Barba vs. Local Civil Registrars of Manila and of Cebu City

Children legitimated by the subsequent marriage of their parents, where the parents had no impediment to marry each other at the time of conception, may use their father's surname, and legitimation may be proved by continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child even in the absence of a public document of acknowledgment.

Teresita Calliza Barba is the mother of Vicente Calliza, born on February 14, 1957, and Rito Domagtoy Calliza, born on May 26, 1960. Both children were born outside wedlock. On July 21, 1961, Teresita married Apolinario Barba, who thereafter lived with Teresita and the children as a family until his death in 1986. At the time of the children's births and the subsequent marriage, the prevailing law on filiation and legitimation was the Civil Code, which permitted legitimation of natural children — those born of parents with no impediment to marry — by the subsequent marriage of the parents. The Family Code later took effect and, while it expanded the scope of legitimation, the Court of Appeals applied Civil Code provisions in assessing whether legitimation was sufficiently proved.

Teresita Calliza Barba is the mother of Vicente Calliza, born on February 14, 1957, and Rito Domagtoy Calliza, born on May 26, 1960. Both children were born outside wedlock and were baptized on February 14, 1958 and April 26, 1961, respectively. On July 21, 1961, Teresita married Apolinario Barba. There is no indication that Teresita and Apolinario had any impediment to marry each other at the time of either child's conception.

From the time of the marriage onward, Vicente began using the name "Romeo Calliza Barba" and Rito used the name "Remegio Calliza Barba" in their school and employment records. The four of them lived together as a family under one roof until Apolinario's death in 1986. Throughout this period, both children bore the surname "Barba," and there is no indication that Apolinario ever objected to their use of his surname or made any representation that the children were not his own. His name appeared in their baptismal certificates as their father, and he was present at their baptism ceremonies.

On February 25, 2015, Teresita filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City seeking to change the names of Vicente and Rito to "Romeo Calliza Barba" and "Remegio Calliza Barba," respectively, and to correct their birth records to include Apolinario Barba as their father and July 21, 1961 as the date of their parents' marriage. Teresita and Vicente testified in support of the petition, and no opposition or objection was interposed by any other party or person. The trial court found that Vicente and Rito had used the names "Romeo" and "Remegio" their entire lives and granted the petition on April 25, 2018.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, identifying several procedural defects under Rule 103 — including that the petition was not filed by the proper parties, that Rito was not a resident of Cebu City, and that the published order failed to state the purpose of the petition — and holding that the fact of legitimation was not sufficiently proved under the Civil Code, as no public document of acknowledgment by Apolinario was presented and his death barred the establishment of nonmarital filiation. The Supreme Court found that the applicable rule was Rule 108, not Rule 103, and that the procedural defects identified by the appellate court were therefore not fatal. However, the Court noted that Rito, an indispensable party, was never impleaded in the proceedings and did not personally participate or testify, so that the change of name could not be extended to him.

• Sufficiency of Evidence of Legitimation: Petitioner claimed that Vicente and Rito's legitimation was proved by sufficient evidence to satisfy the requirements in the Civil Code, pointing to Apolinario's name in their baptismal records and his presence at their baptisms as a "clear and unequivocal acknowledgement of paternity."
• Applicability of the Family Code: Petitioner argued that there was no need for Vicente and Rito to secure a final judgment on their legitimation, as the Family Code applies to their case.
• Change of Given Names: Petitioner maintained that Vicente and Rito were entitled to change their first names as they had been habitually and continuously known by those names throughout their lives.

• Procedural Defects Under Rule 103: Respondents argued that the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition because it failed to comply with the jurisdictional requirements of Rule 103 of the Rules of Court.
• Prescription Due to Father's Death: Respondents contended that the action had already prescribed since Apolinario, the putative father, had already died.
• Failure to Establish Legitimation: Respondents argued that the fact of legitimation had not been established because Vicente and Rito's father was unknown.

• Applicable Procedural Rule: Whether the petition should be governed by Rule 103 (change of name) or Rule 108 (correction of entries in the civil registry), and whether the procedural defects identified by the Court of Appeals under Rule 103 are fatal.
• Change of Given Names: Whether Vicente and Rito are entitled to change their given names to the names they have continuously and habitually used.
• Legitimation: Whether the fact of legitimation was sufficiently established under the Civil Code, notwithstanding the absence of a public document of acknowledgment by the father.
• Impleader of Indispensable Party: Whether the change of name may be extended to Rito, who was not impleaded as a party and did not personally participate in the proceedings.

• Applicable Procedural Rule: No, the procedural defects under Rule 103 are not fatal. The petition, insofar as it sought correction of entries in the birth records (father's name and date of marriage), is governed by Rule 108, not Rule 103, and petitioner substantially complied with Rule 108's jurisdictional requirements.
• Change of Given Names: Yes. A person who has continuously and habitually used a name their entire life, where no illegal purpose is shown, may be granted a change of name.
• Legitimation: Yes. Legitimation was established through the children's continuous possession of the status of legitimate children under Article 266 of the Civil Code, even though the baptismal certificates presented were not public documents for purposes of acknowledgment under Article 265.
• Impleader of Indispensable Party: No. The change of name cannot be extended to Rito, who was never impleaded as an indispensable party and did not personally participate, without prejudice to him filing the appropriate petition at a later date.

