G.R.No.189476.February2,2011.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.

JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON COSETENGMAGPAYO
(A.K.A. JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON MARQUEZLIM
COSETENG), respondent.
Civil Law; Change of Name; A person can effect a change of
name under Rule 103 using valid and meritorious grounds.A
personcaneffectachangeofnameunderRule103(CHANGEOF
_______________
*THIRDDIVISION.

534

534

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republic vs. CosetengMagpayo

NAME) using valid and meritorious grounds including (a)

when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to
write or pronounce; (b) when the change results as a legal
consequence such as 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. Respondents reason for changing his name cannot
be considered as one of, or analogous to, recognized grounds,
however.
Same; Same; 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.LabayoRowe v. Republic, 168 SCRA 294 [1988],
categorically holds that changes which may affect the civil status
fromlegitimatetoillegitimate...aresubstantial and controversial
alterations which can only be allowed after appropriate adversary
proceedings . . . Since respondents desired change affects his civil
statusfromlegitimatetoillegitimate,Rule108applies.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourt
ofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Office of the Solicitor General forpetitioner.

Eufemio Law Offices forrespondent.

CARPIOMORALES,J.:
Born in Makati on September 9, 1972, Julian Edward
Emerson Coseteng Magpayo (respondent) is the son of
FulvioM.MagpayoJr.andAnnaDominiqueMarquezLim
Coseteng
535

VOL.641,FEBRUARY2,2011

535

Republic vs. CosetengMagpayo

who, as respondents certificate of live birth1 shows,
contractedmarriageonMarch26,1972.
Claiming, however, that his parents were never legally
married,respondentfiledonJuly22,2008attheRegional
TrialCourt(RTC)ofQuezonCityaPetitionto change his
nametoJulianEdwardEmersonMarquez Lim Coseteng.
Thepetition,docketedasSPPNo.Q0863058,wasentitled
INREPETITIONFORCHANGEOFNAMEOFJULIAN
EDWARD EMERSON COSETENG MAGPAYO TO
JULIAN
EDWARD
EMERSON
MARQUEZLIM
COSETENG.
In support of his petition, respondent submitted a
certificationfromtheNationalStatisticsOfficestatingthat
his mother Anna Dominique does not appear in [its]
NationalIndicesofMarriage.2Respondentalsosubmitted
his academic records from elementary up to college3
showing that he carried the surname Coseteng, and the
birthcertificateofhischildwhereCosetengappearsashis
surname.4Inthe1998,2001and2004Elections,respondent
ran and was elected as Councilor of Quezon Citys 3rd
DistrictusingthenameJULIANM.L.COSETENG.5
On order of Branch 77 of the Quezon City RTC,6
respondent amended his petition by alleging therein
compliance with the 3year residency requirement under
Section2,Rule103oftheRulesofCourt.7
ThenoticesettingthepetitionforhearingonNovember
20, 2008 was published in the newspaper Broadside in its
issues of October 31November 6, 2008, November 713,
2008,and
_______________
1Records,p.7.
2Id.,atp.8.
3Id.,atpp.916.
4Id.,atp.16.
5Id.,atpp.1722.
6PresidedbyJudgeVivencioS.Baclig.
7Id.,atp.23.
536

536

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republic vs. CosetengMagpayo

November 1420, 2008.8 And a copy of the notice was

furnishedtheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral(OSG).
Nooppositiontothepetitionhavingbeenfiled,anorder
ofgeneraldefaultwasenteredbythetrialcourtwhichthen
allowedrespondenttopresentevidenceex parte.9
ByDecisionofJanuary8,2009,10thetrialcourtgranted
respondents petition and directed the Civil Registrar of
MakatiCityto:
1.Delete the entry March 26, 1972 in Item 24 for
DATE AND PLACE OF MARRIAGE OF PARTIES[inherein
respondentsCertificateofliveBirth];
2.Correct the entry MAGPAYO in the space for the Last
Nameofthe[respondent]toCOSETENG;
3.Delete the entry COSETENG in the space for Middle
Name of the [respondent];and
4.Delete the entry Fulvio Miranda Magpayo, Jr. in
the space for FATHER of the [respondent] (emphasis and
underscoringsupplied;capitalizationintheoriginal)

