Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 159966. March 30, 2005
IN RE: PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME AND/OR
CORRECTION/CANCELLATION OF ENTRY IN CIVIL REGISTRY OF
JULIAN LIN CARULASAN WANG also known as JULIAN LIN WANG, to be
amended/corrected as JULIAN LIN WANG, JULIAN LIN WANG, duly
represented by his mother ANNA LISA WANG, Petitioners,
vs.
CEBU CITY CIVIL REGISTRAR, duly represented by the Registrar OSCAR
B. MOLO, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
TINGA, J.:
I will not blot out his name out of the book of life.
Revelation 3:5
On 22 September 2002, petitioner Julian Lin Carulasan Wang, a minor,
represented by his mother Anna Lisa Wang, filed a petition dated 19 September
2002 for change of name and/or correction/cancellation of entry in the Civil Registry
of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang. Petitioner sought to drop his middle name and have
his registered name changed from Julian Lin Carulasan Wang to Julian Lin Wang.
The petition was docketed as Special Proceedings Case No. 11458 CEB and raffled
to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 57.
The RTC established the following facts:
Julian Lin Carulasan Wang was born in Cebu City on February 20, 1998 to parents
Anna Lisa Wang and Sing-Foe Wang who were then not yet married to each other.
When his parents subsequently got married on September 22, 1998, ...they executed
a deed of legitimation of their son so that the childs name was changed from Julian
Lin Carulasan to Julian Lin Carulasan Wang.
The parents of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang plan to stay in Singapore for a long time
because they will let him study there together with his sister named Wang Mei
Jasmine who was born in Singapore. Since in Singapore middle names or the
maiden surname of the mother are not carried in a persons name, they anticipate
that Julian Lin Carulasan Wang will be discriminated against because of his
current registered name which carries a middle name. Julian and his sister might
also be asking whether they are brother and sister since they have different
surnames. Carulasan sounds funny in Singapores Mandarin language since they do
not have the letter "R" but if there is, they pronounce it as "L." It is for these
reasons that the name of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang is requested to be changed to
Julian Lin Wang.
1

On 30 April 2003, the RTC rendered a decision denying the petition.
2
The trial court
found that the reason given for the change of name sought in the petitionthat is,
that petitioner Julian may be discriminated against when studies in Singapore
because of his middle namedid not fall within the grounds recognized by law. 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. Under Article 174 of the Family Code,
legitimate children have the right to bear the surnames of the father and the
mother, and there is no reason why this right should now be taken from petitioner
Julian, considering that he is still a minor. The trial court added that when
petitioner Julian reaches the age of majority, he could then decide whether he will
change his name by dropping his middle name.
3

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision but this was denied in a
resolution dated 20 May 2004.
4
The trial court maintained that 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. That the change of
name would not prejudice public interest or would not be for a fraudulent purpose
would not suffice to grant the petition if the reason for the change of name is itself
not reasonable.
5

Petitioner then filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari (Under Rule 45)
6
arguing
that the trial court has decided a question of substance not theretofore determined
by the Court, that is: whether or not dropping the middle name of a minor child is
contrary to Article 174
7
of the Family Code. Petitioner contends that "[W]ith
globalization and mixed marriages, there is a need for the Supreme Court to rule on
the matter of dropping of family name for a child to adjust to his new environment,
for consistency and harmony among siblings, taking into consideration the "best
interest of the child."
8
It is argued that convenience of the child is a valid reason for
changing the name as long as it will not prejudice the State and others. Petitioner
points out that the middle name "Carulasan" will cause him undue embarrassment
and the difficulty in writing or pronouncing it will be an obstacle to his social
acceptance and integration in the Singaporean community. Petitioner also alleges
that it is error for the trial court to have denied the petition for change of name
until he had reached the age of majority for him to decide the name to use, contrary
to previous cases
9
decided by this Court that allowed a minor to petition for change
of name.
10

The Court required the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to comment on the
petition. The OSG filed itsComment
11
positing that the trial court correctly denied
the petition for change of name. The OSG argues that under Article 174 of the
Family Code, legitimate children have the right to bear the surnames of their father
and mother, and such right cannot be denied by the mere expedient of dropping the
same. According to the OSG, there is also no showing that the dropping of the
middle name "Carulasan" is in the best interest of petitioner, since mere
convenience is not sufficient to support a petition for change of name and/or
cancellation of entry.
12
The OSG also adds that the petitioner has not shown any
compelling reason to justify the change of name or the dropping of the middle name,
for that matter. Petitioners allegation that the continued use of the middle name
may result in confusion and difficulty is allegedly more imaginary than real. The
OSG reiterates its argument raised before the trial court that the dropping of the
childs middle name could only trigger much deeper inquiries regarding the true
parentage of petitioner. Hence, while petitioner Julian has a sister named Jasmine
Wei Wang, there is no confusion since both use the surname of their father, Wang.
Even assuming that it is customary in Singapore to drop the middle name, it has
also not been shown that the use of such middle name is actually proscribed by
Singaporean law.
13

