Republic of the
Supreme
Court
SECOND
DIVISION
REPUBLIC OF
THE
Petitioner,
Present:
PUNO, J.,
Chairperson,
- versus - SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
AZCUNA, and
GARCIA, JJ.
ROSELIE ELOISA BRINGAS Promulgated:
BOLANTE a.k.a. MARIA
ELOISA BRINGAS BOLANTE,
Respondent. July 20, 2006
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- x
D E C I S I O
N
GARCIA, J.:
In this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, the Republic of the Philippines assails
and seeks to set aside the decision[1] of the
Court of Appeals (CA) dated October 21, 2003 in CA-G.R. CV No. 74398 affirming that of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Bangued, Abra in Special Proceeding Case No. 1916, a petition for change of name
thereat commenced by herein respondent Roselie Eloisa Bringas Bolante also
known as Maria Eloisa Bringas Bolante.
In
her petition before the RTC, respondent alleged, among other things, the
following:
1.
That she is a Filipino, of legal age, married, born to
spouses Floriano B. Bolante and Paula B. Bringas and a resident since birth of
Bangued, Abra;
2.
That per records in the Office of the Municipal Civil
Registrar, Bangued, Abra, her registered name is Roselie Eloisa Bringas Bolante which name, as far as she can
remember, she did not use but instead the name Maria Eloisa Bringas Bolante;
3.
That the name Maria Eloisa appears in all her school as
well as in her other public and private records; and
4.
That her married name is Maria Eloisa B.
Bolante-Marbella.
Thus,
to prevent confusion, Ms. Bolante prayed that her registered name be changed to
conform to the name she has always carried and used.
Finding
the petition sufficient in form and substance, the trial court ordered respondent,
as petitioner thereat, to comply with the jurisdictional requirements of notice
and publication, and set the hearing on
At
the scheduled
On
Exh. “A” - The Petition
Exh. “B” - The Notice of Initial Hearing
Exh. “C” - The Certificate of Posting
Exh. “D” - The Appearance of the Solicitor General
Exh. “E” - The Authority given to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
Exh. “F” - The Affidavit of Publication
Exh. “F-I” -The Newspaper Clippings
Exh. “G” - The Norluzonian Courier
Exh. “H” - Another copy of Norluzonian Courier
Shortly after the trial court has
declared its acquisition of jurisdiction over the case, respondent took the
witness stand to state that the purpose of her petition was to have her
registered name changed to that which she had actually been using thru the
years. She also categorically stated she had not been accused of any crime
under either her registered name or her present correct name.
An
excerpt of other portions of her testimony, as recited in the Republic’s
petition which cited the decision of the
trial court:
At the witness stand the petitioner [herein respondent Bolante] testified, among others, that she is now married to Jorge Marbella, Jr. and presently residing at Bliss Angad, Bangued, Abra since 1995 but before she resided in Zone 4, Bangued, Abra since birth. She presented her birth certificate and was marked as Exhibit J to establish such fact of birth and to effect that the name Roselie Eloisa B. Bolante entered therein is not her true and correct name but instead Maria Eloisa Bolante which she had been using during her school days, while being a government employee, and in all her public and private records.
She presented her professional license issued by the Professional Regulation Commission, Certificate issued by the Philippine Institute of Certified Public Accountant and a 'Quick Count' document all issued in her name Maria Eloisa B. Marbella, which documents were marked as Exhibit K and Exhibit L and Exhibit M respectively. She likewise marked her marriage license as Exhibit N to prove her marriage xxx.
xxx xxx xxx
On cross she stated that the purpose of filing the petition is that, she wanted to secure a passport and wanted that the same be issued in her correct name and that she would not have filed the petition was (sic) it not for the passport.
On clarificatory question by the Court she said that her reason in filing the petition is her realization that there will be a complication upon her retirement.[2] (Words in bracket added.)
On
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this petition is hereby approved and is granted by this Court for being meritorious.
The Municipal Registrar of Bangued, Abra, is hereby directed:
a) To change the name of the petitioner in her record of birth from Roselie Eloisa Bringas Bolante to Maria Eloisa Bringas Bolante; and,
b) To record this decision in the Civil Registry in accordance with Registry Regulations.
Furnish copy of this Order to the Municipal Civil Registrar of Bangued, Abra for recording and compliance.
SO ORDERED.[3] (Underscoring added)
In
time, the Republic, through the OSG, went to the CA whereat its appellate
recourse was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No.
74398. In the herein assailed Decision of
Hence,
the
Republic’s present petition on the
following issues:
I
WHETHER OR NOT
RESPONDENT'S SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 3, RULE 103 OF THE RULES OF COURT
IS SUFFICIENT TO VEST THE TRIAL COURT WITH JURISDICTION TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF
THE PETITION A QUO.
