Changing names

No person can change his name or surname without judicial authority obtained through an ìadversarialî, as distinguished from a ìsummaryî proceeding. This case of Dionisio explains the meaning of ìadversarialî.

Dionisio was the illegitimate natural child of Cora Nadres and Dado Galla. He was born on July 9, 1982, prior to the effectivity of the New Family Code, and as such, his mother Cora used the surname of his natural father Dado, despite the absence of marriage between them. So Dionisio has been known as ìDionisio Gallaî since birth as per his birth certificate registered at the Local Civil Registrar of his place of birth. Since he was born, Dionisio has been under the care of Cora because Dado failed to take up his paternal responsibilities on matters of financial, physical, emotional and spiritual concerns. So when Cora decided to work abroad, Dionisio, who was then only 9 years old, was left in the care of Teresa.

When Dionisio reached 16 years of age, his mother who was then residing and working in the US and would like Dionisio to join her there, asked Teresa to file in Dionisioís behalf a petition for change of name. For this purpose, Teresa secured from the Court an appointment as guardian ad litem and then filed said petition. The petition asked the court to change Dionisioís surname to that of his motherís surname on the grounds: that Dado has not anyway complied with his paternal duties; that Cora might eventually petition him to join her in the US and his continued use of the surname of the natural father may complicate his status as a natural child; and that the change of name from ìDionisio Gallaî to ìDionisio Nadresî will be for the benefit of the minor.

Finding the petition sufficient in form and substance, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ordered the necessary publication of the petition as required by Rule 103 of the Rules of Court and directed that the local civil registrar be notified and that the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) be sent a copy of the petition and the order of publication.

Since there was no opposition to the petition, presentation of evidence ex-parte before a court appointed commissioner was allowed by the RTC without objection from the OSG acting through the Provincial Prosecutor. After the reception of the evidence, the RTC rendered a decision ordering the change of name from Dionisio Galla to Dionisio Nadres. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

The Republic of the Philippines through the OSG however questioned the said decision. It contended that the petition was granted only through a summary rather than in an adversarial proceeding. To make the proceeding adversarial, the OSG claimed that the purported parents and all other persons who may be adversely affected by the childís change of name should have been made respondents. Was the OSG correct?

No. The relief sought clearly goes beyond correcting erroneous entries in the civil registry although by granting the petition, the result is the same in that the entry in the civil registry is also required to reflect the change of name. So the petition must indeed be heard in an adversarial proceeding. In this regard, Teresa and her ward Dionisio complied with the requirement for an adversarial proceeding by posting in a newspaper of general circulation notice of the filing of the petition. The lower court also furnished the OSG a copy thereof. Despite the notice, no one came forward to oppose the petition including the OSG. The fact that no one opposed the petition did not deprive the court of jurisdiction to hear the same nor does it make the proceeding less adversarial in nature.

A proceeding is adversarial where the party seeking relief has given legal warning to the other party and afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it. In this case all the requirements to make the proceeding adversarial were satisfied when all interested parties, including the Republic represented by the OSG were afforded the opportunity to contest the petition.

In this case the evidence presented during the hearing of Dionisioís petition sufficiently established that, under Article 176 of the Civil Code, Dionisio is entitled to change his name as he was never recognized by his father while his mother has always recognized him as her child. An illegitimate child whose filiation is not recognized by the father bears only a given name and his motherís surname and does not have a middle name. The name of the unrecognized illegitimate child therefore identifies him as such. It is only when the illegitimate child is legitimated by subsequent marriage of the parents or acknowledged by the father in a public document or private handwritten instrument that he bears both his motherís surname as his middle name and his fatherís surname as his surname, reflecting his status as a legitimated child or an acknowledged child. A change of Dionisioís name will therefore erase the impression that he was ever recognized by his father. It is also to his best interest as it will facilitate his motherís intended petition to have him join her in the US (Republic vs. Capote, G.R. 157043, February 2, 2007).

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected] or [email protected]