Republic of the Philippines

Fourth Judicial Region

Regional Trial Court
Branch 80
Morong, Rizal

IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF

MINOR, NIGEL JAMES SUNGA LOTINO
SP No. 16-866-M

Sps. Jose Nelson I. Lotino and Amalia B. Aquino

Lotino

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

ORDER

Pending for resolution is the Partial Motion for Reconsideration filed by petitioners, Sps.
Jose Nelson I. Lotino and Amalia B. Aquino-Lotino through counsel, Gera Law.

In their Partial Motion for Reconsideration, petitioners Sps.Lotino, are respectfully

requesting the Court to partially reconsider its Decision dated June 21, 2018, denying the
petitioner's prayer to change name of the adopted minor from NIGEL JAMES SUNGA
LOTINO to NIGEL JAMES AQUINO LOTINO based on the non-compliance with Section 10
of New Rule on Adoption; Petitioners also invoke and pray for the indulgence of this
Honorable Court to look into and consider other substantial and reasonable legal bases in
granting the change of name of the adoptive minor rather than the merely technical preposition
stated under Section 10 of the New Rule on Adoption; first, NIGEL JAMES is now considered
the legitimate child, for all intents and purposes of the petitioners. Thus, NIGEL JAMES has
the right to use and bear the surnames of his father and mother (petitioners in this case) as
provided for under the Family Code and Civil Code, respectively, which should be the natural
and logical consequence of this adoption proceedings and which had been expressly prayed for
by the petitioners in the Petition duly filed on 18 March 2016; that the right of NIGEL JAMES
to use the surnames of the petitioners should not be denied nor be delayed at the very least by
mere reason of techical issues that would hamper the right of the adopted child to use
petitioner's surname which will obviously redound to his (adopted child) best and paramount
interests; that the Office of the Civil Registry will be placed in a quandary in the preparation of
the amended birth certificate of NIGEL JAMES citing Section 17 of R.A. 8552 of the
“Domestic Adoption Act of 1998” must be harmonized with the provisions of Article 174 of the
Family Code specifically sub paragraph 1 and Article 365 of the Civil Code respectively, which
states, to wit: Art. 174. Legitimate children shall have the right (1) to bear the surnames of the
father and the mother, in conformity with the provisions of the Civil Code on Surnames and
Art. 365. An adopted child shall bear the surname of the adopter; second, petitioners asserts
that considering the fact that the Honorable Court has already deemed that this Petition
sufficiently passed the form and substance test evidenced by April 12, 2016 Order, it is prayed
that the Court reconsider its ruling in denying petitioners' prayer to change the name of the
adoptive child, Nigel James, on the account of failure to comply strictly and literally with
Section 10 of the New Rule on Adoption; third, the petitioners beg the kindest consideration of
this Honorable Court to implement the very wordings of Section 10 of the New Rule on
Adoption with least regard to technicalities in order to determine speedily and inexpensively
the actual merits of the case relying on the case of Spouses William Genato and Rebecca
Genato vs Rita Viola, G.R. No. 169706, February 5, 2010, citing that it is well settled that
Jurisprudence directs us to look beyond the form and into the substance so as to render
substantial justice to the parties and determine speedily and inexpensively the actual merits of
the controversy with least regard to technicalities, fourth, asserting that in a long line of cases
decided by the Supreme Court, technicalities on Adoption should be liberally construed to carry
out the beneficient purposes of adoption, one of which is to allow the adoptive child to use the
surnames of the petitioners' relying on the case of In the Matter of Adoption of Stephanie Nathy
Astorga Garcia, Honorato B. Catindig, Petitioner, G.R.No. 148311, March 31,2005 citing that it
is a settled rule that adoption statutes, being humane and salutary, should be liberally construed
to carry out the beneficient purposes of adoption. The interests and welfare of the adopted child
are of primary and paramount consideration, hence, every reasonable intendment should be
sustained to promote and fulfill this noble and compassionate objectives of the law; fifth, citing
that the Honorable Court's interpretation of Section 10 of the New Rule on Adoption as
mandatory in nature is misplaced and the eventual denial of petitioner's prayer to change the
name of adoptive child runs counter to the very objective of the Domestic Adoption Law
relying on New Rule on Adoption, Section 10. Change of name.- In case the petition also prays
for change of name, the title or caption must contain: (a) The registered name of the child, (b)
Aliases or other names by which the child has been known and (c) The full name by which the
child is to be known; thus, the rule used the word “must” which generally connotes imperative
or mandatory, relying on the case of Ramon Diokno vs Rehabilitation Finance Corporation,
G.R. No. L-4712, July 11, 1952 citing that the words “must”or “shall” may be given a
permissive meaning depending on the context and intent of the law or rules; and lastly,
asserting that Section 10 of the New Rule on Adoption or the entirety of the Rule for that
matter does not expressly provide for a sanction or penalty in the event of non-compliance,
citing that the Rule does not explicitly state that a prayer for change of name shall be denied if
the title or caption of the case does not contain (a) The registered name of the child, (b) Aliases
or other names by which the child has been known and (c) The full name by which the child
is to be known; thus, in the absence of such sanction or penalty, giving birth to an ambiguity,
the rule shall be liberally construed in favor of the adoption carrying into the beneficient
purpose and intendment of the law to always consider the best interests of the adoptive child.

