WINONA MAE M.

NAIVE

Batch 2 Additional Cases: #13

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME. MARIO
PABELLAR, Petitioner-Appellee, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Oppositor-Appellant

Summary:

Petitioner was born on November 11, 1937. Church records show that he was
baptized on May 27, 1938 as the illegitimate child of Teofila Pabellar with an
unknown father and paternal grandparents and that he was given the name Mario
Pabellar. However, he has never used that name. For more than three decades,
without objection from anybody, he has consistently and publicly used the name
Mario Carandang (Carandang being his fathers name). When petitioner
discovered that he was not using his real name, he filed a petition for change of
name, particularly his name, from Pabellar to Carandang. He failed, however, to
submit any evidence of the record of his birth. Despite opposition from the City
Fiscal, the court a quo granted the petition. The Solicitor General appealed,
contending that petitioner failed to show any reasonable justification for the
change of name and that there was no compliance with the jurisdictional
requirements. Reversing the decision, the Supreme Court held that the petition
was devoid of any factual and legal justification.

Syllabus:

1. NAMES; CHANGE OF NAME; TRUE OR OFFICIAL NAME; EVIDENCE; BIRTH

CERTIFICATE AND PROOF OF ENTRY OF REGISTRY; ABSENCE THEREOF;
EFFECT. When at the hearing of the petition for change of name, the
petitioner did not present any birth certificate and was not able to prove
the allegation in his petition that his name in the civil register is Mario
Pabellar, the lower courts finding that the petitioners name in the civil
register of Lucena is Mario Pabellar is unfounded because, as aforestated,
no certified copy of the entry in the civil register as to petitioners name
was presented in evidence. In granting the petition, the lower court
erroneousely assumed that the petitioners name in the civil register at
Lucena is Mario Pabellar although that factum probandum was not
established by any factum probans.

2. NAME RECORDED IN CIVIL REGISTER, THE NAME TO BE CHANGED. The

fact that petitioner was christened Mario Pabellar does not justify his
petition for the change of his surname to Carandang. In a petition for
change of name" the only name that may be changed is the true or official
name recorded in the civil register" (Jesus Ng Yao Siong v. Republic, 63
O.G. 4403, 16 SCRA 483), a name which, as already noted, was not proven
by the petitioner. "The real name of a person is that given to him in the
civil register, not the name by which he was baptized in his church" (Chomi
v. Local Civil Registrar of manila, 99 Phil. 1004). The evidence herein does
not reveal petitioners real name in the civil register.

3. CONTINUED USE OF NAME; JUDICIAL AUTHORITY NOT NECESSARY WHEN

PETITIONER HAS BEEN USING IT SINCE CHILDHOOD; ALLOWED BY
COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 142. What he wants is judicial authority for
his continued use of the surname, Carandang, which he has been using
since childhood. That use is allowed by Commonwealth Act No. 142.
According to his testimony, his use of the surname Carandang has the
sanction of his natural father. Judicial authority is required for a change of
name or surname (Art 376, Civil Code) but not for the use of a surname
which the petitioner has already been using since childhood. Hence, the
petition in this case was uncalled for. In colloquial parlance, it had no leg to
stand on.
WINONA MAE M. NAIVE

Facts:

Petitioner Mario Pabellar was born on November 11, 1937 at Lucena, Tayabas.
Presumably, no record of his birth in the civil register is available for none was
presented in evidence. His record at the Lucena Catholic Church shows that when
he was baptized on May 27, 1938 as the illegitimate child of Teofila Pabellar with
an unknown father and paternal grandparents, he was given the name Mario
Pabellar. He testified that his father is Esteban Carandang who is married to
Rufina Marasigan. They were separated. She lived in Batangas. Esteban
Carandang took Teofila Pabellar as his common-law wife and lived with her in
Lucena. The petitioner has lived with his parents in Lucena since birth. He has
always used the name Mario Carandang. Mario has always used the surname
Carandang in his official record and dealings and with other public documents. His
father urged him to see a lawyer so that he could change his surname from
Pabellar to Carandang. On February 28, 1966 the petitioner filed the instant
petition for change of name. He used in the petition the name, Mario Pabellar. The
City Fiscal opposed the petition on the grounds that the change of name was not
justified and that since the petitioner is an illegitimate child he has no right to use
his fathers surname. the petitioner merely indicated therein his name, Mario
Pabellar, but he did not specify his supposed alias, Mario Carandang, and the
name which he sought to adopt. And in the lower courts order setting the petition
for hearing, which order was published, the cause for which the change of name
was sought was not stated. The lower courts finding that the petitioners name in
the civil register of Lucena is Mario Pabellar is unfounded because, as above
stated, no certified copy of the entry in the civil register as to petitioners name
was presented in evidence,It erroneously assumed that the petitioners name in
the civil register at Lucena is Mario Pabellar although that factum probandum was
not established by any factum probans. The Solicitor General in this appeal
contends that the petitioner failed to show any reasonable justification for the
change of name and that there was no compliance with the jurisdictional
requirements.