• Applicable Procedural Rule: The Court found that the Court of Appeals erred in applying Rule 103 to the entire petition. While Rule 103 governs changes of name, the correction of entries in the civil registry — such as the father's name and the date of marriage — falls under Rule 108. Unlike Rule 103, which requires that the person seeking the change of name be the petitioner, Rule 108 allows "any person interested in any act, event, order or decree concerning the civil status of persons" to file the petition. Teresita, as the children's mother, qualified as such an interested party. She also substantially complied with Rule 108's adversarial requirements: the Local Civil Registrars of Manila and Cebu City and the Office of the Solicitor General were impleaded, the order setting the petition for hearing was published once a week for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation, and the trial court thrice announced in open court for any oppositor, with none appearing. There were also no other heirs to Apolinario's estate who would have been prejudiced.

• Change of Given Names: The Regional Trial Court found that Vicente and Rito had used the names "Romeo" and "Remegio" their entire lives. Respondents failed to show that allowing the change of given names would prejudice the State or any other person. Under established jurisprudence, when a person has continuously and habitually used a name throughout their life and no illegal purpose is shown, the petition for change of name may be granted.

• Legitimation: At the time of their births, Vicente and Rito were nonmarital children. Their mother and putative father subsequently married, with no indication of any impediment to marry at the time of conception. Under Article 269 of the Civil Code, children born outside wedlock of parents who were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other are "natural children" who may be legitimated by the subsequent marriage of their parents. Under Article 265, acknowledgment of natural children must be in the record of birth, will, or some other public document. The baptismal certificates presented were not public documents for this purpose. However, Article 266 provides that even in the absence of a public document, marital filiation may be proved by "continuous possession of status of a legitimate child." Vicente and Rito continuously possessed the status of being Teresita and Apolinario's marital children: both used the surname "Barba" during schooling and employment while living under the same roof as Apolinario, who never objected to their use of his surname or denied that they were his children. This contrasted with Rodriguez vs. Reyes, where the father's identity was unknown for years, the mother was not widowed, and the child did not bear the putative father's surname. The Court also cited Tongoy vs. Court of Appeals for the principle that a liberal view should be taken in favor of natural children who have enjoyed the blessings and privileges of acknowledged or legitimated children and found it unnecessary to institute an action for recognition against parents who freely accorded them love, care, and support.

• Impleader of Indispensable Party: Rito was an indispensable party to the proceedings, yet there was no showing in the records that he was ever impleaded or that he actually participated. While his school and employment records were presented, he did not testify as to the circumstances of his use of his name. No document showed his consent or assent to the change of his name, and Vicente's testimony that Rito also sought a change of name was at most hearsay. His non-inclusion and non-participation could not be excused by the fact of publication of the petition during the trial court proceedings. Accordingly, the change of name could not be extended to Rito, without prejudice to him filing the appropriate petition at a later date.

• Legitimation by Subsequent Marriage — Under Article 269 of the Civil Code, natural children — those born outside wedlock of parents who, at the time of conception, were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other — may be legitimated by the subsequent marriage of their parents. Under Article 264(1), legitimated children are entitled to bear the surnames of their father and mother. The Court applied this doctrine to Vicente and Rito, finding that their parents had no impediment to marry at the time of conception and subsequently married, thereby effecting legitimation.

• Proof of Filiation by Continuous Possession of Status — Under Article 266 of the Civil Code, even in the absence of a public document of acknowledgment required by Article 265, marital filiation may be proved by "continuous possession of status of a legitimate child." The Court held that Vicente and Rito's lifelong use of the surname "Barba," their cohabitation with Apolinario, and his apparent consent to be identified as their father — including in their baptismal records — constituted continuous possession of status sufficient to establish filiation and legitimation, notwithstanding the absence of a formal public document of acknowledgment.

• Liberal Construction in Favor of Natural Children — Drawing from Tongoy vs. Court of Appeals, the Court adopted a liberal view in favor of natural children who have enjoyed the privileges of acknowledged or legitimated children and found it unnecessary to institute an action for recognition against parents who freely accorded them love, care, and support.

• Rule 108 vs. Rule 103 Distinction — A petition seeking not only a change of name but also the correction of entries in the civil registry (such as the father's name and the date of marriage) is governed by Rule 108, not Rule 103. Rule 108 permits "any person interested in any act, event, order or decree concerning the civil status of persons" to file the petition, whereas Rule 103 requires that the person seeking the change of name be the petitioner. Substantial compliance with Rule 108's adversarial requirements — impleading indispensable parties and civil registries, publication, and notice — suffices to confer jurisdiction.