We affirm the decision of the trial court. The petition should be denied.
The Court has had occasion to express the view that 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.
14

The touchstone for the grant of a change of name is that there be proper and
reasonable cause for which the change is sought.
15
To justify a request for change of
name, petitioner must show not only some proper or compelling reason therefore
but also that he will be prejudiced by the use of his true and official name. Among
the grounds for change of name which have been held valid are: (a) when the name
is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (b) when the
change results as a legal consequence, as in 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.
16

In granting or denying petitions for change of name, the question of proper and
reasonable cause is left to the sound discretion of the court. The evidence presented
need only be satisfactory to the court and not all the best evidence available. 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.
17

The petition before us is unlike other petitions for change of name, as it does not
simply seek to change the name of the minor petitioner and adopt another, but
instead seeks to drop the middle name altogether. Decided cases in this jurisdiction
involving petitions for change of name usually deal with requests for change of
surname. There are only a handful of cases involving requests for change of the
given name
18
and none on requests for changing or dropping of the middle name.
Does the law allow one to drop the middle name from his registered name? We have
to answer in the negative.
A discussion on the legal significance of a persons name is relevant at this point.
We quote, thus:
For all practical and legal purposes, a man's name is the designation by which he
is known and called in the community in which he lives and is best known. It is
defined as the word or combination of words by which a person is distinguished
from other individuals and, also, as the label or appellation which he bears for the
convenience of the world at large addressing him, or in speaking of or dealing with
him. Names are used merely as one method of indicating the identity of persons;
they are descriptive of persons for identification, since, the identity is the essential
thing and it has frequently been held that, when identity is certain, a variance in,
or misspelling of, the name is immaterial.
The names of individuals usually have two parts: the given name or proper name,
and the surname or family name. The given or proper name is that which is given to
the individual at birth or baptism, to distinguish him from other individuals. The
name or family name is that which identifies the family to which he belongs and is
continued from parent to child. The given name may be freely selected by the
parents for the child; but the surname to which the child is entitled is fixed by law.
A name is said to have the following characteristics: (1) It is absolute, intended to
protect the individual from being confused with others. (2) It is obligatory in certain
respects, for nobody can be without a name. (3) It is fixed, unchangeable, or
immutable, at least at the start, and may be changed only for good cause and by
judicial proceedings. (4) It is outside the commerce of man, and, therefore,
inalienable and intransmissible by act inter vivos or mortis causa. (5) It is
imprescriptible.
19

This citation does not make any reference to middle names, but this does not mean
that middle names have no practical or legal significance. 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.
Our laws on the use of surnames state that legitimate and legitimated children
shall principally use the surname of the father.
20
The Family Code gives legitimate
children the right to bear the surnames of the father and the mother,
21
while
illegitimate children shall use the surname of their mother, unless their father
recognizes their filiation, in which case they may bear the fathers surname.
22

