Case-1-4.docx
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Case-1-4.docx as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 3,004
- Pages: 6
Republic vs Mercadera GR No. 186027 December 08, 2018 Parties: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. MERLYN MERCADERA through her Attorney-in-Fact, EVELYN M. OGA, Respondent. FACTS: Merlyn Mercadera (Mercadera), represented by her sister Evelyn Oga (Oga), sought the correction of her given name as it appeared in her Certificate of Live Birth from Marilyn L. Mercadera to Merlyn L. Mercadera before the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Dipolog City. Under RA 9048, the city or municipal civil registrar or consul general is now authorized to effect the change of first name or nickname and the correction of clerical or typographical errors in civil registry entries. The Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Dipolog City, however, refused to effect the correction unless a court order was obtained "because the Civil Registrar therein is not yet equipped with a permanent appointment before he can validly act on petitions for corrections filed before their office as mandated by RA 9048. Mercadera then filed a Petition For Correction of Some Entries as Appearing in the Certificate of Live Birth under Rule 108 before RTC of Dipolog City. Upon receipt of the petition for correction of entry, the RTC issued an order for the hearing of said petition. The OSG deputized the Office of the City Prosecutor to assist in the case. Without any objection from the City Prosecutor, the testimony of Oga and several photocopies of documents were formally offered and marked as evidence to prove that Mercadera never used the name "Marilyn" in any of her public or private transactions. Consequently RTC granted the petition and ruled that the documentary evidence presented by Mercadera sufficiently supported the circumstances alleged in her petition. Considering that she had used "Merlyn" as her given name since childhood until she discovered the discrepancy in her Certificate of Live Birth, the RTC was convinced that the correction was justified. The OSG timely appealed praying setting aside of the RTC decision. For the OSG, the correction in the spelling of Mercadera’s given name "is in truth a material correction as it would modify or increase substantive rights", which would have been proper had she filed a petition under Rule 103 and proved any of the grounds therefor. The CA was not persuaded and affirmed the questioned RTC order. Hence, this petition.
ISSUES: Whether the CA erred on question of law in granting the change in respondent’s name under Rule 103.
HELD: No. Rule 103 procedurally governs judicial petitions for change of given name or surname, or both, pursuant to Article 376 of the Civil Code. This rule provides the procedure for an independent special proceeding in court to establish the status of a person involving his relations with others, that is, his legal position in, or with regard to, the rest of the community. Essentially, a change of name does not define or effect a change of one’s existing family relations or in the rights and duties flowing therefrom. It does not alter one’s legal capacity or civil status.
Rule 108, on the other hand, implements judicial proceedings for the correction or cancellation of entries in the civil registry pursuant to Article 412 of the Civil Code. Entries in the civil register refer to "acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons," also as enumerated in Article 408 of the same law. In the case at bench, the OSG posits that the conversion from "MARILYN" to "MERLYN" is not a correction of an innocuous error but a material correction tantamount to a change of name which entails a modification or increase in substantive rights. For the OSG, this is a substantial error that requires compliance with the procedure under Rule 103, and not Rule 108. A change of one’s name under Rule 103 can be granted, only on grounds provided by law, there must be a proper and compelling reason for the change and proof that the person requesting will be prejudiced by the use of his official name. In petitions for correction, only clerical, spelling, typographical and other innocuous errors in the civil registry may be raised. Considering that the enumeration in Section 2, Rule 108 also includes "changes of name," the correction of a patently misspelled name is covered by Rule 108. Suffice it to say, not all alterations allowed in one’s name are confined under Rule 103. Corrections for clerical errors may be set right under Rule 108. Thus, the petition filed by Mercadera before the RTC correctly falls under Rule 108 as it simply sought a correction of a misspelled given name. From the allegations in her petition, Mercadera clearly prayed for the lower court "to remove the faults or error" from her registered given name "MARILYN," and "to make or set aright" the same to conform to the one she grew up to, "MERLYN." The CA did not allow Mercadera the change of her name. What it did allow was the correction of her misspelled given name which she had been using ever since she could remember.
