10/21/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 112

568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Naldoza vs. Republic

*
No. L-55538. March 15, 1982.

In the Matter of the Change of Names of DIONESIO

DIVINAGRACIA, JR., and BOMBI ROBERTO
DIVINAGRACIA to DIONESIO NALDOZA and BOMBI
ROBERTO NALDOZA, respectively. ZOSIMA NALDOZA,
as natural guardian and guardian ad litem of said minors,
petitioner-appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES and JUDGE FERNANDO S. RUIZ of the
Court of First Instance of Bohol, Branch IV, respondents-
appellees.

Civil Law; Family Relations; Change of Name; Use by minors

of their mother’s surname upon petition of the mother, instead of
the father’s surname, not allowed; Mother’s desire to change her
children’s surname should not be the sole consideration for the
change.—To allow them, at their mother’s behest, to bear only
their mother’s surname (which they are entitled to use together
with their father’s surname) and to discard altogether their
father’s surname, thus removing the prima-facie evidence of their
paternal provenance or ancestry, is a serious matter in which,
ordinarily, the minors and their father should be consulted. The
mother’s desire should not be the sole consideration.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Eliminating father’s surname by
the minor children merely because their father is an alleged
swindler not sufficient justification for change of surname; Effect
of change of surname; Case at bar.—We hold that the trial court
did not err in deny.ing the petition for change of name. The
reasons adduced for eliminating the father’s surname are not
substantial enough to justify the petition. To allow the change of
surname would cause confusion as to the minors’ parentage and
might create the impression that the minors are illegitimate since
they would carry the maternal surname only. That would be
inconsistent with their legitimate status as indicated in their
birth records (Exh. C and D).
Same; Same; Same; Minors entitled to know their parentage;
Minor when he fully appreciates the circumstances and is capable
of selecting a name for himself and wants to use his mother’s
surname only is qualified to apply for change of surname.—As was

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754baa5539001ff492003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/6
10/21/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 112

said in In re Epstein, 200 N.Y.S. 897, “the child should, and in the
course of time

________________

* SECOND DIVISION

569

VOL. 112, MARCH 15, 1982 569

Naldoza vs. Republic

must, know of his parentage.” If, when he fully appreciates the

circumstances and is capable of selecting a name for himself, he
wants to use his mother’s surname only and to avoid using his
father’s surname, then he should be the one to apply for a change
of surname. See Anno., 53 ALR2d 914.

Barredo, J., I concur. At the worst, Dionesio, Jr. and Bombi

should be considered as natural children by legal fiction
having the same status, rights and obligations of
acknowledged natural children, (Art. 29, Civil Code),
among which is the right to bear the surname of their
father. (Art. 282 (1), Civil Code).

PETITION to review the decision of the Court of First

Instance of Bohol.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

AQUINO, J.:

The issue in this case is whether two minors should be

allowed to discontinue using their father’s surname and
should use only their mother’s surname.
Zosima Naldoza was married to Dionesio Divinagracia
on May 30, 1970. They begot two children named Dionesio,
Jr. and Bombi Roberto who were born on October 23, 1970
and July 22, 1973, respectively.
Zosima’s husband left her after she confronted him with
his previous marriage with another woman. He never
returned to the conjugal abode. He allegedly swindled
Congressman Maglana in the sum of P50,000.00, one
Galagar in the sum of P10,000.00 also Eloy Gallentes and
other persons.
The classmates of Dionesio, Jr. and Bombi Roberto
allegedly teased them about their father being a swindler.
Two criminal cases for estafa were filed in court against the
father.
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754baa5539001ff492003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/6
10/21/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 112

Desirous of obliterating any connection between her two

minor children and their scapegrace father, Zosima, on
August 10, 1978, filed in the Court of First Instance of
Bohol a petition wherein she prayed that the surname of
her two children be changed from Divinagracia to Naldoza,
her surname (Special
570

570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Naldoza vs. Republic

Proceeding No. 768). After due publication and hearing, the

trial court dismissed the petition.
The trial court did not consider as sufficient grounds for
change of surname the circumstances that the children’s
father was a swindler, that he had abandoned them and
that his marriage to Zosima was a second marriage which,
however, had not been annulled nor declared bigamous. It
reasoned that the children’s adoption of their mother’s
surname would give a false impression of family
relationship.
From that decision, Zosima Naldoza appealed to this
Court under Republic Act No. 5440. Appellant’s seven
assignments of error may be reduced to the question of
whether there is a justification for the two children to drop
their father’s surname and use their mother’s surname
only.
The minors Dionesio, Jr. and Bombi Roberto, who are
presumably legitimate, are supposed to bear principally the
surname Divinagracia, their father’s surname (Art. 364,
Civil Code).
To allow them, at their mother’s behest, to bear only
their mother’s surname (which they are entitled to use
together with their father’s surname) and to discard
altogether their father’s surname, thus removing the
prima-facie evidence of their paternal provenance or
ancestry, is a serious matter in which, ordinarily, the
minors and their father should be consulted. The mother’s
desire should not be the sole consideration.
The change of name is allowed only when there are
proper and reasonable causes for such change (Sec. 5, Rule
103, Rules of Court). Where, as in this case, the petitioners
are minors, the courts should take into account whether
the change of name would redound their welfare or would
prejudice them.
Where the petitioner, a legitimate daughter of a Filipino
mother and a Japanese, elected Philippine citizenship, and
her older brother and sister were using their mother’s
surname, and the petitioner felt embarrassed in using her
Japanese father’s surname (Oshita) because of the ill-
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754baa5539001ff492003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/6
10/21/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 112

feeling harbored by some Filipinos against the Japanese,

and there was no showing that her desire to use the
maternal surname (Bartolome) was motivated by any
fraudulent purpose or that the change of