TheRepublicofthePhilippines(Republic)filedamotion
for reconsideration but it was denied by the trial court by
OrderofJuly2,2009,11hence,it,thrutheOSG,lodgedthe
presentpetitionforreviewtotheCourtonpurequestionof
law.
TheRepublicassailsthedecisioninthiswise:
I. THE PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAMEINVOLVES
THE CHANGE OF [RESPONDENTS] CIVIL STATUS FROM
LEGITIMATE TO ILLEGITIMATE AND, THEREFORE,
SHOULD BE MADE THROUGH APPROPRIATE ADVERSARIAL
PROCEEDINGS
_______________
8 Id.,atpp.4850.
9 Id.,atp.45.
10Id.,atpp.116117.
11Id.,atpp.135136.
537

VOL.641,FEBRUARY2,2011

537

Republic vs. CosetengMagpayo

II.THE TRIAL COURT EXCEEDED ITS JURISDICTION
WHEN IT DIRECTED THE DELETION OF THE NAME OF
RESPONDENTS FATHER FROM HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE.12
(emphasisandunderscoringsupplied)

TheRepubliccontendsthatthedeletionoftheentryon
thedateandplaceofmarriageofrespondentsparentsfrom
hisbirthcertificatehastheeffectofchanginghiscivilstatus
from legitimate to illegitimate, hence, any change in civil
statusofapersonmustbeeffectedthroughanappropriate
adversaryproceeding.13
The Republic adds that by ordering the deletion of
respondents parents date of marriage and the name of
respondents father from the entries in respondents birth
certificate,14 the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction, such

ordernotbeinginaccordwithrespondentsprayerreading:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully
prayed that the Honorable Court issue an order allowing the
change of name of petitioner from JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON
COSETENG MAGPAYO to JULIAN EDWARD EMERSON
MARQUEZLIM COSETENG, and that the Honorable Court order
the Local Civil Registrar and all other relevant government
agenciestoreflectthesaidchangeofnameintheirrecords.
Petitioner prays for other reliefs deemed proper under the
premises.15 (underscoringsupplied)

Respondentcountersthattheproceedingbeforethetrial
court was adversarial in nature. He cites the serving of
copies of the petition and its annexes upon the Civil
Registrar of Makati, the Civil Registrar General, and the
OSG;thepostingofcopiesofthenoticeofhearinginatleast
fourpublicplacesatleasttendaysbeforethehearing;the
delegationtothe
_______________
12Rollo,pp.1617.
13Id.,atpp.1718.
14Id.,atpp.1819.
15Rollo,p.18.
538

538

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republic vs. CosetengMagpayo

OSG by the City Prosecutor of Quezon City to appear on

behalf of the Republic; the publication of the notice of
hearing in a newspaper of general circulation for three
consecutiveweeks;andthefactthatnooppositorsappeared
onthescheduledhearing.16
Thepetitionisimpressedwithmerit.
A person can effect a change of name under Rule 103
(CHANGEOFNAME)usingvalidandmeritoriousgrounds
including (a) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or
extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (b) when the
changeresultsasalegalconsequencesuchaslegitimation;
(c)whenthechangewillavoidconfusion;(d)whenonehas
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)whenthesurnamecausesembarrassment
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.17 Respondents reason for
changing his name cannot be considered as one of, or
analogousto,recognizedgrounds,however.
ThepresentpetitionmustbedifferentiatedfromAlfon v.
Republic of the Philippines.18InAlfon,theCourtallowedthe
thereinpetitioner,EstrellaAlfon,tousethenamethatshe
hadbeenknownsincechildhoodinordertoavoidconfusion.
Alfon did not deny her legitimacy, however. She merely

sought to use the surname of her mother which she had

beenusingsincechildhood.Rulinginherfavor,theCourt
held that she was lawfully entitled to use her mothers
surname, adding that the avoidance of confusion was
justificationenoughto
_______________
16Id.,atpp.5356.
17VideSeeRepublic v. Hernandez,323Phil.606,637638;253SCRA
509,535(1996).
18186Phil.600;97SCRA858(1980).
539