Applying these laws, an illegitimate child whose filiation is not recognized by the
father bears only a given name and his mothers 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 the subsequent
marriage of his parents or acknowledged by the father in a public document or
private handwritten instrument that he bears both his mothers surname as his
middle name and his fathers surname as his surname, reflecting his status as a
legitimated child or an acknowledged illegitimate child.
Accordingly, the registration in the civil registry of the birth of such individuals
requires that the middle name be indicated in the certificate. The registered name
of a legitimate, legitimated and recognized illegitimate child thus contains a given
or proper name, a middle name, and a surname.
Petitioner theorizes that it would be for his best interest to drop his middle name as
this would help him to adjust more easily to and integrate himself into Singaporean
society. In support, he cites Oshita v. Republic
23
and Calderon v. Republic,
24
which,
however, are not apropos both.
In Oshita, the petitioner therein, a legitimate daughter of a Filipino mother, Buena
Bartolome, and a Japanese father, Kishimatsu Oshita, sought to change her name
from Antonina B. Oshita to Antonina Bartolome. The Court granted her petition
based on the following considerations: she had elected Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority; her other siblings who had also elected Philippine
citizenship have been using their mothers surname; she was embarrassed to bear a
Japanese surname there still being ill feeling against the Japanese due to the last
World War; and there was no showing that the change of name was motivated by a
fraudulent purpose or that it will prejudice public interest.
In Calderon, the Court allowed petitioner Gertrudes Josefina del Prado, an
illegitimate minor child acting through her mother who filed the petition in her
behalf, to change her name to Gertudes Josefina Calderon, taking the surname of
her stepfather, Romeo C. Calderon, her mothers husband. The Court held that a
petition for change of name of an infant should be granted where to do is clearly for
the best interest of the child. The Court took into consideration the opportunity
provided for the minor petitioner to eliminate the stigma of illegitimacy which she
would carry if she continued to use the surname of her illegitimate father. The
Court pronounced that justice dictates that every person be allowed to avail of any
opportunity to improve his social standing as long as doing so he does not cause
prejudice or injury to the interests of the State or of other people.
Petitioner cites Alfon v. Republic,
25
in arguing that although Article 174 of the
Family Code gives the legitimate child the right to use the surnames of the father
and the mother, it is not mandatory such that the child could use only one family
name, even the family name of the mother. In Alfon, the petitioner therein, the
legitimate daughter of Filomeno Duterte and Estrella Alfon, sought to change her
name from Maria Estrella Veronica Primitiva Duterte (her name as registered in
the Local Civil Registry) to Estrella S. Alfon (the name she had been using since
childhood, in her school records and in her voters registration). The trial court
denied her petition but this Court overturned the denial, ruling that while Article
364 of the Civil Code states that she, as a legitimate child, should principally use
the surname of her father, there is no legal obstacle for her to choose to use the
surname of herm other to which she is entitled. In addition, the Court found that
there was ample justification to grant her petition, i.e., to avoid confusion.
Weighing petitioners reason of convenience for the change of his name against the
standards set in the cases he cites to support his contention would show that his
justification is amorphous, to say the least, and could not warrant favorable action
on his petition.
The factual antecedents and unique circumstances of the cited cases are not at all
analogous to the case at bar. The instant case is clearly distinguishable from the
cases of Oshita and Alfon, where the petitioners were already of age when they filed
their petitions for change of name. Being of age, they are considered to have
exercised their discretion and judgment, fully knowing the effects of their decision
to change their surnames. It can also be unmistakably observed that the reason for
the grant of the petitions for change of name in these two cases was the presence of
reasonable or compelling grounds therefore. The Court, in Oshita, recognized the
tangible animosity most Filipinos had during that time against the Japanese as a
result of World War II, in addition to the fact of therein petitioners election of
Philippine citizenship. In Alfon, the Court granted the petition since the petitioner
had been known since childhood by a name different from her registered name and
she had not used her registered name in her school records and voters registration
records; thus, denying the petition would only result to confusion.
Calderon, on the other hand, granted the petition for change of name filed by a
mother in behalf of her illegitimate minor child. Petitioner cites this case to buttress
his argument that he does not have to reach the age of majority to petition for
change of name. However, it is manifest in Calderon that the Court, in granting the
petition for change of name, gave paramount consideration to the best interests of
the minor petitioner therein.
In the case at bar, the only reason advanced by petitioner for the dropping 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 complete name.
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.
26
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.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Chico-Nazario, JJ., concur.


Footnotes
1
RTC Decision, penned by Judge Enriqueta Loquillano-Belarmino, Rollo, p. 21.
2
Id. at 20-23.
3
Ibid.
4
Id. at 24-25.
5
Ibid.
6
Id. at 3-58; with Annexes.
7
Art. 174. Legitimate children shall have the right: (1) To bear the surnames of the
father and mother, in conformity with the provisions of the Civil Code on Surnames;
.
8
Rollo, p. 5.
9
Petitioner cites the following cases: Tse v. Republic, No. L-20708, 31 August 1967,
20 SCRA 1261; Calderon v. Republic, 126 Phil. 1 (1967); and Republic v. Lee Wai
Lam, No. L-22607, 30 July 1969, 28 SCRA 1043. In these three cases, the Court
allowed the minor to petition for change of name. Ibid.
10
Ibid.
11
Rollo, pp. 63-80.
12
Ibid.
13
Id. at 71.
14
Republic v. Lee Wai Lam, No. L-22607, 30 July 1969, 28 SCRA 1040, 1047-48,
citing Yu Chi Han v.Republic, No. L-22040, 29 November 1965 and Yap Ek
Siu v. Republic, No. L-25437, 28 April 1969.
15
Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88202, 14 December 1998, 300 SCRA 138.
16
Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97906, 21 May 1992, 209 SCRA 189.
See also Republic v.Hernandez, G.R. No. 117209, 9 February 1996, 253 SCRA 509.
17
Ibid.
18
Go v. Republic, No. L-20160, 29 November 1965; In re: Flaviano C.
Zapanta v. Local Civil Register, G.R. No. 55380, 26 September 1994;
Republic v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 117209, 9 February 1996.
19
Republic v. Court of Appeals, supra at note 16.
20
Article 364, Civil Code.
21
Article 174, Family Code. Supra at note 7.
22
Article 176, Family Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 9255 (An Act Allowing
Illegitimate Children to Use the Surname of Their Father, Amending for the
Purpose Article 176 of Executive Order No. 209, Otherwise Known as the "Family
Code of the Philippines"), which took effect on 19 March 2004, by allowing
illegitimate children to use the surname of their father if their filiation has been
expressly recognized by the father through the record of birth appearing in the civil
register, or when an admission in a public document or private handwritten
instrument is made by the father.
23
125 Phil. 1098 (1967).
24
Supra note 9.
25
No. L-51201, 29 May 1980, 97 SCRA 858.
26
In Republic v. Marcos, G.R. No. 31065, 15 February 1990, 182 SCRA 223,
and Padilla v. Republic, 199 Phil. 226 (1982), the Court denied the petitions for
change of name filed by mothers in behalf of their minor children for prematurity.