Catindig vs. Republic

An illegitimate child adopted by her natural father may use the surname of her natural mother as her middle name, there being no law prohibiting such use, and the underlying intent of adoption—geared toward the best interest and welfare of the adopted child—supports preserving the child's maternal lineage and eliminating the stigma of illegitimacy.

Honorato B. Catindig, a widower, is the natural father of Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia, an illegitimate child born on June 26, 1994 to Gemma Astorga Garcia. Stephanie had been using her mother's middle name "Astorga" and her mother's surname "Garcia." Petitioner sought to adopt Stephanie and to rearrange her name so that her mother's surname "Garcia" would become her middle name and his surname "Catindig" would become her surname. The Civil Code and Family Code regulate the use of surnames but are silent on the use of middle names, and no statute expressly addresses what middle name an adopted child may bear.

On August 31, 2000, Honorato B. Catindig, a widower, filed a petition to adopt his minor illegitimate child, Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia, born on June 26, 1994. Stephanie's mother is Gemma Astorga Garcia. Since birth, Stephanie had been using her mother's middle name "Astorga" and her mother's surname "Garcia." In his petition, Catindig prayed that Stephanie's middle name "Astorga" be changed to "Garcia"—her mother's surname—and that her surname "Garcia" be changed to "Catindig"—his surname. He alleged that he was qualified to be her adopting parent and that the grant of the petition would redound to the best interest and welfare of the minor.

On March 23, 2001, the trial court rendered a decision granting the adoption. It found that petitioner possessed all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided by law, that he was qualified to maintain, care for, and educate the child, and that the grant of the petition would serve the child's best interest. The court held that petitioner's care and custody of the child since her birth constituted more than enough compliance with the requirement of Article 35 of Presidential Decree No. 603. The court decreed Stephanie to be petitioner's legitimate child and legal heir and ordered that she be known as "Stephanie Nathy Catindig"—without any middle name.

On April 20, 2001, petitioner filed a motion for clarification and/or reconsideration, praying that Stephanie be allowed to use the surname of her natural mother, "Garcia," as her middle name. On May 28, 2001, the trial court denied the motion, holding that there is no law or jurisprudence allowing an adopted child to use the surname of her biological mother as her middle name. Petitioner then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via a petition for review, raising the sole issue of whether an illegitimate child may use the surname of her mother as her middle name when she is subsequently adopted by her natural father.

Records show that Stephanie and her mother live together in a house built by petitioner at 390 Tumana, San Jose, Baliuag, Bulacan. Petitioner provides for all their needs. Stephanie is closely attached to both her mother and father, calling them "Mama" and "Papa." Neither the Catindig nor the Garcia families opposed Stephanie's continued use of "Garcia" as her middle name.

• No Prohibitory Law: Petitioner argued that there is no law prohibiting an adopted child from having a middle name where there is only one adopting parent.
• Filipino Custom: Petitioner maintained that it is customary for every Filipino to have as a middle name the surname of the mother.
• Name as Property: Petitioner contended that the middle name or initial is a part of the name of a person and that the right to bear a proper name should not be violated.
• Best Interest of the Child: Petitioner argued that adoption is for the benefit and best interest of the adopted child, and depriving Stephanie of a middle name as a consequence of adoption undermines that purpose.
• Elimination of Stigma: Petitioner asserted that permitting Stephanie to use "Garcia" as her middle name avoids the stigma of her illegitimacy.
• No Opposition: Petitioner noted that Stephanie's continued use of "Garcia" as her middle name is not opposed by either the Catindig or Garcia families.

• Preservation of Filiation: The OSG agreed with petitioner, arguing that allowing Stephanie to use her natural mother's surname as her middle name is necessary to preserve and maintain her filiation with her natural mother, since under Article 189 of the Family Code she remains an intestate heir of the latter.
• No Prohibitory Law: The OSG contended that there is no law expressly prohibiting Stephanie from using the surname of her natural mother as her middle name, and what the law does not prohibit, it allows.
• Filipino Custom: The OSG maintained that it is customary for every Filipino to have a middle name, ordinarily the surname of the mother, and that this custom has been recognized by the Civil Code and Family Code, as confirmed by the Family Law Committees.

• Use of Middle Name: Whether an illegitimate child adopted by her natural father may use the surname of her natural mother as her middle name.

• Use of Middle Name: Yes. The law is silent on what middle name an adopted child may use, and no law prohibits such use; adoption statutes must be liberally construed in favor of the adopted child, and Filipino custom recognizes the mother's surname as the middle name.

• Use of Middle Name: The name of an individual consists of two parts: the given or proper name and the surname or family name. While the given name may be freely selected by parents, the surname to which a child is entitled is fixed by law. Articles 364 to 380 of the Civil Code regulate the use of surnames but are silent on the use of middle names. Article 365 provides that an adopted child shall bear the surname of the adopter, and Article 189 of the Family Code enumerates the legal effects of adoption—including the right of the adopted to use the surname of the adopters—but neither provision addresses what middle name an adoptee may use. The silence of the law on middle names is significant: what the law does not prohibit, it allows. The members of the Civil Code and Family Law Committees recognized the Filipino custom of adding the mother's surname as the child's middle name, approving the principle that the initial or surname of the mother should immediately precede the surname of the father. Upon adoption, Stephanie is deemed a legitimate child of the adopter for all intents and purposes pursuant to Article 189 of the Family Code and Section 17, Article V of RA 8552. As a legitimate child by virtue of adoption, she is entitled to all the rights of a legitimate child without discrimination, including the right to bear the surname of both her father and her mother. Her continued use of "Garcia" as her middle name maintains her maternal lineage and preserves proof of her relationship with her natural mother, from whom she remains an intestate heir under Article 189(3) of the Family Code and Section 18, Article V of RA 8552. Allowing the use also eliminates the stigma of illegitimacy and sustains her loving relationship with her mother. Adoption statutes, being humane and salutary, must be liberally construed to carry out their beneficent purposes, with the interests and welfare of the adopted child as the primary and paramount consideration. Article 10 of the New Civil Code further provides that in case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail. Since no law prohibits an illegitimate child adopted by her natural father from using her mother's surname as her middle name, there is no reason to deny the prayer.

