra for recording and compliance.

2 R , . 18-19.

735

. 495, 20, 2006 735

Re blic . B la e

3
 3
SO ORDERED. (Italics added)

In time, the Republic, through the OSG, ent to the CA

hereat its appellate recourse as docketed as CA-G.R. C
N . 74398.
4
In the herein assailed Decision of October 21,
2003, the appellate court affirmed that of the trial
court.
Hence, the Republic s present petition on the follo ing
issues:

WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT S SUBSTANTIAL

COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 3, RULE 103 OF THE RULES OF
COURT IS SUFFICIENT TO VEST THE TRIAL COURT WITH
JURISDICTION TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE PETITION A
QUO.

II

WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT S BARE TESTIMONY,

UNSUPPORTED BY ANY OTHER EVIDENCE, IS SUFFICIENT
TO PROVE THAT THE CHANGE OF HER NAME IS NOT
RESORTED FOR ILLEGAL PURPOSES.

Sections 2 and 3, Rule 103 of the Rules of Court prescribe

the procedural and jurisdictional requirements for a change
of name. As e articulated in R 5
. H . J
B III 6 CFI C , citing pertinent
jurisprudence, noncompliance ith these requirements
ould be fatal to the jurisdiction of the lo er court to hear
and determine a petition for change of name. The
pro isions ad erted to are pertinentl quoted hereunder:

SEC. 2. C . A petition for change of name shall

be signed and erified b the person desiring his name changed,
or some other person on his behalf, and shall set forth:

3 L .1&2 CA D ;R , . 37-38.
4 See N #1, a.
5 217 P . 442; 132 SCRA 462 (1984).
6 I he Ma e f he Cha ge f Na e f He ge e Da g a.
Re b c . Re e , 150-A P . 962; 45 SCRA 570 (1972); Re b c .
Ta ada, 149 P . 506; 42 SCRA 419 (1971); Ng Ya S g . Re b c, L-
20306, M 31, 1966, 16 SCRA 483.

736

736 C A A D
 Re blic . B la e

(a) That the petitioner has been a a resident of the

pro ince here the petition is filed for at least three (3)
ears prior to the date of s ch filing;
(b) The ca se for hich the change of the petitioner s name is
so ght;
(c) The name asked for.

SEC. 3. O a . If the petition filed is s fficient in

form and s bstance, the co rt, b an order reciting the p rpose of
the petition, shall fi a date and place for the hearing thereof, and
shall direct that a cop of the order be p blished before the
hearing at least once a eek for three (3) s ccessi e eeks in
some ne spaper of general circ lation p blished in the pro ince, .
...T a a a ithin thirt (30) da s
prior to an election nor (4) a a
a . (Italics added.)

On the postulate that the initial hearing of a petition for a

change of name cannot be set ithin four (4) months from
the last publication of the notice of such hearing, petitioner
submits at the threshold that the trial court did not acquire
jurisdiction o er the case for ant or defecti e publication.
We are not persuaded.
As gleaned from the records, the basic petition for
change of name as filed on October 18, 2000 and set for
hearing on F 20, 2001 an Order issued on
No ember 13, 2000. The notice of hearing as published in
the No ember 23, and 30, 2000 and December 7, 2000
issues of the N C . Counted from the last
da , December 7, 2000, of publication of the Order, the
initial hearing scheduled on Februar 20, 2001 is indeed
ithin the four-month prohibited period prescribed under
Section 3, Rule 103 of the Rules. The Court, as did the CA,
must emphasi e, ho e er, that the trial court, e identl
upon reali ing the error committed respecting the 4-month
limitation, lost no time in rectif ing its mistake b
rescheduling, ith due notice to all concerned, the initial
hearing for se eral times, finall settling for S 25,
2001.
It is the Republic s posture that the fact that the hearing
took place on September 25, 2001, be ond the four-month
prohibited period, did