571

VOL. 112, MARCH 15, 1982 571

Naldoza vs. Republic

surname would prejudice public interest, her petition to

change her surname from Oshita to Bartolome was granted
(Oshita vs. Republic, L-21180, March 31, 1967, 19 SCRA
700).
Where the petitioner’s name in the civil registry is
Maria Estrella Veronica Primitiva Duterte, Duterte being
the surname of her father Filomeno, who was married to
her mother, Estrella Alfon, but the petitioner since infancy
has used the name Estrella S. Alfon, particularly in the
school and voting records, there is reasonable ground for
allowing her to change her surname from Duterte to Alfon.
Such a change would avoid confusion (Alfon vs. Republic,
G.R. No. 51201, May 29, 1980, 97 SCRA 858).
The instant case is easily distinguishable from the
Oshita and Alfon cases where the petitioners were already
of age. We hold that the trial court did not err in denying
the petition for change of name. The reasons adduced for
eliminating the father’s surname are not substantial
enough to justify the petition.
To allow the change of surname would cause confusion
as to the minors’ parentage and might create the
impression that the minors are illegitimate since they
would carry the maternal surname only. That would be
inconsistent with their legitimate status as indicated in
their birth records (Exh. C and D).
As was said in In re Epstein, 200 N.Y.S. 897, “the child
should, and in the course of time must, know of his
parentage.” If, when he fully appreciates the circumstances
and is capable of selecting a name for himself, he wants to
use his mother’s surname only and to avoid using his
father’s surname, then he should be the one to apply for a
change of surname. See Anno., 53 ALR2d 914.
WHEREFORE, the lower court’s decision is affirmed. No
costs.
SO ORDERED.

     Concepcion, Jr., Abad Santos, De Castro, Ericta and

Escolin, JJ., concur.
572

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754baa5539001ff492003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/6
10/21/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 112

572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Naldoza vs. Republic

     Barredo, J., I concur. At the worst, Dionesio Jr. and

Bombito should be considered as natural children by legal
fiction having the same status, rights and obligations of
acknowledged natural children, (Art. 29, Civil Code),
among which is the right to bear the surname of their
father. (Art. 28 (1), Civil Code).

Decision affirmed.

Notes.—In petition for change of name the only name

that can be changed is the official name recorded in the
civil registrar, not that by which he was baptized. (Pabellar
vs. Republic, 70 SCRA 16).
In a petition for change of name, the name sought to be
adopted should be indicated in the caption of order of
publication and title of the petition. (Telmo vs. Republic, 73
SCRA 29).
The reason for the rule is that the ordinary reader
glances fleetingly at the caption of the published errors of
title of the petition. (Telmo vs. Republic, 73 SCRA 29)
Jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition for
change of name is acquired after due publication of the
order, setting it for hearing, which order should contain
data, among which is the name sought to be adopted, a
matter which should be indicated in the title of the
petition. (Go vs. Republic, 77 SCRA 65).
Change of name should be authorized only for
compelling regions. (Go vs. Republic, 77 SCRA 65).
The rationale of the requirement to include in the title of
the petition the name sought to be adopted was expressly,
thus x x x notices in the newspaper like the one under
consideration, usually appears in the back pages. The
reader as is to be expected, merely glances at the title of
the petition. It is only after he has satisfied himself that
the title interests him that the proceeds to read down
further. The probability that the portion heretofore quoted
will escape the reader’s notice. The purpose of which the
publication is made, that is, to inform, may thus be served.
(Republic vs. Aquino, 90 SCRA 171).
573

VOL. 112, MARCH 15, 1982 573

Helmuth, Jr. vs. People

A name given to a person in the church records or

elsewhere or by which he is known in the community—
when at variance with that entered in the civil register—is
central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754baa5539001ff492003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/6
10/21/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 112

unofficial and cannot be recognized as his real name. (Cruz

vs. Republic, 17 SCRA 698; Rendora vs. Republic, 35 SCRA
262).
Corrections of public and church records should not be
permitted upon inconclusive proof. (Nacionales vs.
Republic, 16 SCRA 636).
The change of “Sincio” to “Sencio” which merely involves
the substitution of the first vowel “i” in the first name into
the vowel “e” amounts merely to the righting of a clerical
error. (Yu vs. Republic, 21 SCRA 1018).
Material corrections in the record of birth by virtue of a
judgment against the Civil Registrar are prohibited only if
the action is summary. (Matias vs. Republic, 28 SCRA 31).
The use of aliases without judicial authority is a
violation of law. (Ng Yao Siong vs. Republic, 16 SCRA 483).

——o0o——

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001754baa5539001ff492003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/6