10/18/2019 G.R. No. L-20997 April 27, 1967 - IN RE: ONG HUAN TIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

THE PHIL. : APRIL 1967 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COUR…

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Like 0 Tweet Share Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1967 > April 1967 Decisions > G.R. No. L-20997 April 27, 1967 -
IN RE: ONG HUAN TIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.:

Custom Search
Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-20997. April 27, 1967.]

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION TO CHANGE NAME OF ONG HUAN TIN TO TERESITA TAN,
ONG HUAN TIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellee.

J. C. Yuseco for petitioner and Appellant.

Solicitor General for oppositor and appellee.

SYLLABUS

1. NAME, CHANGE OF; PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP NOT A REQUISITE SCOPE OF "PERSON" WITHIN THE
REQUISITES SET FORTH IN RULE 103, RULES OF COURT. — Rule 103 does not say that only citizens of
the Philippines may petition for a change of name. In Section 1 thereof the word "person" is a generic
term which is not limited to Filipino citizens, but embraces all natural persons. It does not even require
that the citizenship of the petitioner be stated in his petition. It is enough that the petition is verified,
signed by the petitioner or some other person in his behalf, and set forth (a) that the petitioner has been
a bonafide resident of the province where the petition is filed, for at least three (3) years prior to the
date of filing (b) the cause for which the change of name is sought; and (c) the name asked for (Section
2).

DebtKollect Company, Inc.
2. ID.; PROPER AND REASONABLE CAUSE; JUDICIAL DISCRETION. — The purpose of the judicial
application is to determine whether there is proper and reasonable cause for the change of name. As held
by this Court in several cases, in which pertinently enough the petitioners were aliens, the change is not
a matter of right but of judicial discretion, to be exercised in the light of the reasons adduced and the
consequences that will likely follow. (Ong Peng Oan v. Republic, 102 Phil., 468 and other cases cited).

3. ID; SPECIAL PROCEEDING; PROCEEDING IN REM. — Change of name under our own law - is a special
proceeding 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. The petition therefor is directed against all. It is in rem.
So it is, that under Section 3 of rule 103, publication of the petition is required.

4. ID; ID.; ID.; ALIEN-APPLICANT TO BE GOVERNED BY LEX DOMICILII; MEANING OF "DOMICILE." —

The broad general doctrine is that the status of an alien individual is governed and controlled by the lex
domicilii. Implicit in this precept is that an alien may be allowed to change his name here only if he be
domiciled in the Philippines. And "domicile" means "permanent home, the place to which, whenever
absent for business or pleasure, one intends to return, and depends on facts and circumstances, in the
sense that they disclose intent."cralaw virtua1aw library

5. ID.; ID.; ID.; ALIEN WHO IS TEMPORARY RESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES CAN NOT AVAIL OF THIS
RIGHT. — An alien who temporarily stays in the Philippines may not there avail of the right to change his
name. For, what good will that be if, after all, his stay will be for a short period of time? It would not be of
much benefit to him; court proceeding for the purpose could yet be a useless ceremony; the salutary
ChanRobles Intellectual Property effects flowing from a change of his social relation and condition may not thus be achieved. And then,
Division stock should be taken of the fact that in a change of name, third persons and the State are concerned.
Correct, then, it is to say that change of name in not temporary in nature; the new name may not be
shunted aside at will.