P 2 CA D ;R , . 38.
 737

. 495, 20, 2006 737

Re blic . B la e

not cure the jurisdictional defect since notice of the

September 25, 2001 setting ent unpublished. Pressing on,
the Republic ould state and correctl so that the
nature of a change of name proceeding necessitates
strict compliance ith all jurisdictional requirements,
particularl on publication, in order to est the court ith
jurisdiction thereo er.
The Court, to be sure, is full a are that the required
publication ser es as notice to the hole orld that the
proceeding in question has for its object to bar indifferentl
all ho might be minded to make an objection of an and
against the right sought to be established. It is the
publication of such notice that brings in the hole orld as
a part in the case and ests the court ith jurisdiction to
hear and decide it.
In the conte t of Section 3, Rule 103 of the Rules,
publication is alid if the follo ing requisites concur: (1)
the petition and the cop of the order indicating the date
and place for the hearing must be published; (2) the
publication must be at least once a eek for three
successi e eeks; and, (3) the publication must be in some
ne spaper of general circulation published in the pro ince,
as the court shall deem best. Another alidating ingredient
relates to the ca eat against the petition being heard
ithin 30 da s prior to an election or ithin four (4)
months after the last publication of the notice of the
hearing.
It cannot be o er-emphasi ed that in a petition for
change of name, an interested person ma appear at the
hearing and oppose the petition. Like ise, the Solicitor
General or 10 his deput shall appear on behalf of the
Go ernment. The go ernment, as an agenc of the people,
represents the public and, therefore, the Solicitor General,
ho appears on behalf 11
of the go ernment, effecti el
represents the public. In this case, the Solicitor General
deputi ed the pro incial

Re b c . C f A ea , G.R. N . 97906, M 21, 1992, 209

SCRA 189.
Ba c . C f A ea , G.R. N . 120587, J 20, 2004, 420
SCRA 162.
 10 R 103, S . 4.
11 A -Ch e e Leag e . Fe , 77 P . 1012 (1947), Re b c
. Ta Keh, G.R. N . 144742, N 11, 2004, 442 SCRA 203.

73

738 C A A D
Re blic . B la e

prosecutor of Abra for the purpose of appearing in the trial

on his behalf. As it ere, the pro incial prosecutor of Abra
as full apprised of the ne dates of the initial hearing.
Accordingl , there as no actual need for a republication of
the initial notice of the hearing.
Not lost on the Court is the fact that during the
September 25, 2001 initial hearing hich, to reiterate is
alread outside the 4-month limitation prescribed b the
Rules, the pro incial prosecutor of Abra interposed no
objection as to the genuineness, authenticit , rele anc or
sufficienc of the e hibits presented to pro e the
jurisdictional requirements e acted b the Rules. In a er
real sense, therefore, the petitioner Republic full and
kno ingl acquiesced in the jurisdiction of the trial court.
The peculiar circumstances obtaining in this case and the
requirements of fair dealing demand that e accord
alidit to the proceedings .
On the issue as to propriet of the desired change of
name, e are guided b decisional la on the matter. As
e ha e held, the State has an interest in the names borne
b indi iduals for purposes of identification, and that
changing one s name is a pri ilege and not a right.
Accordingl , a person can be authori ed to change his name
appearing in either his certificate of birth or ci il registr
upon sho ing not onl of reasonable cause, or an
compelling reason hich ma justif such change, but also
that he12
ill be prejudiced b the use of his true and official
name. Jurisprudence has recogni ed certain justif ing
grounds to arrant a change of name. Among these are: (a)
hen the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or e tremel
difficult to rite or pronounce; (b) hen the change ill
a oid confusion; (c) hen one has been continuousl used
and been kno n since childhood b a Filipino name, and
as una are of alien parentage; (d) hen the surname
causes embarrassment and there is no sho ing that the
desired change of name as for a fraudulent purpose 13
or
that the change of name ill prejudice public interest.
 12 I Re: Pe f Cha ge f Na e a d/ C ec /Ca ce a f
E C Reg fJ a L Ca a a Wa g, G.R. N . 159966,
M 30, 2005, 454 SCRA 155.
13 Re b c . J e R. He a de , 323 P . 606; 253 SCRA 509 (1996).