• Impleader of Indispensable Parties in Change of Name Proceedings — An indispensable party whose name is sought to be changed must be impleaded and must personally participate; the non-inclusion and non-participation of such a party cannot be excused by the fact of publication of the petition, and hearsay testimony regarding that party's desire for a change of name is insufficient.

• "A person who is legitimated by the subsequent marriage of their parents, when those parents did not have any impediment to marry at the time of their conception, may use their father's surname." — This is the opening statement of the decision and articulates the core legal principle upon which the ruling rests.

• "It is time that WE, too, take a liberal view in favor of natural children who, because they enjoy the blessings and privileges of an acknowledged natural child and even of a legitimated child, found it rather awkward, if not necessary, to institute an action for recognition against their natural parents, who, without their asking, have been showering them with the same love, care and material support as are accorded to legitimate children." — Quoted from Tongoy vs. Court of Appeals, this passage articulates the doctrinal basis for the Court's liberal approach to filiation and legitimation of children who have long been treated as legitimate by their parents.

• "His non-inclusion and non-participation cannot be excused by the fact of the publication of the petition during the proceedings in the trial court, and as such, the change of name granted here cannot be extended to him, without prejudice to him filing the appropriate petition or initiating the appropriate proceedings at a later date." — This passage defines the limitation on the grant of relief where an indispensable party was not impleaded, establishing that publication alone does not substitute for personal participation.

• Republic vs. Marcos, 261 Phil. 319 (1990) — Cited by the Court of Appeals for the proposition that a petition for change of name under Rule 103 must be signed and verified by the person desiring to change their name. The Supreme Court effectively distinguished this by ruling that Rule 108, not Rule 103, governed the correction of birth record entries.

• Republic vs. Coseteng-Magpayo, 656 Phil. 550 (2011) — Cited for the distinction between Rule 103 (change of name) and Rule 108 (correction of entries in the civil registry), and for the requirement of substantial compliance with Rule 108's adversarial proceedings, including impleading indispensable parties and civil registries.

• Rodriguez vs. Reyes, 97 Phil. 659 (1955) — Distinguished. In that case, legitimation was not proved because the father's identity was unknown for years, the mother was not widowed, and the child did not bear the putative father's surname. The Court contrasted this with the present case, where Vicente and Rito bore Apolinario's surname their whole life without objection.

• Tongoy vs. Court of Appeals, 208 Phil. 95 (1983) — Followed. The Court adopted its liberal view in favor of natural children who enjoyed the privileges of acknowledged or legitimated children and found it unnecessary to institute an action for recognition against parents who freely accorded them love, care, and support.

• Madridejo vs. De Leon, 55 Phil. 1 (1930) — Cited for the proposition that baptismal certificates are not public documents for the purpose of acknowledgment under the Civil Code.

• Colorado vs. Court of Appeals, 219 Phil. 558 (1985) — Cited for the principle that when parents of natural children marry each other, the acknowledgment of those children does not require judicial approval.

• De Santos vs. Hon. Angeles, 321 Phil. 562 (1995) — Cited for the proposition that legitimation is a privilege granted to natural children under the Civil Code.

• Alanis III vs. Court of Appeals, 890 Phil. 74 (2020) — Cited for the principle that a petition for change of name may be granted when a person has continuously and habitually used a name their entire life and no illegal purpose is shown.

• Article 269, Civil Code — Defines "natural children" as those born outside wedlock of parents who, at the time of conception, were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other. Applied to determine that Vicente and Rito qualified as natural children eligible for legitimation.

• Article 265, Civil Code — Requires that the acknowledgment of natural children be made in the record of birth, will, or some other public document. The Court found that the baptismal certificates presented did not satisfy this requirement, as they are not public documents for purposes of acknowledgment.

• Article 266, Civil Code — Provides that even in the absence of a public document, marital filiation may be proved by "continuous possession of status of a legitimate child." The Court relied on this provision to establish Vicente and Rito's filiation with Apolinario despite the absence of a formal public document of acknowledgment.

• Article 264(1), Civil Code — Provides that legitimated children are entitled to bear the surnames of their father and mother. Applied to hold that Vicente and Rito, as legitimated children, were entitled to use the surname "Barba."

• Rule 103, Sections 1, 2, and 3, Rules of Court — Governs change of name proceedings. The Court held that while Rule 103 applies to the change of given names, it does not govern the correction of entries in the civil registry, which falls under Rule 108.

• Rule 108, Section 1, Rules of Court — Governs the cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry and allows "any person interested in any act, event, order or decree concerning the civil status of persons" to file the petition. Applied to hold that Teresita, as the children's mother, was a proper petitioner under Rule 108.

• Article 172, Family Code — Cited by the Court of Appeals regarding competent evidence of filiation. The appellate court held that Teresita was unable to present competent evidence under this article and that Apolinario's death barred the establishment of nonmarital filiation. The Supreme Court effectively reversed this finding by relying on Article 266 of the Civil Code instead.

Lazaro-Javier, J. Lopez, Kho, Jr., and Villanueva, JJ., concurred.