Oshita vs. Republic GR G.R. No. 21180 March 31, 1967 Parties: IN THE MATTER OF THE CHANGE OF NAME OF ANTONINA B. OSHITA. ANTONINA B. OSHITA, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant. FACTS: Antonina B. Oshita filed with the Court of First Instance of Davao a petition to have her name changed from "Antonina B. Oshita" to "Antonina Bartolome". The petition was signed by the petitioner herself and was "subscribed and sworn to" by her before the Deputy Clerk of Court. The requirements for the publication of the hearing of the petition were duly complied with. Asst. City Attorney Roque M. Barnes, acting in behalf of the Solicitor General, filed a motion to dismiss the petition upon the grounds (1) of lack of jurisdiction, in that although the petition was subscribed and sworn to by petitioner, it was not verified in accordance with the provisions of Section 6, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court; and (2) that the petition does not state a cause of action. The petitioner-appellee filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. The lower court denied the motion to dismiss and set the case for hearing.As found by the lower court, the evidence has established that appellee Antonina B. Oshita is the legitimate daughter of Kishimatsu Oshita, a Japanese citizen, now deceased, and Buena Bartolome, a Filipino; that upon reaching the age of majority, appellee elected Philippine citizenship and took her oath of allegiance; that being already a Filipino citizen she desired to have her family name changed from "Oshita" to "Bartolome", the latter being the family name of her mother, and because she felt embarrassed when introduced as one bearing a Japanese surname.
The Assistant City Attorney of Davao City did not present any evidence in support of his opposition to the petition, but simply reiterated his motion to dismiss. The trial court rendered a decision granting the petition. Hence this appeal by the Solicitor General.
ISSUE: 1. Wether the lower court had jurisdiction to the case because the petition was not verified as required by Section 2 of Rule 103 of the Rules of Court. 2. Wether there is sufficient reason to justify the change of the surname of the appellee.
HELD: 1. Yes. While it is true that under Section 2, Rule 103, it is required that the petition for change of name be verified, nevertheless, no provision exists in the rules which declares that such a requirement regarding verification is jurisdictional. The requirement regarding verification of a pleading is simply a condition affecting the form of pleading, the non-compliance of which does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order the correction of the pleading if the verification is lacking, or act on the pleading although it is not verified if the attending circumstances are such that the strict compliance with the rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice or the law may thereby be served. In this case, the petitioner was not verified, it was, however, subscribed and sworn to by the petitioner, and the court believe that the lower court did not commit a reversible error when it denied the motion to dismiss the petition upon the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the court was not affected by the absence of the proper verification of the petition.
2. Yes. It is true that Article 364 of the Civil Code provides that legitimate children shall principally use the surname of the father. But this rule is not absolute. Article 264 of the Civil Code provides that legitimate children have the right to bear the surname of the father and of the mother. Hence, if there is sufficient reason, the change of a child's surname from that of the father, to that of the mother, may be authorized by the court. In the instant case, it has been shown that Oshita is the legitimate daughter of Buena Bartolome and Hishimatsu Oshita; that upon reaching the age of majority she elected Philippine citizenship and took her oath of allegiance; that being already a Filipino citizen she desires to adopt a Filipino surname; that her older brother and sister who had also elected Philippine citizenship have been using the surname "Bartolome"; and that shedesires to have the surname "Bartolome" instead of "Oshita", because she felt embarrassed when introduced as one bearing Japanese surname.
In Re Petition for Change of Name and/or Correction of Entry in the Civil Registry of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang G.R. No. 159966 March 30, 2005 Parties: 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, petitioner, vs. CEBU CITY CIVIL REGISTRAR, duly represented by the Registrar OSCAR B. MOLO, respondent. FACTS: The parents of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang, Anna Lisa Wang and Sing-Foe Wang,were not yet married to each other when he was born. When his parents subsequently got married they 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. So, a petition was filed his mother 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. The parents of Julian wanted to change his name since they intend for Julian to study in Singapore and in Singapore middle names or the maiden surname of the mother are not carried in a person’s name. They anticipated that will lead to discrimination. They also anticipated that it will lead to confusion on the part of Julian since his sibling have different surnames. The RTC denied the petition. Petitioner then filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari (Under Rule 45). ISSUE: Whether or not dropping of middle name of a minor child is allowed under Philippine laws. HELD: No. 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. The valid grounds for change of name are as follows: : (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. 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. The Family Code gives legitimate children the right to bear the surnames of the father and the mother. Only an illegitimate child whose filiation is not recognized by the father does not have a middle name. Thus, the registered name of a legitimate, legitimated and recognized illegitimate child thus contains a given or proper name, a middle name, and a surname. In relation to the present case, the only reason advanced by petitioner for the dropping his middle name is convenience. This is not one of the valid grounds for petition for change of name to be granted. In addition, petitioner is only a minor. 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.