VOL.641,FEBRUARY2,2011

539

Republic vs. CosetengMagpayo

allowhertodoso.Inthepresentcase,however,respondent
denieshislegitimacy.
Thechangebeingsoughtinrespondentspetitiongoesso
farastoaffecthislegal status in relation to his parents.It
seekstochangehislegitimacytothatofillegitimacy.Rule
103 then would not suffice to grant respondents
supplication.
LabayoRowe v. Republic19 categorically holds that
changeswhichmayaffectthecivilstatusfromlegitimateto
illegi
timate...aresubstantialandcontroversialalterations
which can only be allowed after appropriate adversary
proceedings
...
Sincerespondentsdesiredchangeaffectshiscivilstatus
fromlegitimatetoillegitimate,Rule108applies.Itreads:
SECTION1.Who may file petition.Anypersoninterestedin
any act, event, order or decree concerning the civil status of
persons which has been recorded in the civil register, may file a
verified petition for the cancellation or correction of any entry
relating thereto, with the [RTC] of the province where the
corresponding civil registry is located.
xxxx
SEC.3.Parties.When cancellation or correction of an entry
inthecivilregisterissought,the civil registrar and all persons
who have or claim any interest which would be affected
thereby shall be made parties to the proceeding.
SEC.4.Notice and publication.Upon the filing of the
petition,thecourtshall,byanorder,fixthetimeandplaceforthe
hearingofthesame,andcause reasonable notice thereof to be
given to the persons named in the petition. The court shall
also cause the order to be published once a week for three (3)
consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the
province.(emphasis,italicsandunderscoringsupplied)

Rule 108 clearly directs that a petition which concerns

onescivilstatusshouldbefiledinthecivilregistryinwhich
_______________
19G.R.No.L53417,December8,1988,168SCRA294.

540

540

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republic vs. CosetengMagpayo

the entry is sought to be cancelled or corrected that of

Makati in the present case, and all persons who have or
claimanyinterestwhichwouldbeaffectedtherebyshould
bemadepartiestotheproceeding.
Asearlierstated,however,thepetitionofrespondentwas
filednotinMakatiwherehisbirthcertificatewasregistered
butinQuezonCity.Andastheabovementionedtitleofthe
petitionfiledbyrespondentbeforetheRTCshows,neither
thecivilregistrarofMakatinorhisfatherandmotherwere
madepartiesthereto.
Respondent nevertheless cites Republic v. Capote20 in
support of his claim that his change of name was effected
through an appropriate adversary proceeding. Republic v.
Belmonte,21 illuminates,however:
The procedure recited in Rule 103 regarding change of name
andinRule108concerningthecancellationorcorrectionofentries
in the civil registry are separate and distinct. They may not be
substituted one for the other for the sole purpose of
expediency. To hold otherwise would render nugatory the
provisionsoftheRulesofCourtallowingthechangeofonesname
orthecorrectionofentriesinthecivilregistryonlyuponmeritorious
grounds....(emphasis,capitalizationandunderscoringsupplied)

Even assuming arguendo that respondent had

simultaneously availed of these two statutory remedies,
respondentcannotbesaidtohavesufficientlycompliedwith
Rule 108. For, as reflected above, aside from
improper venue, he failed to implead the civil
registrar of Makati and all affected parties as
respondents in the case.
Republic v. Labrador22 mandates that a petition for a
substantial correction or change of entries in the civil
registry should have as respondents the civil registrar, as
wellasall
_______________
20G.R.No.157043,February2,2007,514SCRA76.
21241Phil.966;158SCRA173(1988).
22G.R.No.132980,305SCRA438(1999).
541

VOL.641,FEBRUARY2,2011

541

Republic vs. CosetengMagpayo

other persons who have or claim to have any interest that
would be affected thereby. It cannot be gainsaid that
changeofstatus of a child in relation to his parentsis
a substantial correction or change of entry in the civil
registry.

LabayoRowe23 highlights the necessity of impleading

indispensable parties in a petition which involves
substantial and controversial alterations. In that case, the
therein petitioner Emperatriz LabayoRowe (Emperatriz)
filed a petition for the correction of entries in the birth
certificatesofherchildren,VicenteMiclat,Jr.andVictoria
Miclat, in the Civil Registry of San Fernando, Pampanga.
Emperatriz alleged that her name appearing in the birth
certificates is Beatriz, which is her nickname, but her full
name is Emperatriz; and her civil status appearing in the
birth certificate of her daughter Victoria as married on
1953Bulanareerroneousbecauseshewasnotmarriedto
VicenteMiclatwhowastheonewhofurnishedthedatain
saidbirthcertificate.
ThetrialcourtfoundmeritinEmperatrizspetitionand
accordingly directed the local civil registrar to change her
name appearing in her childrens birth certificates from
Beatriz to Emperatriz; and to correct her civil status in
Victoriasbirthcertificatefrommarriedtosingleandthe
dateandplaceofmarriagetonomarriage.
OnpetitionbeforethisCourtaftertheCourtofAppeals
foundthattheorderofthetrialcourtinvolvedaquestionof
law,theCourtnullifiedthetrialcourtsorderdirectingthe
change of Emperatriz civil status and the filiation of her
childVictoriainlightofthefollowingobservations:
xxxxAsidefromtheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral,all other
indispensable parties should have been made respondents.
They include not only the declared father of the child but
the child as well, together with the paternal grandparents, if any,
as their hereditary rights would be adversely affected thereby. All
otherpersonswhomaybeaffectedbythechangeshouldbenoti
_______________
23Supra,note19.
542

