In the Matter of the Adoption of Stephanie Nathy Astorga and Olario gave their consent to the adoption executed in an

Garcia, G.R. No. affidavit.

148311, March 31, 2005
ISSUE: WON petitioner who has remarried can singly adopt.
FACTS: Honorato Catindig filed a petition to adopt his minor
illegitimate child Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia. He prayed HELD: Petition was denied. The time the petitions were filed,
that the child's middle name Astorga be changed to Garcia, her petitioner had already remarried. Husband and wife shall
mother's surname, and that her surname Garcia be changed to jointly adopt except in 3 instances which was not present in
Catindig, his surname. Trial court granted the petition and the case at bar. In case spouses jointly adopts, they shall jointly
declared Stephanie as his legitimate child and heir, and exercised parental authority. The use of the word “shall”
pursuant to Art. 189 of the Family Code, she is now known as
signifies that joint adoption of husband and wife is mandatory.
Stephanie Nathy Catindig. Honorato filed a motion for
This is in consonance with the concept of joint parental
clarification and/or reconsideration that Stephanie should be
authority since the child to be adopted is elevated to the level
allowed to use the surname Garcia as her middle name. The
of a legitimate child, it is but natural to require spouses to
Republic, through the OSG, agreed with Honorato for her
adopt jointly. The affidavit of consent given by Olario will not
relationship with her natural mother should be maintained
suffice since there are certain requirements that he must
and preserved, to prevent any confusion and hardship in the
comply as an American Citizen. He must meet the
future, and under Article 189 she remains to be an intestate
qualifications set forth in Sec7 of RA8552. The requirements
heir of her mother.
on residency and certification of the alien’s qualification to
ISSUE: Whether or not an illegitimate child, upon adoption by adopt cannot likewise be waived pursuant to Sec 7. Parental
her natural father, use the surname of her natural mother as authority is merely just one of the effects of legal adoption. It
her middle name. includes caring and rearing the children for civic consciousness
and efficiency and development of their moral mental and
RULING: Yes. there is no law prohibiting an illegitimate child physical character and well-being.
adopted by her natural father, like Stephanie, to use, as middle
Silverio v. Republic
name her mother’s surname, we find no reason why she
should not be allowed to do so. Article 176 of the Family Code,
Facts: Petitioner was born and registered as male. He admitted
as amended by Republic Act No. 9255, (An Act Allowing
that he is a male transsexual, that is, “anatomically male but
Illegitimate Children To Use The Surname Of Their Father) is
feels, thinks and acts as a “female” and that he had always
silent as to what middle name a child may use. Article 365 of
identified himself with girls since childhood. He underwent
the CC merely provides that “an adopted child shall bear the psychological examination, hormone treatment, breast
surname of the adopter.” Article 189 of the Family Code, augmentation and sex reassignment surgery. From then on,
petitioner lived as female and was in fact engaged to be
enumerating the legal effects of adoption, is likewise silent on
married. He then sought to have his name in his birth
the matter. Republic Act No. 8552, (Domestic Adoption Act of
certificate changed from Rommel Jacinto to Mely, and his sex
1998) an legitimate child by virtue of her adoption, Stephanie
from male to female. The trial court rendered a decision in
is entitled to all the rights provided by law to a legitimate child
favor of the petitioner. Republic of the Philippines thru the
without discrimination of any kind, including the right to bear
OSG filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals. CA
the surname of her father and her mother.
rendered a decision in favor of the Republic.
In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle P. Lim and Michael
Issue: Whether or not petitioner is entitled to change his name
Jude P. Lim, G.R.
and sex in his birth certificate.