Republic vs Tañada
G.R. No. L-31563
November 29, 1971
Parties: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. SANTIAGO O. TAÑADA Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu and LUA ONG representing the minor BABY ONG, alias LUA AN JOK respondents. FACTS: Lua Ong, private respondent filed a petition for the change of the name of his son Baby Ong to Lua An Jok. The court ordered the hearing and the publication of the said order in a newspaper of general circulation in Cebu City. On the day of the hearing, no one object therefore the court ordered authorizing Baby Ong to use the name An Jok Lua. Consequently, the assistance provincial fiscal, on behalf of the government, interposed an appeal. In its petition, petitioner claimed 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. Petitioner also raised that there is no proper and reasonable cause or compelling reason to justify the change of name. Issues: 1. Whether the court a quo has the jurisdiction on the respondent’s petition. 2. Whetther there is compelling reason to justify the change of name of the respondent.
Held: 1. No. 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. 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. The title should recite the name sought to be adopted. All these, notwithstanding that the body of the petition or of the order includes all the information aforementioned. In this case, 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 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.
2. No. 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. In this case, the uncontroverted fact that the private respondent’s 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." 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.
ISSUES: Whether the CA erred on question of law in granting the change in respondent’s name under Rule 103.
HELD: No. Rule 103 procedurally governs judicial petitions for change of given name or surname, or both, pursuant to Article 376 of the Civil Code. This rule provides the procedure for an independent special proceeding in court to establish the status of a person involving his relations with others, that is, his legal position in, or with regard to, the rest of the community. Essentially, a change of name does not define or effect a change of one’s existing family relations or in the rights and duties flowing therefrom. It does not alter one’s legal capacity or civil status.
Rule 108, on the other hand, implements judicial proceedings for the correction or cancellation of entries in the civil registry pursuant to Article 412 of the Civil Code. Entries in the civil register refer to "acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons," also as enumerated in Article 408 of the same law. In the case at bench, the OSG posits that the conversion from "MARILYN" to "MERLYN" is not a correction of an innocuous error but a material correction tantamount to a change of name which entails a modification or increase in substantive rights. For the OSG, this is a substantial error that requires compliance with the procedure under Rule 103, and not Rule 108. A change of one’s name under Rule 103 can be granted, only on grounds provided by law, there must be a proper and compelling reason for the change and proof that the person requesting will be prejudiced by the use of his official name. In petitions for correction, only clerical, spelling, typographical and other innocuous errors in the civil registry may be raised. Considering that the enumeration in Section 2, Rule 108 also includes "changes of name," the correction of a patently misspelled name is covered by Rule 108. Suffice it to say, not all alterations allowed in one’s name are confined under Rule 103. Corrections for clerical errors may be set right under Rule 108. Thus, the petition filed by Mercadera before the RTC correctly falls under Rule 108 as it simply sought a correction of a misspelled given name. From the allegations in her petition, Mercadera clearly prayed for the lower court "to remove the faults or error" from her registered given name "MARILYN," and "to make or set aright" the same to conform to the one she grew up to, "MERLYN." The CA did not allow Mercadera the change of her name. What it did allow was the correction of her misspelled given name which she had been using ever since she could remember.
Oshita vs. Republic GR G.R. No. 21180 March 31, 1967 Parties: IN THE MATTER OF THE CHANGE OF NAME OF ANTONINA B. OSHITA. ANTONINA B. OSHITA, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant. FACTS: Antonina B. Oshita filed with the Court of First Instance of Davao a petition to have her name changed from "Antonina B. Oshita" to "Antonina Bartolome". The petition was signed by the petitioner herself and was "subscribed and sworn to" by her before the Deputy Clerk of Court. The requirements for the publication of the hearing of the petition were duly complied with. Asst. City Attorney Roque M. Barnes, acting in behalf of the Solicitor General, filed a motion to dismiss the petition upon the grounds (1) of lack of jurisdiction, in that although the petition was subscribed and sworn to by petitioner, it was not verified in accordance with the provisions of Section 6, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court; and (2) that the petition does not state a cause of action. The petitioner-appellee filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. The lower court denied the motion to dismiss and set the case for hearing.As found by the lower court, the evidence has established that appellee Antonina B. Oshita is the legitimate daughter of Kishimatsu Oshita, a Japanese citizen, now deceased, and Buena Bartolome, a Filipino; that upon reaching the age of majority, appellee elected Philippine citizenship and took her oath of allegiance; that being already a Filipino citizen she desired to have her family name changed from "Oshita" to "Bartolome", the latter being the family name of her mother, and because she felt embarrassed when introduced as one bearing a Japanese surname.
The Assistant City Attorney of Davao City did not present any evidence in support of his opposition to the petition, but simply reiterated his motion to dismiss. The trial court rendered a decision granting the petition. Hence this appeal by the Solicitor General.
