G.R. No.

L-32779 May 25, 1979

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. HON. FLORENDO P. AQUINO, Judge of the
Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija and JOHN LI KAN WA Respondents.ch

Facts: John Li Kan Wa filed a petition for change of his name to John Sotto, alleging (a)
change of his status from Chinese to Filipino as a result of his election of Filipino
Citizenship; and (b) the previous confusion resulting from being registered as John Li Kan
Wa and using a different name since childhood which is John Sotto. Finding the petition
sufficient in substance, the court issued an order giving notice to all interested parties to
appear before the court and state their objections, and directed that the order be
published in the Monday Post, a newspaper of general circulation in the province of
Nueva Ecija and Cabanatuan City. The Republic filed an opposition to the petition.
After due hearing, the court granted the petition for change of name; hence, the
instant petition for review, filed by the Republic, thru the Solicitor General.

Issue: Whether respondent judge had acquired jurisdiction to hear the petition filed by
John Li Kan Wa.

Held: No. Under Section 2, Rule 103 of the New Rules of Court, the petition for change
shall set forth inter alia, the name asked for. The requirement is mandatory and
compliance therewith is essential, for it is by such means that the court acquires
jurisdiction. It was held in Republic vs. Reyes, that failure to include the name sought to
be adopted in the title of the petition, and consequently in the notices published in
newspapers is a substantial jurisdictional infirmity. As enunciated in Go Chill Beng vs.
Republic, 2for publication to be effective, it must give a correct information. To inform,
the publication should recite, among others, the following facts: (a) the name or names
of applicant; (b) the cause for which the change of name is sought; and (c) the new
name asked for. In Ng Yao Siong vs. Republic, the rationale of the requirement to
include in the title of the petition the name sought to be adopted was expressly made
clear, thus: “Notices in the newspaper, like the one under consideration, usually
appears in the back pages. The reader as is to be expected, merely glances at the title
of the petition. It is only after he has satisfied himself that the title interests him that he
proceeds to read down further. The probability that the portion heretofore quoted will
escape the reader's notice.”

The purpose of which the publication is made, that is, to inform, may thus be served. It
appears from respondent's exhibits 3-A and 3-B that only the name Li Kan Wa was given
in the title, and the name John Sotto was not mentioned. Omission in the title of the
petition of the name asked for is fatal, and the court did not acquire jurisdiction over
the case. Non-compliance with the rules did not vest the court with authority to act on
the petition and therefore, the questioned decision is null and void.
 G.R. No. L-31065 February 15, 1990

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

vs.
HON. PIO R. MARCOS, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Baguio and Benguet and
PANG CHA QUEN representing the minor, MAY SIA alias MANMAN HUANG, respondents.

Facts: Pang Cha Quen alleging that she is a citizen of Nationalist China, married to
Alfredo De la Cruz, a Filipino citizen. Filed a petition so that her daughter by first
marriage named May Sia alias Manman Huang also registered as an alien under the
name of Mary Pang be allowed to change her name from May Sia, alias Manman
Huang, to Mary Pang De la Cruz. the reasons offered for changing the name of
petitioner's daughter are: (1) that "her daughter grew up with, and learned to love and
recognize her stepfather Alfredo de la Cruz as her own father"; (2) to afford her
daughter a feeling of security; and (3) that "Alfredo de la Cruz agrees to this petition,
and has signified his conformity at the foot of this pleading"
On September 16, 1968, when the petition was called for hearing, nobody opposed it.
Upon motion of petitioner's counsel, respondent Judge authorized the Clerk of Court or
his deputy to receive the evidence of the petitioner, Pang Cha Quen.

Finding the petition meritorious, respondent Judge issued an order on February 12, 1969
authorizing the name of the minor, May Sia alias Manman Huang, also known as Mary
Pang, to be changed to Mary Pang De la Cruz. The Government, through the Solicitor
General, appealed to the Supreme Court on the ground that the court's order is
contrary to law.