• Liberal Construction of Adoption Statutes — Adoption statutes, being humane and salutary, should be liberally construed to carry out the beneficent purposes of adoption. The interests and welfare of the adopted child are of primary and paramount consideration, and every reasonable intendment should be sustained to promote these noble and compassionate objectives.
• Silence of the Law as Permission — Where the law is silent on a matter and does not expressly prohibit it, the act is allowed. In this case, the silence of the Civil Code and Family Code on the use of middle names by adopted children meant that no legal barrier existed to prevent the adoptee from using her natural mother's surname as her middle name.
• Legal Effects of Adoption — Upon adoption, the adopted is deemed a legitimate child of the adopter for all intents and purposes, acquiring all reciprocal rights and obligations arising from the parent-child relationship, including the right to use the surname of the adopter. The adoptee also remains an intestate heir of her biological parent.
• Filipino Custom on Middle Names — It is a recognized Filipino custom that the initial or surname of the mother should immediately precede the surname of the father, so that any second given name appears before the mother's surname. This custom was acknowledged by the Civil Code and Family Law Committees in drafting the Family Code.

• "However, as correctly pointed out by the OSG, the members of the Civil Code and Family Law Committees that drafted the Family Code recognized the Filipino custom of adding the surname of the child's mother as his middle name." — This passage anchors the Court's reasoning in the legislative history of the Family Code, establishing that the silence of the law on middle names was not intended to prohibit their use but reflected a recognized custom.
• "Being a legitimate child by virtue of her adoption, it follows that Stephanie is entitled to all the rights provided by law to a legitimate child without discrimination of any kind, including the right to bear the surname of her father and her mother, as discussed above." — This is the ratio decidendi connecting the legal effects of adoption to the child's right to bear both parents' surnames, including the mother's surname as a middle name.
• "Hence, since there is no law prohibiting an illegitimate child adopted by her natural father, like Stephanie, to use, as middle name her mother's surname, we find no reason why she should not be allowed to do so." — This is the dispositive reasoning applying the principle that what the law does not prohibit, it allows, in the context of adoption and the use of middle names.

• Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Maximo Wong, G.R. No. 97906, May 21, 1992 — Cited for the definition of a name and the principle that the surname to which a child is entitled is fixed by law, while also confirming that Articles 364 to 380 of the Civil Code regulate the use of surnames.
• Republic vs. Hon. Hernandez, et al., G.R. No. 117209, February 9, 1996 — Cited for the distinction between the given or proper name and the surname or family name, and for the rule that the law expressly allows the adoptee to bear the surname of the adopter upon issuance of the decree of adoption.
• Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 92326, January 24, 1992 — Cited as controlling authority for the doctrine that adoption statutes should be liberally construed in favor of the adopted child, with the child's interests and welfare as the primary and paramount consideration.
• Lahom vs. Sibulo, G.R. No. 143989, July 14, 2003 — Cited for the principle that the Philippines, as a State Party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, accepted that adoption is impressed with social and moral responsibility and that its underlying intent is geared to favor the adopted child.

• Article 365, Civil Code — Provides that an adopted child shall bear the surname of the adopter. The Court noted that this provision is silent on what middle name an adoptee may use.
• Articles 364–380, Civil Code — Provide the substantive rules regulating the use of surnames for all individuals regardless of status. The Court found these provisions silent on the use of middle names, except for Article 375(1), which mentions the mother's surname as a middle name in cases of identity of names between ascendants and descendants.
• Article 189, Family Code — Enumerates the legal effects of adoption, including that the adopted shall be deemed a legitimate child of the adopters and shall have the right to use the surname of the adopters. Article 189(3) provides that the adoptee remains an intestate heir of her biological parent. The Court relied on this provision to support Stephanie's entitlement to all rights of a legitimate child and to preserve her hereditary ties to her natural mother.
• Section 17, Article V, RA 8552 (Domestic Adoption Act of 1998) — Provides that the adoptee shall be considered the legitimate son/daughter of the adopter(s) for all intents and purposes, entitled to all rights and obligations provided by law to legitimate children without discrimination of any kind. Applied to confirm Stephanie's status as a legitimate child with full rights.
• Section 18, Article V, RA 8552 — Provides that in legal and intestate succession, the adopter(s) and the adoptee shall have reciprocal rights of succession, and the adoptee remains an intestate heir of her biological parent. Applied to support the preservation of Stephanie's maternal lineage through her middle name.
• Article 176, Family Code (as amended by RA 9255) — Governs the surname of illegitimate children. The Court noted that this provision is silent on what middle name a child may use.
• Article 10, New Civil Code — Provides that in case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail. Applied to tip the scales in favor of allowing Stephanie to use her mother's surname as her middle name.

Justice Panganiban (Chairman), Justice Corona, Justice Carpio-Morales, and Justice Garcia concurred.