|
REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs. JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON COSETENG-MAGPAYO (A.K.A. JULIAN EDWARD
EMERSON MARQUEZ-LIM COSETENG), G.R. No. 189476, February 2, 2011
|
|
“x x x.
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.[1] Respondent’s reason for changing his name
cannot be considered as one of, or analogous to, recognized grounds,
however.
The present petition must
be differentiated from Alfon v. Republic
of the Philippines.[2] In
Alfon, the Court allowed the therein petitioner,
Estrella Alfon, to use the name that she had been known since childhood in
order to avoid confusion. Alfon did
not deny her legitimacy, however.
She merely sought to use the surname of her mother which she had been
using since childhood. Ruling in her
favor, the Court held that she was lawfully entitled to use her mother’s
surname, adding that the avoidance of confusion was justification enough to
allow her to do so. In the present case,
however, respondent denies his legitimacy.
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.
Labayo-Rowe v. Republic[3] categorically holds that “changes which may affect
the civil status from legitimate to illegitimate . . . are substantial
and controversial alterations which can only be allowed after appropriate
adversary proceedings . . .”
Since respondent’s desired
change affects his civil status from legitimate to illegitimate, Rule 108
applies. It reads:
SECTION 1. Who may
file petition.—Any person interested in any act, event, order or decree
concerning the civil status
of persons which has been recorded in the civil register, may file a
verified petition for the cancellation or correction of any entry relating
thereto, with the [RTC] of the
province where the corresponding civil registry is located.
x x x x
SEC. 3. Parties.—When
cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register is sought, the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any
interest which would be affected thereby shall
be made parties to the proceeding.
SEC. 4. Notice and publication. –Upon the filing
of the petition, the court shall, by an order, fix the time and place for the
hearing of the same, and cause
reasonable notice thereof to be given to the persons named in the petition. The court shall also cause the order to be
published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
circulation in the province. (emphasis,
italics and underscoring supplied)
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.
X x x.”