542

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republic vs. CosetengMagpayo

fied or represented. The truth is best ascertained under an

adversarysystemofjustice.
TherightofthechildVictoriatoinheritfromherparentswould
be substantially impaired if her status would be changed from
legitimate to illegitimate. Moreover, she would be exposed to
humiliation and embarrassment resulting from the stigma of an
illegitimatefiliationthatshewillbearthereafter.The fact that the
notice of hearing of the petition was published in a newspaper of
general circulation and notice thereof was served upon the State
willnotchangethenatureoftheproceedingstaken.Rule108,like
all the other provisions of the Rules of Court, was promulgated by
the Supreme Court pursuant to its rulemaking authority under
Section13,ArticleVIIIofthe1973Constitution,whichdirectsthat
such rules shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive
rights. If Rule 108 were to be extended beyond innocuous or
harmless changes or corrections of errors which are visible to the
eye or obvious to the understanding, so as to comprehend

substantial and controversial alterations concerning citizenship,

legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of
marriage, without observing the proper proceedings as earlier
mentioned, said rule would thereby become an unconstitutional
exercise which would tend to increase or modify substantive
rights. This situation is not contemplated under Article 412 of the
CivilCode.24 (emphasis,italicsandunderscoringsupplied)

As for the requirement of notice and publication, Rule

108provides:
SEC.4.Notice and publication.Upon the filing of the
petition,the court shall, by an order, fix the time and place
for the hearing of the same, and cause reasonable notice
thereof to be given to the persons named in the petition.The
court shall also cause the order to be published once a week for
three(3)consecutiveweeksinanewspaperofgeneralcirculationin
theprovince.
SEC.5.Opposition.The civil registrar and any person
having or claiming any interest under the entry whose
cancellation or correction is sought may, within fifteen (15)
days
_______________
24Id.,atp.301.
543

VOL.641,FEBRUARY2,2011

543

Republic vs. CosetengMagpayo

from notice of the petition, or from the last date of
publication of such notice,filehisoppositionthereto.(emphasis
andunderscoringsupplied)

Areadingoftheserelatedprovisionsreadilyshowsthat
Rule 108 clearly mandates two sets of notices to different
potentialoppositors. The first notice is that given to the
persons named in the petition and the second (which is
throughpublication)isthatgiventootherpersonswhoare
not named in the petition but nonetheless may be
considered interested or affected parties, such as creditors.
That two sets of notices are mandated under the above
quoted Section 4 is validated by the subsequent Section 5,
also abovequoted, which provides for two periods (for the
two types of potential oppositors) within which to file an
opposition (15 days from notice or from the last date of
publication).
This is the overriding principle laid down in Barco v.
Court of Appeals.25Inthatcase,NadinaMaravilla(Nadina)
filed a petition for correction of entries in the birth
certificate of her daughter June from June Salvacion
Maravilla to June Salvacion Gustilo, Armando Gustilo
being, according to Nadina, her daughters real father.
GustiloinfactfiledbeforethetrialcourtaCONSTANCIA
wherein he acknowledged June as his daughter. The trial
courtgrantedthepetition.
AfterGustilodied,hissonJoseVicenteGustilofiledwith
theCourtofAppealsapetitionforannulmentoftheOrder

ofthetrialcourtgrantingthechangeofJunesfamilyname
toGustilo.
Milagros Barco (Barco), natural guardian of her minor
daughter Mary Joy Ann Gustilo, filed before the appellate
courtamotionforintervention,allegingthatMaryJoyhad
alegalinterestintheannulmentofthetrialcourtsOrder
asMaryJoywas,byBarcosclaim,alsofatheredbyGustilo.
_______________
25465Phil.39;420SCRA162(2004).
544

544

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republic vs. CosetengMagpayo