II
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENT'S BARE TESTIMONY, UNSUPPORTED BY ANY OTHER EVIDENCE, IS SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT THE CHANGE OF HER NAME IS NOT RESORTED FOR ILLEGAL PURPOSES.
Sections
2 and 3, Rule 103 of the Rules of Court prescribe the procedural and
jurisdictional requirements for a change of name. As we articulated in Republic v. Hon. Judge of Branch III of the
CFI of Cebu,[5]
citing pertinent jurisprudence,[6] non-compliance
with these requirements would be fatal to the jurisdiction of the lower court
to hear and determine a petition for change of name. The provisions adverted to
are pertinently quoted hereunder:
SEC. 2. Contents of petition. - A petition for change of name shall be signed and verified by the person desiring his name changed, or some other person on his behalf, and shall set forth:
(a) That the petitioner has been a bona fide resident of the province where the petition is filed for at least three (3) years prior to the date of such filing;
(b) The cause for which the change of the
petitioner's name is sought;
(c) The name asked for.
SEC. 3. Order
for hearing. - If the petition filed is sufficient in form and substance,
the court, by an order reciting the purpose of the petition, shall fix a date
and place for the hearing thereof, and shall direct that a copy of the order be
published before the hearing at least once a week for three (3) successive
weeks in some newspaper of general circulation published in the province, …. The date set for the hearing shall
not be within thirty (30) days prior to an election nor within four (4)
months after the last publication of the notice. (Underscoring added.)
On the postulate that the initial hearing of a
petition for a change of name cannot be set within four (4) months from the
last publication of the notice of such hearing,
petitioner submits at the threshold that the trial court did not acquire
jurisdiction over the case for want or defective publication.
We
are not persuaded.
As gleaned from the records, the basic petition
for change of name was filed on
It
is the Republic’s posture that the fact that the hearing took place on
September 25, 2001, beyond the four-month prohibited period, did not cure the jurisdictional
defect since notice of the September 25, 2001 setting went unpublished. Pressing
on, the Republic would state – and correctly so – that the in rem nature of a change of name proceeding necessitates strict
compliance with all jurisdictional requirements, particularly on publication,
in order to vest the court with jurisdiction thereover.[8]
The
Court, to be sure, is fully aware that the required publication serves as notice
to the whole world that the proceeding in question has for its object to bar
indifferently all who might be minded to make an objection of any and against
the right sought to be established. It
is the publication of such notice that brings in the whole world as a party in
the case and vests the court with jurisdiction to hear and decide it.[9]
In
the context of Section 3, Rule 103 of the Rules, publication is valid if the
following requisites concur: (1) the petition and the copy of the order
indicating the date and place for the hearing must be published; (2) the
publication must be at least once a week for three successive weeks; and, (3)
the publication must be in some newspaper of general circulation published in
the province, as the court shall deem best.
Another validating ingredient relates to the caveat against the petition
being heard within 30 days prior to an election or within four (4) months after
the last publication of the notice of the hearing.
It
cannot be over-emphasized that in a petition for change of name, any interested
person may appear at the hearing and oppose the petition. Likewise, the
Solicitor General or his deputy shall appear on behalf of the Government.[10] The government, as an agency of the people,
represents the public and, therefore, the Solicitor General, who appears on
behalf of the government, effectively represents the public.[11] In this case, the Solicitor General deputized
the provincial prosecutor of Abra for the purpose of appearing in the trial on
his behalf. As it were, the provincial prosecutor
of Abra was fully apprised of the new dates of the initial hearing. Accordingly,
there was no actual need for a republication of the initial notice of the
hearing.
Not
lost on the Court is the fact that during the September 25, 2001 initial
hearing which, to reiterate is already outside the 4-month limitation
prescribed by the Rules, the provincial prosecutor of Abra interposed no
objection as to the genuineness, authenticity, relevancy or sufficiency of the
exhibits presented to prove the jurisdictional requirements exacted by the
Rules. In a very real sense, therefore, the
On
the issue as to propriety of the desired change of name, we are guided by decisional
law on the matter. As we have held, the State has an interest in the names
borne by individuals for purposes of identification, and that changing one’s
name is a privilege and not a right. Accordingly, a person can be authorized to
change his name appearing in either his certificate of birth or civil registry
upon showing not only of reasonable cause, or any compelling reason which may
justify such change, but also that he
will be prejudiced by the use of his true and official name. [12] Jurisprudence
has recognized certain justifying grounds to warrant a change of name. Among
these are: (a) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult
to write or pronounce; (b) when the change will avoid confusion; (c) when one
has been continuously used and been known since childhood by a Filipino name,
and was unaware of alien parentage; (d) 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 will prejudice public interest.[13]
The
matter of granting or denying petitions for change of name and the corollary
issue of what is a proper and reasonable cause therefor rests on the sound
discretion of the court. The evidence presented need only be satisfactory to
the court; it need not be the best evidence available.[14]
What is involved in special proceedings for change of name is, to borrow from Republic v. Court of Appeals, [15] “not a mere matter of allowance or
disallowance of the petition, 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.”