The petitioners' further asserts that the public prosecutor, being the duly constituted
representative of the Office of the Solicitor General, the counsel of the of the State, did not
interpose any objection and/ or comment with respect to the failure of petitioners to comply
with Section 10 of the New Rule on Adoption, thus, it can be inferred therefrom that such
technical oversight bears no substantial effects in order not to serve and grant all the natural and
logical consequences of petitioner's adoption over NIGEL JAMES.

RULING OF THE COURT

Petitioners' asserts that NIGEL JAMES is now considered their legitimate child, for all
intents and purposes of the petitioners. Thus, NIGEL JAMES has the right to use and bear the
surnames of his father and mother (petitioners in this case) as provided for under the Family
Code and Civil Code, respectively, which should be the natural and logical consequence of this
adoption proceedings. Hence, Nigel James is entitled to be known as NIGEL JAMES AQUINO
LOTINO.

According to the New Rule on Adoption, Section 10. Change of name.- In case the
petition also prays for change of name, the title or caption must contain: (a) The registered
name of the child (b) Aliases or other names by which the child has been known and (c) The
full name by which the child is to be known;

Perusal of records revealed that the full name by which the child is to be known is not
included in the title or caption of the petition.1 Thus, the Court has no recourse but to deny the
change of name of Nigel James. Albeit, petitioners' partial appeal to the Court to reconsider its
decision in denying Nigel James' change of name relied on the case of In the Matter of
Adoption of Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia, Honorato B. Catindig, Petitioner, G.R. No.
148311, March 31, 2005, citing that it is a settled rule that adoption statutes, being humane and
salutary, should be liberally construed to carry out the beneficient purposes of adoption. The
interests and welfare of the adopted child are of primary and paramount consideration, hence,
every reasonable intendment should be sustained to promote and fulfill this noble and
compassionate objectives of the law.

In the case of Spouses William Genato and Rebecca Genato vs Rita Viola, G.R. No.
169706, February 5, 2010, where Supreme Court ruled that Jurisprudence directs us to look
beyond the form and into the substance so as to render substantial justice to the parties and
determine speedily and inexpensively the actual merits of the controversy with least regard to
technicalities. Upon the Motion

Accordingly, the Partial Motion for Reconsideration is hereby GRANTED.

This case is now submitted for decision.

SO ORDERED.

Morong Rizal, October 3, 2018.

SHEILA MARIE A. IGNACIO

Presiding Judge

copy furnished:

Plaintiff Eleonor M. Cruzado Defendants Sps. Fernando P. Librea and

J.P. Laurel St., Tanay, Rizal Maribeth R. Librea
J.M. Catolos Ext., Tanay, Rizal

Atty. Leonardo C. Aseoche

Plaintiff's Counsel
No. 1039 Manila East Road, Calumpang,
Binangonan, Rizal

1 Petition, Page 1