ISSUE: 1. Wether the lower court had jurisdiction to the case because the petition was not verified as required by Section 2 of Rule 103 of the Rules of Court. 2. Wether there is sufficient reason to justify the change of the surname of the appellee.
HELD: 1. Yes. While it is true that under Section 2, Rule 103, it is required that the petition for change of name be verified, nevertheless, no provision exists in the rules which declares that such a requirement regarding verification is jurisdictional. The requirement regarding verification of a pleading is simply a condition affecting the form of pleading, the non-compliance of which does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order the correction of the pleading if the verification is lacking, or act on the pleading although it is not verified if the attending circumstances are such that the strict compliance with the rule may be dispensed with in order that the ends of justice or the law may thereby be served. In this case, the petitioner was not verified, it was, however, subscribed and sworn to by the petitioner, and the court believe that the lower court did not commit a reversible error when it denied the motion to dismiss the petition upon the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the court was not affected by the absence of the proper verification of the petition.
2. Yes. It is true that Article 364 of the Civil Code provides that legitimate children shall principally use the surname of the father. But this rule is not absolute. Article 264 of the Civil Code provides that legitimate children have the right to bear the surname of the father and of the mother. Hence, if there is sufficient reason, the change of a child's surname from that of the father, to that of the mother, may be authorized by the court. In the instant case, it has been shown that Oshita is the legitimate daughter of Buena Bartolome and Hishimatsu Oshita; that upon reaching the age of majority she elected Philippine citizenship and took her oath of allegiance; that being already a Filipino citizen she desires to adopt a Filipino surname; that her older brother and sister who had also elected Philippine citizenship have been using the surname "Bartolome"; and that shedesires to have the surname "Bartolome" instead of "Oshita", because she felt embarrassed when introduced as one bearing Japanese surname.
In Re Petition for Change of Name and/or Correction of Entry in the Civil Registry of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang G.R. No. 159966 March 30, 2005 Parties: 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, petitioner, vs. CEBU CITY CIVIL REGISTRAR, duly represented by the Registrar OSCAR B. MOLO, respondent. FACTS: The parents of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang, Anna Lisa Wang and Sing-Foe Wang,were not yet married to each other when he was born. When his parents subsequently got married they 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. So, a petition was filed his mother 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. The parents of Julian wanted to change his name since they intend for Julian to study in Singapore and in Singapore middle names or the maiden surname of the mother are not carried in a person’s name. They anticipated that will lead to discrimination. They also anticipated that it will lead to confusion on the part of Julian since his sibling have different surnames. The RTC denied the petition. Petitioner then filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari (Under Rule 45). ISSUE: Whether or not dropping of middle name of a minor child is allowed under Philippine laws. HELD: No. 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. The valid grounds for change of name are as follows: : (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. 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. The Family Code gives legitimate children the right to bear the surnames of the father and the mother. Only an illegitimate child whose filiation is not recognized by the father does not have a middle name. Thus, the registered name of a legitimate, legitimated and recognized illegitimate child thus contains a given or proper name, a middle name, and a surname. In relation to the present case, the only reason advanced by petitioner for the dropping his middle name is convenience. This is not one of the valid grounds for petition for change of name to be granted. In addition, petitioner is only a minor. 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.
Republic vs Tañada
G.R. No. L-31563
November 29, 1971
Parties: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. HON. SANTIAGO O. TAÑADA Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cebu and LUA ONG representing the minor BABY ONG, alias LUA AN JOK respondents. FACTS: Lua Ong, private respondent filed a petition for the change of the name of his son Baby Ong to Lua An Jok. The court ordered the hearing and the publication of the said order in a newspaper of general circulation in Cebu City. On the day of the hearing, no one object therefore the court ordered authorizing Baby Ong to use the name An Jok Lua. Consequently, the assistance provincial fiscal, on behalf of the government, interposed an appeal. In its petition, petitioner claimed 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. Petitioner also raised that there is no proper and reasonable cause or compelling reason to justify the change of name. Issues: 1. Whether the court a quo has the jurisdiction on the respondent’s petition. 2. Whetther there is compelling reason to justify the change of name of the respondent.
Held: 1. No. 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. 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. The title should recite the name sought to be adopted. All these, notwithstanding that the body of the petition or of the order includes all the information aforementioned. In this case, 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 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.
2. No. 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. In this case, the uncontroverted fact that the private respondent’s 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." 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.
More Documents from "Lloyd Sanchez"
Case-5-to-8.docx
June 2020 5
Consolidated.docx
June 2020 3
Case-1-4.docx
June 2020 3