Issues: (1) whether respondent Judge had acquired jurisdiction over the case;
(2) whether respondent Judge erred in granting the petition although private
respondent Pang Cha Quen failed to adduce proper and reasonable cause for
changing the name of the minor "May Sia" alias Manman Huang.

Held: No. Captions of the petition and of the published order of the court did not
include the name "Mary Pang" as one of the names that the minor has allegedly been
using, hence, the petition and the published order contain a fatal jurisdictional defect.
In Republic vs. Zosa “this Court explained the reason for the rule requiring the inclusion
of the name sought to be adopted and the other names or aliases of the applicant in
the title of the petition, or in the caption of the published order. It is that the ordinary
reader only glances fleetingly at the caption of the published order or the title of the
petition in a special proceeding for a change of name. Only if the caption or the title
strikes him because one or all of the names mentioned are familiar to him, does he
proceed to read the contents of the order. The probability is great that he will not notice
the other names or aliases of the applicant if they are mentioned only in the body of the
order or petition.”

In the case at bar, the caption of both the verified petition dated March 30,1968, and
the published order of the trial court dated April 4, 1968 read, thus:
IN RE: PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME OF THE MINOR MAY SIA ALIAS MANMAN HUANG
TO MARY PANG DE LA CRUZ, PANG CHA QUEN, Petitioner.

The omission of her other alias-- "Mary Pang"-- in the captions of the court's order and of
the petition defeats the purpose of the publication. In view of that defect, the trial court
did not acquire jurisdiction over the subject of the proceedings, i.e., the various names
and aliases of the petitioner which she wished to change to "Mary Pang De la Cruz."

2) Yes. The second ground for the Government's appeal is the failure of the petitioner
below, Pang Cha Quen, to state a proper and reasonable cause for changing the
name/names of her daughter.

The following have been considered valid grounds for a change of name:

(1) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable, or extremely difficult to write or

pronounce;

(2) when the change results as a legal consequence, as in legitimation;

(3) when the change will avoid confusion (Haw Liong vs. Republic, L-21194, April
29,1966; Chill Hap Chin vs. Republic, L-20018, April 30, 1966; Republic vs. Tanada, et al.,
L-31563, November 29, 1971; Alfon vs. Republic, I,51201, May 29, 1980);

(4) having continuously used and been known since childhood by a Filipino name,
unaware of his alien parentage (Josefina Ang Chay vs. Republic, L-28507, July 31, 1980);
or

(5) a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of former alienage all in
good faith and not to prejudice anybody (Uy vs. Republic, L-22712, November 29,
1965).

As may be gleaned from the petition filed in the lower court, the reasons offered for
changing the name of petitioner's daughter are: (1) that "her daughter grew up with,
and learned to love and recognize Alfredo de la Cruz as her own father" (p. 23, Rollo);
(2) to afford her daughter a feeling of security (pp. 23-24, Rollo); and (3) that "Alfredo
de la Cruz agrees to this petition, and has signified his conformity at the foot of this
pleading" (p. 24, Rollo).

Clearly, these are not valid reasons for a change of name. The general rule is that a
change of name should not be permitted if it will give a false impression of family
relationship to another where none actually exists (Laperal vs. Republic, L-18008,
October 30, 1962; Johnson vs. Republic, L-18284, April 30, 1963; Moore vs. Republic, L-
18407, June 26, 1963). In Padilla vs. Republic, 113 SCRA 789, we specifically held that
our laws do not authorize legitimate children to adopt the surname of a person not their
father, for to allow them to adopt the surname of their mother's husband, who is not their
father, can result in confusion of their paternity.
Another reason for disallowing the petition for change of name is that it was not filed by
the proper party. Sections 1 and 2, Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, provide:

SECTION 1. Venue. — A person desiring to change his name shall present the petition
to the Court of First Instance of the province in which he resides, or, in the City of
Manila, to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.