Theappellatecourtdismissedthepetitionforannulment
andcomplaintinintervention.
On appeal by Barco, this Court ruled that she should
have been impleaded in Nadinas petition for correction of
entries of the birth certificate of Mary Joy. But since a
petitioner, like Nadina, is not expected to exhaustively
identifyalltheaffectedparties,thesubsequentpublication
of the notice cured the omission of Barco as a party to the
case.ThustheCourtexplained:
Undoubtedly,BarcoisamongthepartiesreferredtoinSection3
ofRule108.Herinterestwasaffectedbythepetitionforcorrection,
as any judicial determination that June was the daughter of
Armandowouldaffectherwardsshareintheestateofherfather.
It cannot be established whether Nadina knew of Mary Joys
existence at the time she filed the petition for correction. Indeed,
doubt may always be cast as to whether a petitioner under
Rule 108 would know of all the parties whose interests may
be affected by the granting of a petition. For example, a
petitioner cannot be presumed to be aware of all the
legitimate or illegitimate offsprings of his/her spouse or
paramour.xxxx.
xxxx
ThepurposepreciselyofSection4,Rule108istobindthewhole
world to the subsequent judgment on the petition. The sweep of
the decision would cover even parties who should have
been impleaded under Section 3, Rule 108 but were
inadvertently left out. x x x x.26 (emphasis, italics and
underscoringsupplied)

Meanwhile, in Republic v. Kho,27 Carlito Kho (Carlito)

and his siblings named the civil registrar as the sole
respondent in the petition they filed for the correction of
entries in their respective birth certificates in the civil
registry of Butuan City, and correction of entries in the
birthcertificatesofCarlitosminorchildren.Carlitoandhis
siblingsrequestedthe
_______________
26Id.,atpp.5556;pp.172173.
27G.R.No.170340,June29,2007,526SCRA177.

545

VOL.641,FEBRUARY2,2011

545

Republic vs. CosetengMagpayo

correction in their birth certificates of the citizenship of
their mother Epifania to Filipino, instead of Chinese,
andthedeletionofthewordmarriedoppositethephrase
DateofmarriageofparentsbecausetheirparentsJuan
andEpifaniawerenotmarried.AndCarlitorequestedthe
correctioninthebirthcertificatesoftheirchildrenofhisand
hiswifesdateofmarriagetoreflecttheactualdateoftheir
marriageasappearingintheirmarriagecertificate.Inthe
courseofthehearingofthepetition,Carlitoalsosoughtthe
correctionofthenameofhiswifefromMaribeltoMarivel.
TheKhosmotherEpifaniatookthewitnessstandwhere
she declared that she was not married to Juan who died
beforethefilingoftheKhospetition.
Thetrialcourtgrantedthepetition.
On the issue of whether the failure to implead Marivel
andtheKhosparentsrenderedthetrialofthepetitionshort
of the required adversary proceedings and the trial courts
judgmentvoid,thisCourtheldthatwhenalltheprocedural
requirementsunderRule108arefollowed,thepublication
of the notice of hearing cures the failure to implead an
indispensableparty.Insoruling,theCourtnotedthatthe
affectedpartieswerealreadynotifiedoftheproceedingsin
the case since the petitionersiblings Khos were the ones
who initiated the petition respecting their prayer for
correction of their citizenship, and Carlito respecting the
actualdateofhismarriagetohiswife;and,withrespectto
the Khos petition for change of their civil status from
legitimatetoillegitimate,theirmotherEpifaniaherselftook
the witness stand declaring that she was not married to
theirfather.
WhatiscleartheninBarcoandKhoisthemandatory
directive under Section 3 of Rule 108 to implead the civil
registrarandthe parties who would naturally and legally
be affected by the grant of a petition for correction or
cancellationofentries.Nonimpleading,however,asparty
respondent of one who is inadvertently left out or is not
establishedtobeknownbythepetitionertobeaffectedby
thegrantofthe
546

546

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republic vs. CosetengMagpayo

petitionoractuallyparticipatesintheproceedingisnotified
throughpublication.
INFINE,whenapetitionforcancellationorcorrectionof
an entry in the civil register involves substantial and
controversial alterations including those on citizenship,
legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of
marriage,astrictcompliancewiththerequirementsofRule
108oftheRulesofCourtismandated.

WHEREFORE, the petition is, in light of the foregoing

discussions, GRANTED. The January 8, 2009 Decision of
Branch77oftheRegionalTrialCourtofQuezonCityinSP
Proc.No.Q0863058isNULLIFIED.
SOORDERED.
Brion, Bersamin, Villarama, Jr. and Sereno, JJ.,
concur.
Petition granted.
Note.Achangeofnameisnotamatterofrightbutof
judicialdiscretion,tobeexercisedinthelightofthereasons
adducedandtheconsequencesthatwillfollow.(Republic vs.
Cagandahan,565SCRA72[2008])
o0o

Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.