Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-31563 November 29, 1971

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

Office of the Solicitor General Felix Q. Antonio, Solicitor Bernardo P. Pardo and Trial Attorney Celso D.
Laviña for petitioner.

Soria & Polancos for respondents.

CASTRO, J.:

On June 11, 1968 Lua Ong (hereinafter referred to as the respondent), father of the then minor Baby
Ong, with the Court of First Instance of Cebu, with Judge Santiago O. Tañada (hereinafter referred to as
the respondent judge) presiding, a petition for change of the name of his son Baby Ong to Lua An Jok. On
June 25, 1968 the court issued an order setting the petition for hearing on November 23, 1968 and
directing the publication of the said order in the Cebu Advocate, a newspaper of general circulation in
Cebu City and in the province of Cebu, once a week for three consecutive weeks.

On the day of the hearing, because no one, not even the provincial fiscal in representation of the Solicitor
General, appeared to interpose any objection to the petition, the respondent judge referred the case to his
deputy clerk of court, requiring him to submit a report on the evidence adduced.

On November 26, 1968 the respondent judge issued an order granting the petition, authorizing Baby Ong
to use the name An Joc Lua1 and directing the local civil registrar of Cebu City to cause the proper entry
to be made. On March 5, 1969 the assistant provincial fiscal, on behalf of the Government of the
Republic, interposed an appeal to this Court. By resolution dated February 2, 1970, we required the
oppositor-appellant to file a petition for review on certiorari instead of submitting copies of the record on
appeal, as the appeal raises only questions of law. On March 12, 1970 the Solicitor General, on behalf of
the Government of the Republic (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner), filed the present petition for
review on certiorari.

This case2 raises only two questions: the first, jurisdictional in character, relates to the defective
publication of the respondent judge's order dated June 25, 1968 and the defective petition of the
respondent; the second relates to the absence of proper and reasonable cause or compelling reason to
justify the change of name applied for.

1. Anent the first issue, it is the petitioner's submission that both the caption of the published order and
the title of the respondent's petition failed to include the name An Joc Lua, the name allowed by the
court a quo for use by applicant. The non-inclusion of the name An Joc Lua, or properly, the name of Lua
An Jok, in the caption of the published order and in the title of the petition, constitutes a jurisdictional
omission, and hence the respondent judge erred in assuming jurisdiction to hear and determine the
respondent's petition. On the other hand, the respondent avers that the name Lua An Jok is not
an alias of Baby Ong and therefore should not be included in the title of the petition and in the published
order. He alleges that Lua An Jok is the true and correct name of the applicant Lua as the surname, and
An Jok the first name.

An action for change of name constitutes a judicial proceeding in rem, and a court acquires jurisdiction to
hear and determine the corresponding petition only, after publication of the order reciting the purpose of
the petition and setting the date and place for the hearing thereof at least once a week for three
successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation.3 Such publication, however, to be valid and
effective, should contain the 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 sought. Moreover, the title of the petition should
include (1) the applicant's real name and (2) his aliases or other names, if any.4 The title should recite the
name sought to be adopted.5 All these, notwithstanding that the body of the petition or of the order
includes all the information aforementioned.

Notices published in the newspapers often appear in the back pages thereof or in pages least read or
paid attention to. The reader, as usually happens, merely scans these pages and glances fleetingly at the
captions of the published orders or the titles of the petitions. Only if the caption or the title strikes him
does the reader proceed to read on. And the probability is great that the reader does not all notice the
other names and/or aliases of the applicant if these are mentioned only in the body of the order or
petition. The non-inclusion of all the names and/or alias of the applicant in the caption of the order or the
title of the petition defeats the very purpose of the required application. 6

The respondent claims that the name Lua An Jok is not an alias of the applicant but his true and correct
name. Concededly, the name Lua An Jok does not constitute alias  within the definition set forth in section
17 of Commonwealth Act 142, otherwise known as the Anti-Alias Law, for it is the name by which the
applicant has been known since his childhood. As the respondent avers, and this averment remains
unrebutted on record, the applicant has been using the name Lua An Jok since birth. This same name the
applicant has used in school and in the community and in his dealings with his friends and the
Government authorities. The applicant, the respondent alleged never made himself known as Baby Ong
and has never use of such name in any record. Therefore, the respondent concludes, no necessity exists
for the inclusion of the name Lua An Jok in the title of the petition or the caption of the published order.