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1967aprildecisions.php?id=154 1/3
10/18/2019 G.R. No. L-20997 April 27, 1967 - IN RE: ONG HUAN TIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. : APRIL 1967 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COUR…
April-1967 Jurisprudence                  them.
G.R. No. L-18127 April 5, 1967 - IN RE: CORAZON
ADOLFO CALDERON v. REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. L-19726 April 13, 1967 - DOMINGO
IMPERIAL v. VENANCIO P. ZIGA
G.R. Nos. L-24235-36 April 18, 1967 - STA. CECILIA
SAWMILLS, INC. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL
RELATIONS, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-20215 April 24, 1967 - DIONISIO PEREZ
v. CENTRAL AZUCARERA DON PEDRO
G.R. Nos. L-20246-48 April 24, 1967 - JORGE
VYTIACO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-22591 April 24, 1967 - IN RE: ANG CHUN
v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. L-23102 April 24, 1967 - CECILIO
MENDOZA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
G.R. Nos. L-16204 & L-16256 April 24, 1967 -
ERNESTO A. PAPA, ET AL. v. SEVERO J. SANTIAGO
G.R. No. L-17599 April 24, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. NICOLAS CUNANAN, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-19606 April 24, 1967 - BUENAVENTURA
TAN v. HON. MACARIO PERALTA, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-23387 April 24, 1967 - IN RE: LIM SIH
BENG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. L-23611 April 24, 1967 - GUAGUA
ELECTRIC LIGHT PLANT CO., INC. v. COLLECTOR OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-22310 April 24, 1967 - IN RE: TAN CHUA
v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. L-22500 April 24, 1967 - NEW ZEALAND
INSURANCE CO., LTD. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET
AL.
G.R. No. L-23855 April 24, 1967 - IN RE: WONG
CHUI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. L-23390 April 24, 1967 - MINDANAO
PORTLAND CEMENT CORP. v. MCDONOUGH
CONSTRUCTION CO. OF FLORIDA
A.C. No. 561 April 27, 1967 - IN RE: ATTY. ISIDRO
P. VINZON
G.R. No. L-18762 April 27, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. MARIANO AYOSO, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-18911 April 27, 1967 - REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. CLEOFE RAMOS
G.R. No. L-19425 April 27, 1967 - DEMOSTHENES
MEDIANTE, ET AL. v. HON. MONTANO ORTIZ
G.R. No. L-20083 April 27, 1967 - CRISOSTOMO
BONILLA, ET AL. v. SEC. OF AGRI. & NATURAL
RESOURCES, ET AL.
G.R. No. L-20338 April 27, 1967 - BANAGAN
LUMIGUIS, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.
www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1967aprildecisions.php?id=154
DECISION
SANCHEZ, J.:
Petition to change the name of Ong Huan Tin to Teresita Tan (Special Proceeding 03521, Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court). Due publication was had. The petition was set for hearing. But, before the
petition could be heard on the merits, the court, motu proprio, in its order of November 6, 1962
expressed the opinion "that an alien cannot avail himself of the provisions of our Rules of Court relating
to change of name" and thereupon denied the petition. A move to reconsider was rejected in the court’s
order of November 24, 1962. Offshoot is the present appeal.
1. At issue is whether an alien may petition for a change of name. Primarily, this question hinges on the
proper interpretation of the word person as it is employed in Rule 103 of the Rules of Court. This
problem, by all means, is not new.
In a recent judicial test (In the Petition for the Change of Name of JOSELITO YU, G. R. L-20874, May 25,
1966) we held that Philippine citizenship of the applicant is not a prerequisite for a petition to change
name; and that, accordingly, an alien may petition for a change of name. There, this Court, speaking
through Mr. Justice Makalintal, declared: jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"Rule 103 does not say that only citizens of the Philippines may petition for a change of name. [Neither
does Public Act No. 1386 of the Philippine Commission (enacted September 1, 1905) from which the Rule
has been adopted.] Section 1 provides that ‘a person desiring to change his name shall present the
petition to the court of First Instance of the province in which he resides, or, in the City of Manila, to the
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.’ Here, the word ‘person’ is a generic term which is not limited to
Filipino citizens but embraces all natural persons. The rule does not even require that the citizenship of
the petitioner be stated in his petition. It is enough that the petition be verified, signed by the petitioner
or some other person in his behalf, and set forth (a) that the petitioner has been a bona fide resident of
the province where the petition is filed for at least three (3) years prior to the date of filing; (b) the cause
for which the change of name is sought; and (c) the name asked for (Section 2). The rule is clear and