Nos. 168992-93, May 21, 2009
Ruling: Article 376 of the Civil Code provides that no person
Monina Lim, petitioner, who was an optometrist was married
can change his name or surname without judicial authority
with Primo Lim but were childless. Minor children, were
which was amended by RA 9048 – Clerical Error Law which
entrusted to them by Lucia, whose parents were unknown as
does not sanction a change of first name on the ground of sex
shown by a certification of DSWD. The spouses registered the
reassignment. Before a person can legally change his given
children making it appears as if they were the parents.
name, he must present proper or reasonable cause or any
Unfortunately, in 1998, Primo died. She then married an
compelling reason justifying such change. In addition, he must
American Citizen, Angel Olario in December 2000. Petitioner
show that he will be prejudiced by the use of his true and
decided to adopt the children by availing of the amnesty given
official name. In this case, he failed to show, or even allege, any
under RA 8552 to individuals who simulated the birth of a
prejudice that he might suffer as a result of using his true and
child. In 2002, she filed separate petitions for adoption of
official name. Article 412 of the Civil Code provides that no
Michelle and Michael before the trial court. Michelle was then
entry in the civil register shall be changed or corrected without
25 years old and already married and Michael was 18 years and
a judicial order. The birth certificate of petitioner contained no
seven months old. Michelle and her husband including Michael
error. All entries therein, including those corresponding to his
first name and sex, were all correct. Hence, no correction is
necessary. Article 413 of the Civil Code provides that all other
matters pertaining to the registration of civil status shall be
governed by special laws. However, there is no such special law
in the Philippines governing sex reassignment and its effects.
Under the Civil Register Law, a birth certificate is a historical
record of the facts as they existed at the time of
birth. Thus, the sex of a person is determined at birth, visually
done by the birth attendant (the physician or midwife) by
examining the genitals of the infant. Considering that there is
no law legally recognizing sex reassignment, the determination
of a person’s sex made at the time of his or her birth, if not
attended by error is immutable
For these reasons, while petitioner may have succeeded in
altering his body and appearance through the intervention of
modern surgery, no law authorizes the change of entry as to
sex in the civil registry for that reason. Thus, there is no legal
basis for his petition for the correction or change of the entries
in his birth certificate. The remedies petitioner seeks involve
questions of public policy to be addressed solely by the
legislature, not by the courts. Hence, petition is denied.
Gan v. Republic
Facts: Emelita Basilio Gan (petitioner) was born on December
21, 1956 out of wedlock to Pia Gan, her father who is a Chinese
national, and Consolacion Basilio, her mother who is a Filipino
citizen.3 The petitioner's birth certificate,4 which was
registered in the Office of the Local Civil Registrar (LCR) of
Libmanan, Camarines Sur, indicates that her full name is
Emelita Basilio.
On June 29, 2010, the petitioner filed a Petition5 for correction
of name with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Libmanan,
Camarines Sur. The petitioner sought to change the full name
indicated in her birth certificate from "Emelita Basilio" to
"Emelita Basilio Gan." She claimed that she had been using the
name "Emelita Basilio Gan" in her school records from
elementary until college, employment records, marriage
contract, and other government records.6chanrobleslaw
Issue: Whether or not the change of name is allowed.
Held:
The petition is denied.
A change of name is a privilege and not a matter of right; a
proper and reasonable cause must exist before a person may
be authorized to change his name.21 "In granting or denying
petitions for change of name, the question of proper and
reasonable cause is left to the sound discretion of the court. x
x x What is involved is not a mere matter of allowance or
disallowance of the request, but a judicious evaluation of the
sufficiency and propriety of the justifications advanced in
support thereof, mindful of the consequent results in the
event of its grant and with the sole prerogative for making such
determination being lodged in the courts."
After a judicious review of the records of this case, the Court
agrees with the CA that the reason cited by the petitioner in
support of her petition for change of name, i.e. that she has
been using the name "Emelita Basilio Gan" in all of her records,
is not a sufficient or proper justification to allow her petition.
When the petitioner was born in 1956, prior to the enactment
and effectivity of the Family Code, the pertinent provisions of
the Civil Code then regarding the petitioner's use of surname
provide:
Article 366. A natural child acknowledged by both parents shall
principally use the surname of the father. If recognized by only
one of the parents, a natural child shall employ the surname of
the recognizing parent.
Article 368. Illegitimate children referred to in Article 287 shall
bear the surname of the mother.