The respondent's argument, however, instead of supporting his stance, weakens the same. Thus, aside
from requiring the inclusion of the name Lua An Jok in the title of the petition and in the caption of the
published order because such name constitutes the new name sought by the respondent for his son, the
foregoing provides another reason for such inclusion. With the non-inclusion of the name Lua An Jok in
the title of the petition and in the caption of the published order, persons who know the applicant Lua An
Jok and who have an interest contra the petition, upon reading the title of the petition or the caption of the
punished order, would not readily know that Lua An Jok and Baby Ong refer to one and the same person
and would not thereby be afforded the opportunity to come forward with anything affecting the petition.

The caption of the verified petition dated June 11, 1968 reads:

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHANGE

LUA ONG,
Petitioner.

The caption of the published order dated June 25, 1968 reads:

CHANGE OF NAME OF BABY ONG,

The incomplete and, consequently, invalid publication of the order dated June 25, 1968 does not
effectively confer jurisdiction upon the court a quo to take cognizance of the respondent's petition.

En passant  the petitioner imputes to the applicant a violation of the Anti-Alias Law for using the name Lua
An Jok which is different from Baby Ong, the name of the said applicant appearing in the local civil
registry. Contrary to the petitioner's stand, we observe that section 1 of Commonwealth Act 142, in
prohibiting the use of a name different from that by which one has been known since childhood, by
necessary implication, allows the use of the latter. 8 Thus, one who, like the applicant, uses a name by
which he has been known since childhood incurs no violation of the Anti-Alias Law. 9

2. Assuming that the court a quo  acquired jurisdiction over the petition for change of name still, the
Government argues, the said petition should have been denied because the respondent offered no proper
and reasonable cause or compelling reason to warrant the change of name. The respondent, in answer,
claims that he seeks the change of name for his son to avoid confusion. He alleges that the attending
midwife of the hospital where his wife gave birth to Lua An Jok erred in reporting his son's name as Baby
Ong, the name appearing in the certificate of birth in the local civil registry. This erroneous entry he
discovered only when the Bureau of Immigration required him to secure his son's birth certificate. And
since his son has been using the name Lua An Jok since birth, he filed the petition in order to set the
record straight.

To justify a change of name there must exist a proper and reasonable cause or compelling reason. The
following have been held to constitute proper and reasonable causes or compelling reasons: (1) a
ridiculous name, a name tainted with dishonor, a name extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (2) a
change of civil status; and (3) need to avoid confusion. 10

We are urged by the respondent to consider, as constituting a compelling reason, the uncontroverted fact
that his son has been known since birth as Lua An Jok and by no other name, pointing to the
improbability that a child would at birth be given a name such as "Baby Ong." Our perceptive study of the
record persuades us that the respondent's submission is not without reason. Lua Ong is the name of the
respondent who is a Chinaman; Lua is his family name, Ong his first name. The attending midwife was
apparently never advised by the child's parents of the name the latter gave to it. So, perfunctorily
accomplishing the required report to the civil registrar, the midwife found it expedient to place therein the
name "Baby Ong." The resulting mistake was obviously engendered by an erroneous impression on the
part of the reporting midwife that "Ong" is the family name of the father, because "Ong" follows "Lua."
Hence the name "Baby Ong." Under the circumstances above stated, the insistence of the respondent
that the entry "Baby Ong" in the civil registry be changed to "Lua An Jok" could very well be motivated,
there being no evidence to the contrary, solely by an honest desire to make the civil registry speak the
truth.

The above notwithstanding, the petition below cannot be given due course because of the fatal failure,
hereinbefore adverted to, on the part of the respondent to comply with jurisdictional requirements.

ACCORDINGLY, the order a quo dated November 26, 1968 is set aside, and the petition below dated
June 11, 1968 is dismissed, without prejudice to the respondent's son filing and prosecuting the proper
petition in accordance with our observations, above. No pronouncement as to costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Makalintal, Zaldivar, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo and Makasiar, JJ.,
concur.

Makasiar, J., took no part.