With the view we take of the
case, respondent's submission for a change of name is with proper and reasonable
reason. As it were, she has, since she
started schooling, used the given name and has been known as Maria Eloisa, albeit the name Roselie Eloisa is written on her birth
record. Her scholastic records, as well
as records in government offices, including that of her driver's license, professional
license as a certified public accountant issued by the Professional Regulation
Commission, and the "Quick Count" document of the COMELEC, all attest
to her having used practically all her life the name Maria Eloisa Bringas Bolante.
The imperatives of avoiding
confusion dictate that the instant petition is granted. But beyond
practicalities, simple justice dictates that every person shall be allowed to
avail himself of any opportunity to improve his social standing, provided he
does so without causing prejudice or injury to the interests of the State or of
other people.[16]
The OSG's argument that
respondent’s bare testimony is insufficient to show that the requested name is
not sought for any illegal purpose and/or in avoidance of any entanglement with
the law deserves scant consideration. Surely, the issuance of a police and NBI
clearance or like certification, while
perhaps apropos, cannot, as the OSG suggests, be a convincing norm of one’s good moral character or compelling
evidence to prove that the change of name is not sought for any evil motive or
fraudulent intent. Respondent’s open
court testimony, given under pain of perjury and for which she was cross-examined,
that she had not been accused of any crime under her registered name or under
her present name (name that she is using) had convinced the trial court of the bona fides of her request for change of
name. As the CA correctly ratiocinated:
In the case at bar, petitioner [now respondent] seeks to change her registered name in order to avoid confusion having used a different name all her life. This is a valid ground under the afore-mentioned enumeration not to mention that the instant remedy presents the less cumbersome and most convenient way to set her records straight.
Anent
the contention of oppositor-appellant that petitioner failed to prove that the
petition is not resorted to for an illegal purpose due to her inability to
present NBI as well as police clearance to the effect that she has no
derogatory records, due perusal of the requirements of Rule 103 reveals that it
does not so provide such a quantum of proof to establish the fact that a
petitioner has no derogatory records.
This purpose, we think, is served upon the declaration and affirmation
of the petitioner in open court that the petition is not to further fraud but
for a legitimate purpose, coupled by the absence of any oppositor to the
petition. There is yet no jurisprudence
requiring a petitioner in a petition for a change of name to present NBI and
police clearances to prove that the said petition is not resorted to for
purpose of fraud. Until such time, we
see no urgency to impose the requirements espoused by oppositor-appellant.
(Word in bracket added).
At bottom,
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of the
Court of Appeals dated
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO
ORDERED.
CANCIO
C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
RENATO
C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO
S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
A
T T E S T A T I O N
I
attest that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
C
E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court.
ARTEMIO
V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo V. Cosico and concurred in by Associate Justices Mariano C. del Castillo and Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente; Rollo, pp. 37-42.
[2] Rollo, pp. 18-19.
[3] Lifted from pp. 1 & 2 of the CA Decision; Rollo, pp. 37-38.
[4] See Note #1, supra.
[5] 217 Phil. 442 (1984).
[6] In the Matter of the Change of Name of Hermogenes Diangkina. Republic
v. Reyes, 150-A Phil. 962 (1972); Republic
v. Tañada, 149 Phil. 506 (1971); Ng
Yao Siong v. Republic, L-20306,
[7] Page 2 of CA Decision; Rollo, p. 38.
[8] Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97906,
[9] Barco v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120587,
[10] Rule 103, Sec. 4.
[11] Anti-Chinese League v. Felix, 77 Phil. 1012 (1947), cited in Republic v. Tan Keh, G.R. No. 144742, November 11, 2004, 442 SCRA 203.
[12] In Re: Petition for Change of Name and/or Correction/Cancellation of Entry in Civil Registry of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang, G.R. No. 159966, March 30, 2005, 454 SCRA 155.
[13] Republic v. Jose R. Hernadez, 323 Phil. 606 (1996).
[14] Ching v. Republic, 98 Phil. 1012 (1956); Oshita v. Republic, G.R. No. L-21180,
[15] Republic
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97906,
[16] Supra note 9.