Issue:

1. Whether or not the change of name is proper

2. Whether or not failure to include aliases and the name to be adopted in the title
pf the petition for change of name is a fatal defect.

Ruling:

The change of name is devoid of factual and legal justification. In the petition for
change of name, the only name that maybe changed is the true and official name
recorded in the civil registry, a name that was not proven by the petitioner. In
reality what the petitioner seeks is not the change of name but the judicial
authority for his continued used of the surname Carandang which use is allowed
in Commonwealth Act No. 142. A change of name is a proceeding in rem.
Jurisdiction to hear and determine is acquired after due publication and the order
containing certain data.

In a petition for change of name the title of the petition should include: (1)
the applicants real name, (2) his aliases or other names, if any, and (3) the name
sought to be adopted even if these data are found in the body of the petition. For
the publication to be valid and effective, the published order should reproduce
the title of the petition containing the data already stated and should contain
correct information as to (1) the name or names of the applicant, (2) the cause for
the change of name, and (3) the new name asked for
WINONA MAE M. NAIVE

In this case, the petition does not contain the alias/es of the petitioner and the
name sought to be adopted. Thus, the order of the court was defective and
deficient. The lowerc ort did not acquire jurisdiction over the proceeding.

Batch 2 Additional Cases: #14

Republic vs Reyes

Syllabus:

1. SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS; PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME; NAMES TO BE

INCLUDED IN TITLE OR CAPTION FOR PURPOSES OF TRIAL COURTS JURISDICTION.
For a trial court to acquire jurisdiction over a petition for a change of name, the
following must appear in the title or caption thereof, to wit: (1) his real name; (2)
the name sought to be adopted; and (3) his aliases or other names used.

2. OMISSION OF NAME TO BE ADOPTED IS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT. Records

show that Rolando Diangkinay, the name sought to be adopted, neither appears
in the title of the petition nor in the title or caption of the notices published in the
newspapers. Having failed to comply with this requirement, the lower court
acquired no jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition.

3. STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS OF PUBLICATION ESSENTIAL. We

have stressed that petitions for change of name being proceedings in rem, strict
compliance with the requirements of publication is essential, for it is by such
means that the court acquires jurisdiction.

4. NAME TO BE ADOPTED MUST BE INCLUDED EVEN IF IT NOT AN ALIAS.

Concededly, the name Rolando Diangkinay is not an alias within the purview of
C.A. 142 known as the Anti-Alias Law, it being the name by which respondent was
baptized and known since childhood. But this is of no moment. Such being
admittedly the name sought to be adopted, the same must be included in the title
of the petition.

Facts:

On October18, 1967 petitioner-respondent filed a verified petition for change of

name in the Court of First Instance of Laguna and San Pablo City. Hermogenes
Diangkinay (petitioner-respondent) sought to change his name to Rolando
Deangkinay. The evidence discloses that the name registered in the local civil
registrar of San Pablo City is Hermogenes Diangkinay, however the petitioner-
respondent has since his boyhood used Rolando Deangkinay on the belief that it is
his true name; the same name which he has used in his official record and
dealings. The lower court granted his petition. The fiscal in representation of the
Solicitor General opposes the petition on the ground that the same is not justified.
The name which appears in the registry is Hermogenes Diangkinay; it is his official
records and Baptismal Certificate that should be the ones corrected, in this regard
the trial court acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction. It is also noted that the
name Rolando Deangkinay did not appear in the title of the petition, hence the
failure to include such is non-compliance with the strict requirements of
publication that renders the petition fatally defective and the court has no
jurisdiction to try the case. Respondent argues that since the name Rolando
Deangkinay is not an alias, he was therefore not obliged to place the same in the
title or caption of his petition.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent is correct in his argument that Rolando

Deangkinay having been not an alias should not be necessarily included in the
title of the petition.
WINONA MAE M. NAIVE

Ruling:

The name Rolando Deangkinay is not an alias within the purview of

Commonwealth Act No. 142 known as the Anti-Alias Law, it being the name by
which respondent was baptized and known since childhood, but this of no
moment. Such name being admittedly the name sought to be adopted, the same
must be included in the title of the p ti on. It is indeed a pity that this flaw of
jurisdiction exists, for its seems quite fair and reasonable that the confusion
resulting from the variance between the name used by respondent in all his
activities and transactions since childhood, including many public records related
thereto, in the one hand, and the one appearing in his record of birth, on the
other, should be avoided by allowing respondent to legalize the name by which he
has been known since his infancy. We have stressed that petitions for change of
name being proceedings in rem, strict compliance with the requirements of
publication is essential, for it s by such means that the court acquires jurisdiction.