1. Petitioners proved their correct surname is "Sison" but their father entered "dela Cruz" on marriage and birth documents incorrectly. Under Philippine law, legitimate children use their father's surname.
2. The only legal way to change a name is through a petition for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, as one's legal name is in the civil registry.
3. The petition in this case is essentially one for judicial authority to change names, as it requests correction of names in birth certificates to register as "Sison".
1. Petitioners proved their correct surname is "Sison" but their father entered "dela Cruz" on marriage and birth documents incorrectly. Under Philippine law, legitimate children use their father's surname.
2. The only legal way to change a name is through a petition for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, as one's legal name is in the civil registry.
3. The petition in this case is essentially one for judicial authority to change names, as it requests correction of names in birth certificates to register as "Sison".
1. Petitioners proved their correct surname is "Sison" but their father entered "dela Cruz" on marriage and birth documents incorrectly. Under Philippine law, legitimate children use their father's surname.
2. The only legal way to change a name is through a petition for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, as one's legal name is in the civil registry.
3. The petition in this case is essentially one for judicial authority to change names, as it requests correction of names in birth certificates to register as "Sison".
1. Petitioners proved their correct surname is "Sison" but their father entered "dela Cruz" on marriage and birth documents incorrectly. Under Philippine law, legitimate children use their father's surname.
2. The only legal way to change a name is through a petition for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, as one's legal name is in the civil registry.
3. The petition in this case is essentially one for judicial authority to change names, as it requests correction of names in birth certificates to register as "Sison".
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 3
.
CIVIL LAW; PERSONS; USE OF SURNAMES; LEGITIMATE
CHILDREN SHALL PRINCIPALLY USE THE SURNAME OF THE FATHER. — Petitioners have proved that their correct surname is "Sison." It was error for their father, Antonio, to have entered "dela Cruz" as his surname in his marriage contract and in the Birth Certificates of his children, for, at the time of Antonio's birth, on May 10, 1935, his mother was then the wife of Aurelio Sison, whom she had married in 1931. Antonio's father was Aurelio Sison. Although at the time of his marriage in 1962, Antonio's mother was then the wife of Laurencio dela Cruz, whom she married in 1942, our laws do not authorize legitimate children to adopt the surname of a person who is not their father (Article 364, Civil Code; Padilla vs. Republic, 113 SCRA 789(1982)). 2. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS; CHANGE OF NAME; ONLY BY APPROPRIATE PROCEEDING UNDER RULE 103, RULES OF COURT. — Procedurally, the only way by which a name can be changed legally is by appropriate proceeding under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court; that is, through a Petition for Change of Name, since a person's legal name is what appears in the civil register, not the name by which he was baptized or by which he has been known in the community (Chomi vs. Local Civil Registrar of Manila, 99 Phil. 1004 [1956]). 3. ID.; ID.; SUMMARY PROCEDURE FOR CORRECTION OF ENTRIES IN CIVIL REGISTRY; DEEMED ONE FOR JUDICIAL AUTHORITY TO CHANGE NAMES IN CASE AT BAR. — The petition in this case may well be, in essence, one for judicial authority to change names, for the petition prays for "correction of names and more specifically for an order" to make the necessary corrections in the respective certificates of birth of petitioners by registering their names therein as Danilo Sison y Ibarra and Josephine Sison y Ibarra (San Roque vs. Republic, 23 SCRA 444 [1968]). 4. ID.; ID.; ID.; MATERIAL CORRECTIONS OR AMENDMENTS FORBIDDEN. — In Matias vs. Republic, 28 SCRA 31(1969) per Acting Chief Justice J.B.L. Reyes, "Granting that the supplying of a name that was left blank in the original recording of the birth does not constitute, as contended by the Solicitor General, a rectification of a mere clerical error, it is well to observe that the doctrine of the case of Ty Kong Tin v. Republic, 94 Phil. 321, and subsequent adjudications predicated thereon, forbade only the entering of material corrections or amendments in the record of birth by virtue of a judgment in a summary action against the Civil Registrar." 5. ID.; ID.; ID.; PROCEEDINGS IN CASE AT BAR NOT SUMMARY. — In this case, the proceedings below were not summary pursuant to the ruling in the Matias case and in the more recent one of Kumala Salim Wing vs. Ahmad Abubakar, Civil Registrar of the Municipality of Jolo, et al. (102 SCRA 523 [1981]), penned by Mr. Chief Justice Enrique M. Fernando, where copies of the Petition and the Amended Petition were served on the Solicitor General. The order of the trial court setting the petition for hearing was duly published in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for three consecutive weeks. Copy of that order was likewise furnished the Solicitor General. Notwithstanding that all interested persons were cited to appear to show cause why the petition should not be granted, no one appeared to oppose except the State through the Solicitor General. But neither did the State present evidence in support of its Opposition. There was a hearing on the merits where the State was duly represented and cross- examined petitioners and their witness. No doubt is cast on the credibility of petitioners' allegations nor upon the evidence adduced by them. Absent, too, is any showing that prejudice would result to any party interested. (Matias vs. Republic, 28 SCRA 31[1969]). DE CASTRO, J., concurring: 1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS; CANCELLATION OR CORRECTION OF ENTRIES IN CIVIL REGISTRY; NOT A SUMMARY ACTION. — Justice de Castro takes the view that the action contemplated under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is not a summary action, and renders obsolete rulings denying authority to the courts to order correction of more than mere harmless clerical errors in the Civil Registry. The instant decision would seem to sustain the dissenting opinion of Justice de Castro in Wong vs. Republic, L-29276, July 30, 1982 and Republic vs. de la Cruz, L-34079, November 2, 1982, which, it is hoped, will henceforth be regarded as the prevailing doctrine. MAKASIAR, J., dissenting: 1. REMEDIAL LAW; SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS; PETITION FOR CANCELLATION OR CORRECTION OF ENTRIES IN CIVIL REGISTRY; LACHES WARRANT DISMISSAL IN CASE AT BAR. — The petition for correction of surname should be dismissed. The father, Antonio Sison, during his lifetime, had all the time to cause the correction of the record of birth in the Local Civil Registrar's Office from 1962 until his death on March 14, 1978. Neither he nor his wife, the mother of the children, filed any such petition for correction so that he, with his wife, could have explained personally the discrepancy in the surname of the two children appearing in the Civil Registry on the one hand and in the church as well as the school record on the other. 2. ID.; ID.; CANCELLATION OR CORRECTION OF ENTRIES IN CIVIL REGISTRY; NOTICE BY PUBLICATION NOT SUFFICIENT. — All persons interested in the estate of the deceased Antonio Sison and the heirs of Antonio's stepfather, Laurencio de la Cruz, who died in 1942 were not personally notified of, nor heard on the petition for correction. Notice by publication will not suffice since these interested persons are known to the grandmother, Gertrudes Reyes, Antonio's mother, who assisted herein petitioners in this case. Rights of third persons may also be prejudiced by the petition for correction, which rights should also be determined in an appropriate proceeding. 3. CRIMINAL LAW; FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS; COMMITTED WHERE ENTRIES IN THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT AND BIRTH CERTIFICATES FALSIFIED. — The majority opinion does not intimate any possible effect on the criminal liability of the spouses for falsifying the entries in the marriage contract and birth certificates. The crime was concealed from the authorities until February 20, 1979 when the Solicitor General was served with a copy of the amended petition. (In Re: Sison v. Republic, G.R. No. L-58087, [December 27, 1982], |||