Republic v.

Capote

The suit involves a petition for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court.
Respondent Capote sought to change the name of her ward from Giovanni N.
Gallamaso to Giovanni Nadores alleging that Giovanni was entrusted to her after
Giovanni’s natural father failed to provide support. Furthermore, it was also alleged
that the change of name adopting the mother’s surname was beneficial to Giovanni
as it would ease the processing of the immigration papers to the US, as his mother
plans to raise him there. Finally, it was prayed that the local civil registrar be
ordered to effect the change of name of Giovanni. The petition was published in a
newspaper of general circulation.

2 issues were raised:

a. Whether the non-participation of the OSG nullifies the proceeding.

b. Whether the petition for change of name was proper.

Ruling:

a. Respondent gave notice of the petition through publication as required by the

rules. With this, all interested parties were deemed notified and the whole
world considered bound by the judgment therein. In addition, the trial court
gave due notice to the OSG by serving a copy of the petition on it. Thus, all the
requirements to make a proceeding adversarial were satisfied when all
interested parties, including petitioner as represented by the OSG afforded the
opportunity to contest the petition.

b. The law and facts obtaining here favor Giovanni's petition. Giovanni availed of
the proper remedy, a petition for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules
of Court, and complied with all the procedural requirements. After hearing, the
trial court found (and the appellate court affirmed) that the evidence
presented during the hearing of Giovanni's petition sufficiently established
that, under Art. 176 of the Civil Code, Giovanni is entitled to change his name
as he was never recognized by his father while his mother has always
recognized him as her child. A change of name will erase the impression that
he was ever recognized by his father. It is also to his best interest as it will
facilitate his mother's intended petition to have him join her in the United
States. This Court will not stand in the way of the reunification of mother and
son.

Republic v. Coseteng-Magpayo

Respondent filed a petition to change name alleging that Respondent Julian Edward
Emerson was born in Makati City to Fulvio M. Magpayo Jr. and Anna Dominique
Marquez-Lim Coseteng who, as respondent’s certificate of live birth shows,
contracted marriage on March 26, 1972. Claiming, however, that his parents were
never legally married, respondent filed before RTC of Quezon City a petition to
change his name to Julian Edward Emerson Marquez-Lim Coseteng. In support of his
petition, respondent submitted a certification from the NSO stating that his mother
Anna Dominique does not appear in its National Indices of Marriage. Respondent also
submitted his academic records from elementary up to college showing that
he carried the surname "Coseteng," and the birth certificate of his child where
"Coseteng" appears as his surname. Respondent ran and was elected as Quezon
City’s Councilor using the name "JULIAN M.L. COSETENG."

Issue: Whether the petition to change name is valid.

Ruling:

The change being sought in respondent's petition goes so far as to affect his legal
status in relation to his parents. It seeks to change his legitimacy to that of
illegitimacy. Rule 103 then would not suffice to grant respondent's supplication.
Changes which may affect the civil status from legitimate to illegitimate are
substantial and controversial alterations which can only be allowed after appropriate
adversary proceedings. Since respondent's desired change affects his civil status
from legitimate to illegitimate, Rule 108 applies. Rule 108 clearly directs that a
petition which concerns one's civil status should be filed in the civil registry in which
the entry is sought to be cancelled or corrected.

Hence, it was improper for respondent to file the action with the RTC of Quezon City,
the proper would have been to file the petition with the RTC of Makati as the place
where his birth certificate was maintained. Respondent also failed to implead the
civil registrar of Makati and all affected parties as respondents in the case.