REPUBLIC vs CA and CYNTHIA VICENZO – GR No.

88202 – December 14, 1998

FACTS:

1. Respondent Cynthia Vicenco was born on 19 January 1971 at the Capitol Medical Center,
Quezon City, to the spouses Pablo Castro Vicencio and Fe Esperanxa de Vega Leabres.
2. On 10 January 1972 Pablo left their conjugal abode at Meycauayan, Bulacan and never
reappeared nor sent support to his family and it was Ernesto Yu who came to the aid of Fe
Esperanza Leabres and her children.
3. Fe subsequently filed a petition for dissolution of their conjugal partnership, a petition for
change of name to drop the name of her husband therefrom, and a petition for the declaration
of Pablo Vicenzo as an absentee which were all approved by the court.
4. On 15 April 1986, Fe and Ernesto Yu were joined in matrimony.
5. According to the respondent, she had not known much less remembered her real father Pablo
Vicenzo and her known father is Ernesto Yu. Despite which, she still uses her family name as
“Vicenzo” in her school and other related activities. She was also subjected to extreme
embarrassment as using Vicenzo created confusion as to her parentage.
6. At the hearing of the petition for change of name by the trial court, the OSG manifested that it
was opposing the petition to which the trial court ruled that there is no valid cause for denying
the petition. This decision was affirmed by the appellate court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Cynthia could change her surname to that of her step-father’s surname.

RULING:

No. In Republic v. Hernandez, the Court ruled the following as sufficient grounds to warrant a
change of name:

(a) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or pronounce;

(b) when the change is a legal consequence of legitimation or adoption;

(c) when the change will avoid confusion;

(d) when one has continuously used and been known since childhood by a Filipino name and was
unaware of alien parentage;

(e) when the change is based on a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of former
alienage, all in good faith and without prejudice to anybody; and

(f) when the surname causes embarrassment and there is no showing that the desired change of name
was for a fraudulent purpose, or that the change of name would prejudice public interest.
In this case, Confusion indeed might arise with regard to private respondent’s parentage because of her
surname. But even, more confusion with grave legal consequences could arise if we allow private
respondent to bear her step-father’s surname, even if she is not legally adopted by him.  there is no
assurance the end result would not be even more detrimental to her person, for instead of bringing a
stop to questions, the very change of name, if granted, could trigger much deeper inquiries regarding
her parentage.

REPUBLIC vs HON. JOSE R. HERNANDEZ – GR No. 117209 – February 9, 1996

FACTS:

1. The RTC granted the petition for adoption of Kevin Earl Bartolome Moran and simultaneously
granted the prayer therein for the change of the first name of said adoptee to Aaron Joseph, to
complement the surname Munson y Andrade which he acquired consequent to his adoption.
2. Petitioner opposed the inclusion of the relief for change of name in the same petition for
adoption objecting to the joinder of the petition for adoption and the petitions for the change of
name in a single proceeding, arguing that these petition should be conducted and pursued as
two separate proceedings.
3. Petitioner argues that a petition for adoption and a petition for change of name are two special
proceedings which, in substance and purpose, are different from and are not related to each
other, being respectively governed by distinct sets of law and rules.
4. Petitioner further contends that what the law allows is the change of the surname of the
adoptee, as a matter of right, to conform with that of the adopter and as a natural consequence
of the adoption thus granted. If what is sought is the change of the registered given or proper
name, and since this would involve a substantial change of one’s legal name, a petition for
change of name under Rule 103 should accordingly be instituted, with the substantive and
adjective requisites therefor being conformably satisfied.
5. Private respondents, on the contrary, admittedly filed the petition for adoption with a prayer for
change of name predicated upon Section 5, Rule 2 which allows permissive joinder of causes of
action in order to avoid multiplicity of suits and in line with the policy of discouraging protracted
and vexatious litigations. It is argued that there is no prohibition in the Rules against the joinder
of adoption and change of name being pleaded as two separate but related causes of action in a
single petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent judge erred in granting prayer for the change of the given or proper
name of the adoptee in a petition for adoption.

RULING:

Yes. Par (1), Art. 189 of the Family Code provides one of the legal effect of adoption:
 (1) For civil purposes, the adopted shall be deemed to be a legitimate child of
the adopters and both shall acquire the reciprocal rights and obligations arising from the
relationship of parent and child, including the right of the adopted to use the surname
of the adopters;

The law allows the adoptee, as a matter of right and obligation, to bear the surname of the adopter,
upon issuance of the decree of adoption. It is the change of the adoptee’s surname to follow that of the
adopter which is the natural and necessary consequence of a grant of adoption and must specifically be
contained in the order of the court, in fact, even if not prayed for by petitioner.

However, the given or proper name, also known as the first or Christian name, of the adoptee must

remain as it was originally registered in the civil register. The creation of an adoptive relationship does
not confer upon the adopter a license to change the adoptee’s registered Christian or first name. The
automatic change thereof, premised solely upon the adoption thus granted, is beyond the purview of a
decree of adoption. Neither is it a mere incident in nor an adjunct of an adoption proceeding, such that
a prayer therefor furtively inserted in a petition for adoption, as in this case, cannot properly be granted.

The official name of a person whose birth is registered in the civil register is the name appearing therein.
If a change in one’s name is desired, this can only be done by filing and strictly complying with the
substantive and procedural requirements for a special proceeding for change of name under Rule 103 of
the Rules of Court, wherein the sufficiency of the reasons or grounds therefor can be threshed out and
accordingly determined.