Grande v. Antonio
FACTS: Grace Grande (Grande) and Patricio Antonio... and
Jerard Patrick. The children were not expressly recognized by
respondent as his own. The parties' relationship, however,
eventually turned sour, and Grande left for the United States
with her two children in May 2007. On September 28, 2010,
the RTC rendered a Decision in favor of herein respondent
Antonio Aggrieved, petitioner Grande moved for
reconsideration. However, her motion was denied by the trial
court Petitioner Grande then filed an appeal with the CA
attributing grave error on the part of the RTC Since respondent
Antonio... failed to prove that petitioner Grande committed
any act that adversely affected the welfare of the children or
rendered her unsuitable to raise the minors, she cannot be
deprived of her sole parental custody over their children. Not
satisfied with the CA's Decision, petitioner Grande interposed
a partial motion for reconsideration her motion was denied.
Issues:
The sole issue at hand is the right of a father to compel the use
of his surname by his illegitimate children upon his recognition
of their filiation.
Ruling:
This prompted respondent Antonio to file a Petition for Judicial
Approval of Recognition with Prayer to take Parental
Authority, Parental Physical Custody, Correction/Change of
Surname of Minors and for the Issuance of Writ of Preliminary
Injunction before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8 of Aparri,
Cagayan (RTC), appending a notarized Deed of Voluntary
Recognition of Paternity of the children. Illegitimate children
shall use the surname and shall be under the parental
authority of their mother, and shall be entitled to support in
conformity with this Code. The legitime of each illegitimate
child shall consist of one-half of the legitime of a legitimate
child.
Except for this modification, all other provisions in the Civil
Code governing successional rights shall remain in force.
This provision was later amended on March 19, 2004 by RA
9255[14] which now reads:
Art. 176. Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall
be under the parental authority of their mother, and shall be
entitled to support in conformity with this Code. However,
illegitimate children may use the surname of their father if
their filiation... has been expressly recognized by their father
through the record of birth appearing in the civil register, or
when an admission in a public document or private
handwritten instrument is made by the father. Provided, the
father has the right to institute an... action before the regular
courts to prove non-filiation during his lifetime. The legitime of
each illegitimate child shall consist of one-half of the legitime
of a legitimate child. (Emphasis supplied.)... the general rule is
that an illegitimate child shall use the surname of his or her
mother. The exception provided by RA 9255 is, in case his or
her filiation is expressly recognized by the father through the...
record of birth appearing in the civil register or when an
admission in a public document or private handwritten
instrument is made by the father. In such a situation, the
illegitimate child may use the surname of the father.
In the case at bar, respondent filed a petition for judicial
approval of recognition of the filiation of the two children with
the prayer for the correction or change of the surname of the
minors from Grande to Antonio when a public document
acknowledged before a notary... public under Sec. 19, Rule 132
of the Rules of Court[15] is enough to establish the paternity
of his children. But he wanted more: a judicial conferment of
parental authority, parental custody, and an official
declaration of his children's surname as Antonio.
Art. 176 gives illegitimate children the right to decide if they
want to use the surname of their father or not. It is not the
father (herein respondent) or the mother (herein petitioner)
who is granted by law the right to dictate the surname of their
illegitimate... children.
Nothing is more settled than that when the law is clear and
free from ambiguity, it must be taken to mean what it says and
it must be given its literal meaning free from any
interpretation.[16] Respondent's position that the court can
order the minors to... use his surname, therefore, has no legal
basis.
On its face, Art. 176, as amended, is free from ambiguity. And
where there is no ambiguity, one must abide by its words. The
use of the word "may" in the provision readily shows that an
acknowledged illegitimate child is under no compulsion to use
the surname of his... illegitimate father. The word "may" is
permissive and operates to confer discretion[17] upon the
illegitimate children.
Republic vs. Hernandez, GR No. 117209, February
9, 1996_digested
Posted by Pius Morados on March 27, 2012
(Special Proceedings – Adoption: Change of Name)
Facts: The RTC granted the petition for adoption of Kevin Earl
Bartolome Moran and simultaneously granted the prayer
therein for the change of the first name of said adoptee to
Aaron Joseph, to complement the surname Munson y Andrade
which he acquired consequent to his adoption.
Petitioner opposed the inclusion of the relief for change of
name in the same petition for adoption objecting to the joinder
of the petition for adoption and the petitions for the change of
name in a single proceeding, arguing that these petition should
be conducted and pursued as two separate proceedings.
