CA 142 Section 1.

Except as a pseudonym solely for literary, cinema, television, radio or other entertainment purposes and in athletic events where the use of pseudonym is a normally accepted practice, no person shall use any name different from the one with which he was registered at birth in the office of the local civil registry or with which he was baptized for the first time, or in case of an alien, with which he was registered in the bureau of immigration upon entry; or such substitute name as may have been authorized by a competent court: Provided, That persons whose births have not been registered in any local civil registry and who have not been baptized, have one year from the approval of this act within which to register their names in the civil registry of their residence. The name shall comprise the patronymic name and one or two surnames. Section 2. Any person desiring to use an alias shall apply for authority therefor in proceedings like those legally provided to obtain judicial authority for a change of name and no person shall be allowed to secure such judicial authority for more than one alias. The petition for an alias shall set forth the person's baptismal and family name and the name recorded in the civil registry, if different, his immigrant's name, if an alien, and his pseudonym, if he has such names other than his original or real name, specifying the reason or reasons for the desired alias. The judicial authority for the use of alias, the Christian name and the alien immigrant's name shall be recorded in the proper local civil registry, and no person shall use any name or names other than his original or real name unless the same is or are duly recorded in the proper local civil registry.

EN BANC G.R. No. L-10912 October 31, 1958

In the matter of the petition of ANSELMO LIM HOK ALBANO, etc., to be admitted a citizen of the Philippines. ANSELMO LIM HOK ALBANO, etc., petitioner-appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellee. Digest After information for plunder was filed against former President Joseph Estrada, separate information for illegal use of alias was filed against him. The information alleged that respondent being then President of the Philippines represented himself as Jose Velarde in several transactions without authority. The Republic presented its evidence during trial before Sandiganbayan and thereafter rested its case. Respondent former President Estrada filed a demurrer to evidence with leave of court. The Sandiganbayan dismissed criminal case against former President Estrada for illegal use of alias. Hence, the Republic filed petition for Review on Certiorari.

Issue 1. Whether or not former President Estradas use of Jose Velarde in the presence of 2 Bank officers and 2 other witnesses constituted public use of alias Rule in Libel law that mere communication to third person is publicity-does not apply to violations of CA No. 142. Our close reading of Ursua particularly, the requirement that there be intention by the user to be culpable and the historical reasons we cited above tells us that the required publicity in the use of alias is more than mere communication to a third person; the use of the alias, to be considered public, must be made openly, or in an open manner or place, or to cause it to become generally known. In order to be held liable for a violation of CA No. 142, the user of the alias must have held himself out as a person who shall publicly be known under that other name. In other words, the intent to publicly use the alias must be manifest. To our mind, the presence of Lacquian and Chua when Estrada signed as Jose Velarde and opened Trust Account No. C-163 does not necessarily indicate his intention to be publicly known henceforth as Jose Velarde. In relation to Estrada, Lacquian and Chua were not part of the public who had no access to Estradas privacy and to the confidential matters that transpired in Malacaan where he sat as President; Lacquian was the Chief of Staff with whom he shared matters of the highest and strictest confidence, while Chua was a lawyer-friend bound by his oath of office and ties of friendship to keep and maintain the privacy and secrecy of his affairs. Thus, Estrada could not be said to have intended his signing as Jose Velarde to be for public consumption by the fact alone that Lacquian and Chua were also inside the room at that time. The same holds true for Estradas alleged representations with Ortaliza and Dichavez, assuming the evidence for these representations to be admissible. All of Estradas representations to these people were made in privacy and in secrecy, with no iota of intention of publicity 2. Whether or not respondents use of Jose Velarde in opening trust account is covered by R.A. 1405 (Bank Secrecy Law) thus, done in secrecy R.A. 1405 (Bank Secrecy Law) covers opening of trust account The nature, too, of the transaction on which the indictment rests, affords Estrada a reasonable expectation of privacy, as the alleged criminal act related to the opening of a trust account a transaction that R.A. No. 1405 considers absolutely confidential in nature.We previously rejected, in Ejercito v. Sandiganbayan, the Peoples nitpicking argument on the alleged dichotomy between bank deposits and trust transactions, when we said: The contention that trust accounts are not covered by the term "deposits," as used in R.A. 1405, by the mere fact that they do not entail a creditor-debtor relationship between the trustor and the bank, does not lie. An examination of the law shows that the term

"deposits" used therein is to be understood broadly and not limited only to accounts which give rise to a creditor-debtor relationship between the depositor and the bank.

G.R. No. 153883

January 13, 2004

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. CHULE Y. LIM, respondent. Respondent Chule Y. Lim filed petition for correction of entries before RTC Lanao del Norte. In her petition, respondent claimed her records of birth have four erroneous entries, and prays that they be corrected. Respondent testified that her surname Yu was misspelled as Yo and she has been using "Yu" in all her school records and in her marriage certificate. RTC granted her petition and ordered that her citizenship be corrected from Chinese to Filipino, from legitimate to illegitimate, and lastly that her surname be changed to YU. The Republic of the Philippines appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial courts decision. Issue Whether or not respondent allowed to use her fathers surname despite being illegitimate Ruling The Court of Appeals did not allow respondent to use her fathers surname. What it did allow was the correction of her fathers misspelled surname which she has been using ever since she can remember. In this regard, respondent does not need a court pronouncement for her to use her fathers surname. Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 142, which regulates the use of aliases, allows a person to use a name "by which he has been known since childhood. While judicial authority is required for a change of name or surname,18 there is no such requirement for the continued use of a surname which a person has already been using since childhood.19 The doctrine that disallows such change of name as would give the false impression of family relationship remains valid but only to the extent that the proposed change of name would in great probability cause prejudice or future mischief to the family whose surname it is that is involved or to the community in general.20 In this case, the Republic has not shown that the Yu family in China would probably be prejudiced or be the object of future mischief. In respondents case, the change in the surname that she has been using for 40 years would even avoid confusion to her community in general.