A petition for change of name being a proceeding in rem, strict compliance with all the requirements
therefor is indispensable in order to vest the court with jurisdiction for its adjudication. It is an
independent and discrete special proceeding, in and by itself, governed by its own set of rules. A fortiori,
it cannot be granted by means of any other proceeding. To consider it as a mere incident or an offshoot
of another special proceeding would be to denigrate its role and significance as the appropriate remedy
available under our remedial law system.

JULIAN LIN CARULASAN WANG vs CEBU CITY CIVIL REGISTRAR – GR No. 159966 – March 30, 2005

FACTS:

1. On 22 September 2002, petitioner Julian Lin Carulasan Wang filed a petition for change of name
which sought to drop his middle name and have his registered name changed from Julian Lin
Carulasan Wang to Julian Lin Wang.
2. Julian Lin Carulasan Wang was born to parents Anna Lisa Wang and Sing-Foe Wang who were
then not yet married to each other
3. When his parents subsequently got married on September 22, 1998, they executed a Deed of
Legitimation of their son so that the child's name was changed from Julian Lin Carulasan to
Julian Lin Carulasan Wang.
 4. The parents of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang plan to stay in Singapore for a long time because they
will let him study there. Since in Singapore middle names or the maiden surname of the mother
are not carried in a person's name, they anticipate that Julian Lin Carulasan Wang will be
discriminated against because of his current registered name which carries a middle name.
5. The RTC rendered a decision denying the petition. The trial court found that the reason given for
the change of name did not fall within the grounds recognized by law.
6. The trial court ruled that the change sought is merely for the convenience of the child. Since the
State has an interest in the name of a person, names cannot be changed to suit the convenience
of the bearers.
7. Petitioner then filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari

ISSUE:

Whether or not Julian could validly drop his middle name.

RULING:

No. The State has an interest in the names borne by individuals and entities for purposes of
identification, and that a change of name is a privilege and not a right, so that before a person can be
authorized to change his name given him either in his certificate of birth or civil registry, he must show
proper or reasonable cause, or any compelling reason which may justify such change. Otherwise, the
request should be denied.

Middle names serve to identify the maternal lineage or filiation of a person as well as further distinguish
him from others who may have the same given name and surname as he has. Only an illegitimate child
whose filiation is not recognized by the father does not have a middle name. Thus the registered name
of a legitimate, legitimated and recognized illegitimate child contains a given or proper name, a middle
name, and a surname.

The only reason advanced by the petitioner for dropping his middle name is convenience which is not
one of the valid grounds for petition for change of name to be granted.

REPUBLIC vs JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON COSETENG-MAGPAYO – GR No. 189476 – FEBRUARY 2, 2011

FACTS:

1. Respondent Julian Edward Emerson was born in Makati City to Fulvio M. Magpayo Jr. and Anna
Dominique Marquez-Lim Coseteng who, as respondent’s certificate of live birth shows,
contracted marriage on March 26, 1972.
2. Claiming, however, that his parents were never legally married, respondent filed before RTC of
Quezon City a petition to change his name to Julian Edward Emerson Marquez-Lim Coseteng.
3. In support of his petition, respondent submitted a certification from the NSO stating that his
mother Anna Dominique does not appear in its National Indices of Marriage. Respondent also
 submitted his academic records from elementary up to college showing that he carried the
surname "Coseteng," and the birth certificate of his child where "Coseteng" appears as his
surname. Respondent ran and was elected as Quezon City’s Councilor using the name "JULIAN
M.L. COSETENG."
4. The RTC granted the petition and ordered the Civil Registrar to:
a) Delete the entry “date and place of marriage” (of parents) in respondent’s live birth
certificate
b) Change entry of “Last name” from Magpayo to Coseteng
c) Delete entry of Coseteng from “Middle name”
d) Delete entry of Fulvio Miranda Magpayo Jr in the entry for "Father".
5. Republic appealed contending that deletion of the entry on the date and place of marriage of
respondent’s parents from his birth certificate has the effect of changing his civil status from
legitimate to illegitimate, hence, any change in civil status of a person must be effected through
an appropriate adversary proceeding.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there was a valid ground for changing the respondent’s name.

RULING:

A person can effect a change of name under Rule 103 (CHANGE OF NAME) using valid and meritorious
grounds including

a. when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or pronounce;

b. when the change results as a legal consequence such as... legitimation;
c. when the change will avoid confusion;
d. when one has continuously used and been known since childhood by a Filipino name, and was
unaware of alien parentage;
e. a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of former alienage, all in good faith... and
without prejudicing anybody; and
f. when the surname causes embarrassment and there is no showing that the desired change of
name was for a fraudulent purpose or that the change of name would prejudice public interest.

Respondent's reason for changing his name cannot be considered as one of, or analogous to, recognized
grounds.

The change being sought in respondent's petition goes so far as to affect his legal status in relation to his
parents. It seeks to change his legitimacy to that of illegitimacy. Rule 103 then would not suffice to grant
respondent's supplication.
Rule 108 clearly directs that a petition which concerns one's civil status should be filed in the Civil
Registry in which the entry is sought to be cancelled or corrected - that of Makati in the present case,
and "all persons who have or claim any interest which would be... affected thereby" should be made
parties to the proceeding.

As earlier stated, however, the petition of respondent was filed not in Makati where his birth certificate
was registered but in Quezon City. And as the above-mentioned title of the petition filed by respondent
before the RTC shows, neither the civil registrar of Makati nor his father and mother were made parties
thereto.