Petitioner argues that a petition for adoption and a petition for
change of name are two special proceedings which, in
substance and purpose, are different from and are not related
to each other, being respectively governed by distinct sets of
law and rules. Petitioner further contends that what the law
allows is the change of the surname of the adoptee, as a
matter of right, to conform with that of the adopter and as a
natural consequence of the adoption thus granted. If what is
sought is the change of the registered given or proper name,
and since this would involve a substantial change of one’s legal
name, a petition for change of name under Rule 103 should
accordingly be instituted, with the substantive and adjective
requisites therefor being conformably satisfied.
Private respondents, on the contrary, admittedly filed the
petition for adoption with a prayer for change of name
predicated upon Section 5, Rule 2 which allows permissive
joinder of causes of action in order to avoid multiplicity of suits
and in line with the policy of discouraging protracted and
vexatious litigations. It is argued that there is no prohibition in
the Rules against the joinder of adoption and change of name
being pleaded as two separate but related causes of action in
a single petition.
Issue: WON respondent judge erred in granting prayer for the
change of the given or proper name if the adoptee in a petition
for adoption.
Held: No.
Par (1), Art. 189 of the Family Code provides one of the legal
effect of adoption:
(1) For civil purposes, the adopted shall be deemed to be a
legitimate child of the adopters and both shall acquire the
reciprocal rights and obligations arising from the relationship
of parent and child, including the right of the adopted to use
the surname of the adopters;
The law allows the adoptee, as a matter of right and obligation,
to bear the surname of the adopter, upon issuance of the
decree of adoption. It is the change of the
adoptee’s surname to follow that of the adopter which is the
natural and necessary consequence of a grant of adoption and
must specifically be contained in the order of the court, in fact,
even if not prayed for by petitioner.
However, the given or proper name, also known as
the first or Christian name, of the adoptee must remain as it
was originally registered in the civil register. The creation of an
adoptive relationship does not confer upon the adopter a
license to change the adoptee’s registered Christian or first
name. The automatic change thereof, premised solely upon
the adoption thus granted, is beyond the purview of a decree
of adoption. Neither is it a mere incident in nor an adjunct of
an adoption proceeding, such that a prayer therefor furtively
inserted in a petition for adoption, as in this case, cannot
properly be granted.
The official name of a person whose birth is registered in the
civil register is the name appearing therein. If a change in one’s
name is desired, this can only be done by filing and strictly
complying with the substantive and procedural requirements
for a special proceeding for change of name under Rule 103 of
the Rules of Court, wherein the sufficiency of the reasons or
grounds therefor can be threshed out and accordingly
determined.
A petition for change of name being a proceeding in rem, strict
compliance with all the requirements therefor is indispensable
in order to vest the court with jurisdiction for its adjudication.
It is an independent and discrete special proceeding, in and by
itself, governed by its own set of rules. A fortiori, it cannot be
granted by means of any other proceeding. To consider it as a
mere incident or an offshoot of another special proceeding
would be to denigrate its role and significance as the
appropriate remedy available under our remedial law system.
In Re: Petition for Change of Name and/or Correction of Entry
in the Civil Registry of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang G.R. 159966,
March 30 2005, 454 SCRA 2155
Case Doctrines:
● The registered name of a legitimate, legitimated and
recognized illegitimate child contains a given name, a middle
name and a surname.
● Before a person can be authorized to change his name given
him either in his certificate of birth or civil registry, he must
show proper or reasonable cause, or any compelling reason
which may justify such change. Otherwise, the request should
be denied.
● That the continued use of a middle name would cause
confusion and difficulty does not constitute proper and
reasonable cause to drop it from one's registered complete
name.
Facts: Julian was born in Cebu City on February 20, 1998 to
parents Anna Lisa Wang and Sing-Foe Wang who were then
not yet married to each other. When his parents subsequently
got married on September 22, 1998, they executed a deed of
legitimation of their son so that the child’s name was changed
from Julian Lin Carulasan to Julian Lin Carulasan Wang.
Since the couple planned to live in Singapore where Julian will
study together with a sister who was born in Singapore, Anna
Lisa decided to file a petition in the Regional Trial Court seeking
to drop his middle name and have his registered name in the
Civil Registry changed from Julian Lin Carulasan Wang to Julian
Lin Wang. The reason given for the change of name sought in
the petition is that Julian may be discriminated against when
he studies in Singapore because of his middle name since in
Singapore middle names or the maiden surname of the mother
is not carried in a person's name.