affords no room for interpretation. It sets forth all the requirements, and Filipino citizenship is not one of
The court a quo ruled that since the use of surnames is based on family rights, and since under Article 15
of the Civil Code laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of
persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines even though living abroad, the converse of the
principle must be recognized, that is to say, the same matters in respect of an alien must be governed by
the laws of his own country. The major premise of the proposition may be true in a general sense: One’s
surname is usually that by which not only one as an individual but one’s family as well is known. Thus
Title XIII of the Civil Code (Articles 364 to 373) contains provisions for the use of surnames by
legitimate, legitimated, illegitimate, and adopted children, as well as by women who are married,
widowed or legally separated from their husbands. Put a change of name as authorized under Rule 103
does not by itself define, or effect a change in, one’s existing family relations, or in the rights and duties
flowing therefrom; nor does it create new family rights and duties where none before were existing. It
does not alter one’s legal capacity, civil status or citizenship. What is altered is only the name, which is
that word or combination of words by which a person is distinguished from others and which he bears as
the label or appellation for the conveniences of the world at large in addressing him, or in speaking of or
dealing with him (38 Am. Jur. 595). The situation is no different whether the person whose name is
changed be a citizen or an alien.
To be sure, there could be instances where the change applied for may be open to objection by parties
who already bear the surname desired by the applicant, not because he would thereby acquire certain
family ties with them but because the existence of such ties might be erroneously impressed on the
public mind. But this is precisely the purpose of the judicial application — to determine whether there is
proper and reasonable cause for the change of name. As held by this Court in several cases, in which
pertinently enough the petitioners were aliens, the change is not a matter of right but of judicial
discretion, to be exercised in the light of the reasons adduced and the consequences that will likely follow
(Ong Peng Oan v. Republic, L-8035, Nov. 29, 1957; Tan v. Republic, L-16384, April 26, 1962; Ong Te v.
Republic, L-15549, June 30, 1962; Moore v. Republic, L-16607, June 26, 1963). In not one of those
cases, however, has it been ruled that an alien is not entitled to file a petition at all."
cralaw virtua1aw library
2. Nonetheless, we pause to consider whether every alien in this country may petition for a change of
name.
Change of name — under our law — is a special proceeding 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. The
petition therefor is directed against all. It is in rem. So it is, that under Section 3 of Rule 103, publication
of the petition is required. 1
The broad general doctrine is that the status of an alien individual is governed and controlled by the lex
domicilii. 2 Implicit in this precept is that an alien may be allowed to change his name here only if he be
domiciled in the Philippines. And "domicile" means permanent home, the place to which, whenever
absent for business or pleasure, one intends to return, and depends on facts and circumstances, in the
sense that they disclose intent." 3
An alien who temporarily stays in the Philippines may not there avail of the right to change his name. For,
what good will that be if after all, his stay will be for a short period of time? It would not be of much
benefit to him; court proceedings for the purpose could yet be a useless ceremony; the salutary effects
flowing from a change of his social relation and condition may not thus be achieved. And then, stock
should be taken of the fact that in a change of name, third parsons and the State are concerned. Correct,
then, it is to say that change of name is not temporary in nature; the new name may not be shunted
aside at will.
We, accordingly, lay down the rule that only aliens domiciled in the Philippines may apply for change of
name in the Courts thereof.
Considering that the petition herein complies with the requisites set forth in the Rules of Court, we vote
to set aside the orders of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of November 6, 1962 and November
24, 1962; and to direct said Court to proceed with the hearing and determination of Special Proceeding
03521, entitled "In the Matter of the Petition to Change Name of Ong Huan Tin to Teresita Tan." No costs.
So ordered.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L. Dizon Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar and Castro, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
2/3
10/18/2019 G.R. No. L-20997 April 27, 1967 - IN RE: ONG HUAN TIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. : APRIL 1967 - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COUR…