SEC. 2. Contents of petition.- A petition for change of name shall be signed and verified
by the person desiring his name changed, or some other person on his behalf, and shall
set forth:

(a) That the petitioner has been a bona fide resident of the province where the
petition is filed for at least three (3) years prior to the date of such filing;

(b) The cause for which the change of the petitioner's name is sought;

(c) The name asked for

Clearly, the petition for change of name must be filed by the person desiring to change
his/her name, even if it may be signed and verified by some other person in his behalf.
In this case, however, the petition was filed by Pang Cha Quen not by May Sia. Hence,
only May Sia herself, alias Manman Huang, alias Mary Pang, when she shall have
reached the age of majority, may file the petition to change her name. The decision to
change her name, the reason for the change, and the choice of a new name and
surname shall be hers alone to make
 [G.R. No. 159966. March 30, 2005]
In Re: Petition for Change of Name of Julian Lim Carulasan Wang
Facts: A petition was filed by Anna Lisa Wang for the change of name and/or
correction/cancellation of entry in the Civil Registry of her son, a minor, Julian Lin Carulasan
Wang before the RTC of Cebu City.
Julian was the son of Anna Lisa Wang and Sing-Foe Wang. They were not yet married to
each other when Julian was born. Subsequently, when Julian’s parents got married, the
latter 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. Since the family plans to stay in
Singapore and, since in Singapore middle names or the maiden surname of the mother are
not carried in a persons name, they anticipated that Julian will be discriminated against
because of his current registered name which carries a middle name. Also, the spouses’
daughter and Julian might get confused if they are really brothers and sisters because they
have different surnames. Lastly, Carulasan sounds funny in Singapore’s Mandarin language
since they do not have the letter “R” but if there is, they pronounce it as “L”. It is for these
reasons why the name of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang is requested to be changed to Julian Lin
Wang.

RTC: denied the petition. It found that the reasons abovementioned does not fall within the
grounds recognized by law. It further ruled that the real reason behind is only convenience.

MR: Denied. The Singaporean practice of not carrying a middle name does not justify the
dropping of the middle name of a legitimate Filipino child who intends to study there. The
dropping of the middle name would be tantamount to giving due recognition to or
application of the laws of Singapore instead of Philippine law which is controlling.
Hence, this Appeal. SC required the OGS to comment on the petition.

Issue: Whether the name mother’s surname should be dropped in the instant case because
it is a common practice in Singapore to omit said surname.

Decision: No. Petition is denied.

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 AND REASONABLE CAUSE, or ANY
COMPELLING REASON which may justify such change. Otherwise, the request should be
denied.
VALID GROUNDS FOR CHANGE OF NAME:

1. When the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or pronounce;

2. When the change results as a legal consequence, as in legitimation;
3. When the change will avoid confusion;
4. When one has continuously used and been known since childhood by a Filipino name, and was
unaware of alien parentage;
5. A sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of former alienage, all in good faith and
without prejudicing anybody; and
6. 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.
What is involved is not a mere matter of allowance or disallowance of the request, but a
JUDICIOUS evaluation of the sufficiency and propriety of the justifications advanced in
support thereof, mindful of the consequent results in the event of its grant and with the sole
prerogative for making such determination being lodged in the courts.

MIDDLE NAME PURPOSE

1. 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.
IN THE CASE AT BAR
1. The only reason advanced by petitioner for the dropping of his middle name is
convenience. However, how such change of name would make his integration into
Singaporean society easier and convenient is not clearly established. That the continued
use of his middle name would cause confusion and difficulty does not constitute proper
and reasonable cause to drop it from his registered name.
2. In addition, petitioner is only a minor. Considering the nebulous foundation on which his
petition for change of name is based, it is best that the matter of change of his name be
left to his judgment and discretion when he reaches the age of majority. As he is of
tender age, he may not yet understand and appreciate the value of the change of his
name and granting of the same at this point may just prejudice him in his rights under
our laws.