After trial, the RTC denied the petition because the reason
given did not fall within the grounds recognized by law. The
RTC ruled that since the State has an interest in the name of a
person it cannot just be changed to suit the convenience of the
bearer of the name. The RTC said that legitimate children have
the right to bear the surnames of the father and the mother,
and there is no reason why this right should be taken from Julio
considering that he was still a minor. When he reaches
majority age he could then decide whether to change his name
by dropping his middle name, added the RTC.
Issues:
Was the RTC correct in denying the petition?
Held:
Yes. Middle names serve to identify the maternal lineage or
filiation of a person as well as further distinguish him from
others who may have the same given name and surname as he
has. When an illegitimate child is legitimated by subsequent
marriage of his parents or acknowledged by the father in a
public instrument or private handwritten instrument, he then
bears both his mother's surname as his middle name and his
father's surname as his surname, reflecting his status as a
legitimated child or an acknowledged natural child. The
registered name of a legitimate, legitimated and recognized
illegitimate child thus contains a given name, a middle name
and a surname.
The State has an interest in the names borne by individuals and
entities for purposes of identification, and that a change of
name is a privilege and not a right, so that before a person can
be authorized to change his name given him either in his
certificate of birth or civil registry, he must show proper or
reasonable cause, or any compelling reason which may justify
such change. Otherwise, the request should be denied.
To justify a request for change of name, petitioner must show
not only some proper or compelling reason therefore but also
that he will be prejudiced by the use of his true and official
name. Among the grounds for change of name which have
been held valid are: (a) when the name is ridiculous,
dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (b)
when the change results as a legal consequence, as in
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.
In the case at bar, the only reason advanced by petitioner for
the dropping his middle name is convenience. However, how
such change of name would make his integration into
Singaporean society easier and convenient is not clearly
established. That the continued use of his middle name would
cause confusion and difficulty does not constitute proper and
reasonable cause to drop it from his registered complete
name.
In addition, petitioner is only a minor. Considering the
nebulous foundation on which his petition for change of name
is based, it is best that the matter of change of his name be left
to his judgment and discretion when he reaches the age of
majority. As he is of tender age, he may not yet understand
and appreciate the value of the change of his name and
granting of the same at this point may just prejudice him in his
rights under our laws.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JENNIFER CAGANDAHAN
GR No. 166676, September 12, 2008
FACTS:
Jennifer Cagandahan filed before the Regional Trial
Court Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna a Petition
for Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate of her name from
Jennifer B. Cagandahan to Jeff Cagandahan and her gender
from female to male. It appearing that Jennifer Cagandahan is
sufferingfrom Congenital AdrenalHyperplasia which is a rare
medical condition where afflicted persons possess both male
and female characteristics. Jennifer Cagandahan grew up with
secondary male characteristics. To further her petition,
Cagandahan presented in court the medical
certificate evidencing that she is suffering
from Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia which certificate is
issued by Dr. Michael Sionzon of the Department of Psychiatry,
University of the Philippines-Philippine General Hospital, who,
in addition, explained that “Cagandahan genetically
is female but because her body secretes male hormones,
her female organs did not develop normally, thus has organs
of both male and female.” The lower court decided in her favor
but the Office of the Solicitor General appealed before the
Supreme Court invoking that the same was a violation of Rules
103 and 108 of the Rules of Court because the said petition did
not implead the local civil registrar.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Cagandahan’s sex as appearing in her birth
certificate be changed.
RULING:
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. It
held that, in deciding the case, the Supreme Court considered
“the compassionate calls for recognition of the various
degrees of intersex as variations which should not be subject
to outright denial.” The Supreme Court made use of the
availale evidence presented in court including the fact that
private respondent thinks of himself as a male and as to the
statement made by the doctor that Cagandahan’s body
produces high levels of male hormones (androgen), which is
preponderant biological support for considering him as being
male.”