73

. 495, 20, 2006 739

Re blic . B la e

The matter of granting or den ing petitions for change of

name and the corollar issue of hat is a proper and
reasonable cause therefor rests on the sound discretion of
the court. The e idence presented need onl be satisfactor14
to the court; it need not be the best e idence a ailable.
What is in ol ed in special proceedings for change15of name
is, to borro from R . C A ,
,

.
With the ie e take of the case, respondent s
submission for a change of name is ith proper and
reasonable reason. As it ere, she has, since she started
schooling, used the gi en name and has been kno n as
M E , albeit the name R E is ritten on
her birth record. Her scholastic records, as ell as records
in go ernment offices, including that of her dri er s license,
professional license as a certified public accountant issued
b the Professional Regulation Commission, and the Quick
Count document of the COMELEC, all attest to her ha ing
used practicall all her life the name M E B
B .
The imperati es of a oiding confusion dictate that the
instant petition is granted. But be ond practicalities,
simple justice dictates that e er person shall be allo ed to
a ail himself of an opportunit to impro e his social
standing, pro ided he does so ithout causing prejudice 16
or
injur to the interests of the State or of other people.
The OSG s argument that respondent s bare testimon is
insufficient to sho that the requested name is not sought
for an illegal purpose and/or in a oidance of an
entanglement ith the la deser es scant consideration.
Surel , the issuance of a police and NBI
 14 Ch g . Re b c, 98 P . 1012 (1956); O h a . Re b c, G.R. N .
L-21180, M 31, 1967, 19 SCRA 700.
15 Re b c . C f A ea , G.R. N . 97906, M 21, 1992, 209
SCRA 189.
16 S a 9.

740

740 C A A D
Re blic . B la e

clearance or like certification, hile perhaps apropos,

cannot, as the OSG suggests, be a con incing norm of one s
good moral character or compelling e idence to pro e that
the change of name is not sought for an e il moti e or
fraudulent intent. Respondent s open court testimon ,
gi en under pain of perjur and for hich she as cross-
e amined, that she had not been accused of an crime
under her registered name or under her present name
(name that she is using) had con inced the trial court of
the of her request for change of name. As the CA
correctl ratiocinated:

In the case at bar, petitioner [no respondent] seeks to change

her registered name in order to a oid conf sion ha ing sed a
different name all her life. This is a alid gro nd nder the
aforementioned en meration not to mention that the instant
remed presents the less c mbersome and most con enient a to
set her records straight.
Anent the contention of oppositor-appellant that petitioner
failed to pro e that the petition is not resorted to for an illegal
p rpose d e to her inabilit to present NBI as ell as police
clearance to the effect that she has no derogator records, d e
per sal of the req irements of R le 103 re eals that it does not so
pro ide s ch a q ant m of proof to establish the fact that a
petitioner has no derogator records. This p rpose, e think, is
ser ed pon the declaration and affirmation of the petitioner in
open co rt that the petition is not to f rther fra d b t for a
legitimate p rpose, co pled b the absence of an oppositor to the
petition. There is et no j rispr dence req iring a petitioner in a
petition for a change of name to present NBI and police clearances
to pro e that the said petition is not resorted to for p rpose of
fra d. Until s ch time, e see no rgenc to impose the
req irements espo sed b oppositor-appellant. (Word in bracket
added.)

At bottom, petitioner Republic has not demonstrated that

the allo ance of the basic petition is himsical or based on
 a consideration other than to a oid confusion. The trial
court appears to ha e e ercised its discretion judiciousl
hen it granted the petition. Like the CA, the Court
loathes to disturb the action thus taken.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 21, 2003 is
AFFIRMED.
No pronouncement as to costs.

741

. 495, 20, 2006 741

G.Q. Ga e , I c. . Mi a da

SO ORDERED.

P (C ), S -G , C
and A , JJ., concur.

P , .

Note. Article 176 of the Famil Code repealed Title

XIII, Book I of the Ne Ci il Code regarding the Use of
Surnames. (L . C A , 410 SCRA 446
[2003])

o0o

C g 2021 Ce a B S , I c. A g e e ed.