G.R. No. L-20408 April 27, 1967 - NARCISO 1. Padilla, Civil Code. Vol. 1, 1961- ed., p. 905, citing Jacobo v. Republic, 54 Off. Gaz. No. 9
SOLANCHO v. JOSEFA RAMOS, ET AL. pp. 2928, 2931. See also: 15 C.J.S. [Conflict of Laws], p. 905.
G.R. No. L-20623 April 27, 1967 - IN RE: LAW TAI
2. 15 C.J.S., id., p. 906, See Also: 11 Am. Jur. 315.
v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

G.R. No. L-20797 April 27, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE 3. Corre v. Corre, 100 Phil. 321, 323, citing 67 C.J., 123-124.
PHIL. v. FELIPE CRUZ, JR., ET AL.

G.R. No. L-21118 April 27, 1967 - LEON CLIMACO v.

CARLOS SIY UY, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-21724 April 27, 1967 - NATIONAL Back to Home | Back to Main
DEVELOPMENT CO. v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION
COMMISSION, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-22409 April 27, 1967 - RIZAL SURETY QUICK SEARCH
AND INSURANCE CO., INC. v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.,
ET AL.

G.R. No. L-22625 April 27, 1967 - FIREMAN’S FUND

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908
INS. CO. v. COMPAÑIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE
FILIPINAS, ET AL. 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924
G.R. No. L-22688 April 27, 1967 - UNITED
INSURANCE CO., INC. v. ROYAL INTEROCEAN LINES, 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932
ET AL.
1933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940
G.R. No. L-22819 April 27, 1967 - PROCTER & 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948
GAMBLE PHILIPPINE MANUFACTURING CORP. v. 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964
G.R. No. L-23932 April 27, 1967 - ABELARDO
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972
BUENO v. FRANCISCO G. CORDOBA, JR.
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
G.R. No. L-24037 April 27, 1967 - ALBERTO DE 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
JOYA, ET AL. v. HON. GREGORIO T. LANTIN, ET AL.
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
G.R. No. L-23766 April 27, 1967 - REPUBLIC OF THE
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
PHIL. v. JOSE C. TAYENGCO, ET AL.
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
G.R. No. L-23734 April 27, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
PHIL. v. TEODORO SABIO

G.R. No. L-23676 April 27, 1967 - TAN GUAN v.

COURT OF TAX APPEALS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-19475 April 27, 1967 - IN RE: JIMMY

CHUA YANCHO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!
G.R. No. L-25467 April 27, 1967 - LUCAS V.
CAUTON v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-17845 April 27, 1967 - SIMEON SADAYA

v. FRANCISCO SEVILLA

G.R. No. L-19570 April 27, 1967 - JOSE V. HILARIO,

JR. v. CITY OF MANILA, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-20195 April 27, 1967 - HEIRS OF JULIAN

MOLINA, ET AL. v. HONORIA VDA. DE BACUD, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-20886 April 27, 1967 - NATIONAL

MARKETING CORP. v. ASSOCIATED FINANCE CO.,
INC., ET AL.

G.R. No. L-20997 April 27, 1967 - IN RE: ONG

HUAN TIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

G.R. No. L-22065 April 27, 1967 - FRANCISCO

ORTIZ v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-21113 April 27, 1967 - MIGUEL OCAMPO

v. HON. HERMOGENES CALUAG, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-21550 April 27, 1967 - ALFREDO DIAZ v.

LUIS MOLINA, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-21705 April 27, 1967 - NAWASA v. HON.

ALFREDO CATOLICO, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-22515 April 27, 1967 - EXTENSIVE

ENTERPRISES CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

G.R. No. L-23377 April 27, 1967 - CARLOS KAHN,

ET AL. v. JACOBO ASUNCION, ET AL.

G.R. No. L-26558 April 27, 1967 - AMADO O.

IBAÑEZ, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET
AL.

G.R. No. L-20701 April 27, 1967 - MARIA L. VDA.

DE MlSA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL MARKETING CORP.

G.R. No. L-22650 April 28, 1967 - REPUBLIC OF THE

PHIL. v. THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION
COMMISSION, ET AL.

 Copyright © 1998 - 2019 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED

www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1967aprildecisions.php?id=154 3/3