The Supreme Court further held that they give respect to (1)
the diversity of nature; and (2) how an individual deals with
what nature has handed out. That is, the Supreme Court
respects the respondent’s congenital condition and his mature
decision to be a male. Life is already difficult for the ordinary
person. The Court added that a change of name is not a matter
of right but of judicial discretion, to be exercised in the light of
the reasons and the consequences that will follow.
Silverio vs Republic
G.R. No. 174689 October 22 2007 [Change of name or sex]
FACTS:
Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio having undergone a sex
reassignment surgery, sought to have his first name changed
from Rommel to Mely, and his sex from male to female. Trial
court granted his petition. CA, however, upon appeal filed by
the Republic of the Philippines thru the OSG, reversed the trial
court decision, holding that there is no law allowing the change
of entries of either name or sex in the birth certificate by
reason of sex alteration.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Rommel's first name and sex be changed on
the ground of sex reassignment.
RULING: No. There is no law authorizes the change of entry as
of sex and first name through the intervention of sex
reassignment surgery. Article 376 of the Civil Code as amended
by RA 9048 (Clerical Error Law), together with Article 412 of
the same Code, change of name or sex in the birth certificate
is allowed by the courts so long as clerical or typographical
errors are involved.
Changes sought by Silverio will have serious legal and public
policy consequences. To grant this petition filed by Silverio will
greatly alter the laws on marriage and family relations. Second,
there will be major changes in statutes that underscore the
public policy in relation to women.
[G.R. No. 97906. May 21, 1992.]
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs. COURT OF
APPEALS and MAXIMO WONG, respondents.
PONENTE: REGALADO, J.:
FACTS:
Maximo Wong petitioned for the change of his name to
Maximo Alcala, Jr. which was his name prior to his adoption by
Hoong Wong and Concepcion Ty Wong. Maximo Wong is the
legitimate son of Maximo Alcala, Sr. and Segundina Y. Alcala.
Siblings Maximo Alcala, Jr. (2 ½ years old) and Margaret Alcala
(9 years old) were adopted by Hoong Wong and Concepcion Ty
Wong (naturalized Filipino citizens) with the consent of their
parents.
Hoong Wong, now deceased, was an insurance agent while
Concepcion Ty Wong was a high school teacher. They decided
to adopt the children as they remained childless after fifteen
years of marriage. The couple showered their adopted children
with parental love and reared them as their own children.
Maximo Wong (22 years old) then married and a junior
Engineering student at Notre Dame University, Cotabato City,
filed a petition to change his name to Maximo Alcala, Jr. It was
averred that his use of the surname Wong embarrassed and
isolated him from his relatives and friends, as the same
suggests a Chinese ancestry when in truth and in fact he is a
Muslim Filipino residing in a Muslim community, he wants to
erase any implication whatsoever of alien nationality; that he
is being ridiculed for carrying a Chinese surname, thus
hampering his business and social life;
and that his adoptive mother does not oppose his desire to
revert to his former surname.
RTC Ruling: Ruled in the AFFIRMATIVE (having complied with
the necessary requisites)
OSG appealed the decision
CA Ruling: AFFIRMED RTC decision in full
OSG’s Contentions:
Maximo's allegations of ridicule and/or isolation from family
and friends were unsubstantiated and cannot justify the
petition for change of name.
For Maximo to cast aside the name of his adoptive father is
crass ingratitude to the memory of the latter and his adoptive
mother who is still alive, despite her consent to the petition for
change of name.
The reversion of Maximo Wong to his old name violates
Articles 341 and 365 of the Civil Code, which requires an
adoptive child to use the surname of the adopter, and would
identify him with his parents by nature, thus giving the
impression that he has severed his relationship with his
adoptive parents.
Maximo refutes these saying:
he did as the law required (used the surname of the adopter)
Being already emancipated, he can now decide what is best for
and by himself. It is at this time that he realized that the
Chinese name he carries causes him undue ridicule and
embarrassment and affects his business and social life.
His adoptive mother, being aware of his predicament, gave her
consent to the petition for change of name, albeit making it
clear that the same shall in no way affect the legal adoption,
and even underwent the rigors of trial to substantiate her
sworn statement.
If his adoptive mother does not take offense nor feel any
resentment, abhorrence or insecurity about his desire to
change his name, Maximo avers that there can be no possible
prejudice on her, much less the State.
ISSUE: Whether or not Maximo Wong may legally change his
name to Maximo Alcala, Jr.
HELD: YES. Maximo Wong may legally change his name to
Maximo Alcala, Jr.
RATIO DECIDENDI: Change of name is a privilege, given the
proper or reasonable cause or compelling reason.
SC: We are guided by the jurisprudential dictum that the State
has an interest in the names borne by individuals and entities
for the purpose of identification, and a change of name is not
a matter of right but of sound judicial discretion, to be
exercised in the light of reasons adduced and the
consequences that will likely follow; it is a privilege which may
be granted only upon a showing of a proper or reasonable
cause or compelling reason therefor.
SC: We find unacceptable the assertion of the SolGen that
Maximo's allegation of ridicule and embarrassment due to the
use of his present surname is unsubstantiated.
Among the grounds for change of name which have been held
valid are: (a) When the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or
extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (b) When the change
results as a legal consequence, as in legitimation; (c) When the
change will avoid confusion; (d) Having continuously used and
been known since childhood by a Filipino name, unaware of
her 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.
While it is true that the statutory fiat under Article 365 of the
Civil Code is to the effect that an adopted child shall bear the
surname of the adopter, it must nevertheless be borne in mind
that the change of the surname of the adopted child is more
an incident rather than the object of adoption proceedings.
RULING: CA Ruling is AFFIRMED in toto.
5. Adoption  Silverio v. Republic, G.R. No. 174689, October 22,
a. Domestic Adoption Act 2007
b. Inter-country Adoption  Republic v. CA, GR No. 97906, May 21, 1992
 In the Matter of the Adoption of Stephanie Nathy
Astorga Garcia, G.R. No. 4. Rules on what to use
148311, March 31, 2005 a. Legitimate or legitimated children
 In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle P. Lim and b. Illegitimate children
Michael Jude P. Lim, G.R. c. Adopted child
Nos. 168992-93, May 21, 2009 d. Married women
i. May retain maiden name
Emancipation and Age of Majority
1. May not do so if has been using husband’s surname for a
long time
1. Reaching 18 years of Age
e. Marriage Annulled
2. RA 6809
i. Wife guilty
Cancellation or Correction of Entries ii. Wife Innocent
f. Legal Separation
1. RA 9048 g. Death of Husband
2. Rule 108 h. Persons with same names
3. Grounds i. Usurpation of another’s name

 Republic v. Cagandahan, G.R. No. 166676, Funerals

September 12, 2008
1. Duty and right to make arrangement about funerals is in
 Silverio v. Republic, G.R. No. 174689, October 22,
accordance with right and
2007
Duty to support under Article 199, FC
Surname 2. the funeral shall be in keeping with the social position of
the deceased
1. Reason for interest of State 3. the funeral shall be in accordance with the expressed
a. Prevent confusion of identity wishes of the deceased
b. Prevent use of name for illegal purposes i. in the absence of the expressed wishes, his religious beliefs
2. Legal Name – What appears in Birth Certificate or
3. Change – Rule 103, Rules of Court affiliation shall determine
a. Court Approval ii. in case of doubt, the persons in Article 199, FC shall decide
b. Grounds 1. any person who disrespects the dead or allows the same
i. Ridiculous, Dishonorable shall be liable for damages
ii. Extreme Difficulty to Pronounce If the deceased is married, the tombstone or mausoleum is
iii. Adoption of Filipino name to remove traces of alienage deemed a part of the funeral expense and chargeable against
iv. Legal cause – adoption, et al. the community or conjugal partnership property

 Gan v. Republic, G.R. NO. 207147, September 14, Absence

2016
 Grande v. Antonio, G.R. No. 206248, February 18, 1. Provisional Abesence
2014 2. Declaration of Absence
3. Presumption of Death
 Republic v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 117209, February 9,
4. Reappearance of absentee
1996
a. Effect on subsequent marriage of spouse present
 In re: Petition for change of name and/or
b. Effect on Properties
correction/cancellation of entry in civil registry of
Julian Lin Carulasan Wang, G.R. No. 159966, March
30, 2005
 Republic v. Cagandahan, G.R. No. 166676,
September 12, 2008