Chua vs. Republic of the Philippines

A change of name may be granted on the ground of avoidance of confusion even if the ground originally alleged is not proven, where the petitioner has continuously used and been known by the desired surname and all official records except the birth certificate bear that name, and the State shows no prejudice.

Eric Sibayan Kiat is the son of Cheong Kiat, a Chinese father, and Melania Sibayan, a Filipino mother. His certificate of live birth registered him under the surname “Kiat,” while he later used “Chua” in other records. The dispute concerns the correction or change of the surname appearing in his civil registry record.

Eric was born on November 8, 1973 to Cheong Kiat, a Chinese father, and Melania Sibayan, a Filipino mother. His Certificate of Live Birth, registered under Registry No. 422-K-73 of the Local Civil Registrar of Balaoan, La Union, stated his name as “Eric S. Kiat.” According to Eric, after his birth, Cheong secured a favorable judgment allowing Cheong to change his surname from “Kiat” to “Chua”; Eric then adopted his father’s new surname and used “Eric Sibayan Chua” in all of his credentials. Eric also claimed that he was known in their community as “Eric Chua” rather than “Eric Kiat.”

On January 7, 2013, Eric filed a petition for change of surname from “Kiat” to “Chua” before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 34, Balaoan, La Union, docketed as Special Proceeding Case No. 907. He alleged the foregoing circumstances and sought to have his registered surname changed. After the RTC found the petition sufficient in form and substance and established the requisite jurisdictional facts, trial ensued on May 21, 2013.

Eric testified that he could not secure a copy of his father’s birth certificate because Cheong was born in China; that his mother Melania told him that Cheong had changed his surname from “Kiat” to “Chua”; and that his Certificate of Live Birth was the only document in which his surname appeared as “Kiat.” He offered in evidence his Certificate of Baptism, Voter Certification, Police Clearance, National Bureau of Investigation Clearance, Passport, High School Diploma, and the Certificates of Live Birth of his children, all of which stated his name as “Eric Sibayan Chua.”

Melania testified in support of the petition. She claimed that Cheong used the surname “Kiat” in China but used “Chua” in the Philippines; that “Chua” was the surname Cheong used when they married; that it was her uncle who erroneously caused the registration of Eric’s name as “Eric Kiat”; and that when Eric was 16, Cheong, already weak, returned to China and no longer contacted them. Eric’s neighbor, Avelino Fernandez, corroborated that Eric was known in their community as “Eric Chua.”

The RTC regarded the change of name as nothing more than a straightening of the records and granted the petition. On appeal, the CA found that Eric failed to establish a compelling ground for changing his name, that there was no proof that Cheong had secured a court judgment changing his surname from “Kiat” to “Chua,” and that Eric and Melania’s testimonies were mere allegations insufficient to establish that fact. The CA also found no proof that Eric would be prejudiced by his use of his registered name.

• Father’s Alleged Change of Surname: Petitioner alleged that after his birth, his father Cheong secured a favorable judgment allowing Cheong to change his surname from “Kiat” to “Chua,” and that petitioner adopted the new surname.
• Continuous Use and Community Reputation: Petitioner maintained that he had been using the name “Eric Sibayan Chua” in all of his credentials and was known in their community as “Eric Chua” rather than “Eric Kiat.”
• Relief Sought: Petitioner sought to change the surname registered in his Certificate of Live Birth from “Kiat” to “Chua.”

• Change of Name: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in disallowing petitioner from officially changing his name.

• Change of Name: Yes. The Court of Appeals erred. A change of name may be granted on the ground of avoidance of confusion where the petitioner has continuously used and been known by the desired surname and all official records except the birth certificate bear that name, absent prejudice to the State. The RTC decision was reinstated.

• Change of Name: The Court found legal and factual basis for granting the petition. Although Eric and Melania’s testimonies were not preponderant proof that Cheong had obtained a court judgment changing his surname, the petition was not anchored solely on that ground; it also rested on Eric’s continuous use of “Chua” in all credentials. Under Republic vs. Coseteng-Magpayo, recognized grounds for change of name include when the change will avoid confusion and when one has continuously used and been known since childhood by a name. In Alfon vs. Republic, the Court granted a change of name to avoid confusion where the petitioner had since childhood borne the desired name, used it in school, was known by friends, graduated and received a diploma under it, and exercised suffrage under it. The same circumstances attended Eric’s case: he was known in the community as “Eric Chua,” and all credentials except his Certificate of Live Birth bore “Eric Chua.” Compelling him to use “Eric Kiat” would inevitably cause confusion, alter all official documents except his birth certificate, and require corresponding changes in his children’s records, which state their father’s surname as “Chua.” Denial would affect not only Eric’s identity in the community but also that of his children. The State failed to show that allowing the change would prejudice it, strengthening the grant.

• Change of Name — Recognized Grounds — In Republic vs. Coseteng-Magpayo, the Court enumerated grounds for change of name: (a) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (b) when the change results as a legal consequence such as 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 would prejudice public interest. The Court applied ground (c), avoidance of confusion.
• Avoidance of Confusion — A change of name may be granted where the petitioner has continuously used and been known by the desired name, and all official records except the birth certificate bear that name, such that compelling use of the registered name would cause confusion to the petitioner and his family. The Court found this ground present because Eric was known as “Eric Chua” and all credentials except his Certificate of Live Birth stated “Eric Chua”; requiring “Eric Kiat” would alter official documents and affect his children’s records.
• Change of Name May Be Granted on a Ground Different from That Alleged — Failure to prove the ground originally alleged—that the father had obtained a court judgment changing his surname—does not foreclose granting the petition on another recognized ground, such as avoidance of confusion, if supported by law and facts.
• Prejudice to the State — The absence of a showing that the change of name would prejudice the State supports the grant of the petition. The public respondent failed to demonstrate such prejudice.

• "Contrary to the ruling of the CA, there is legal and factual basis for granting Eric's petition for change of name. To recall, his petition is not only anchored on his father's alleged change of surname from "Kiat" to "Chua," but also on the fact that he (Eric) had been using the surname "Chua" in all of his credentials. Thus, it may be that Eric and Melania's testimonies are not preponderant proof of Cheong's change of surname, but this should not foreclose the possibility of granting the petition on a different ground." — This passage states the ratio decidendi: the petition may be granted on a ground other than the father’s alleged change of surname, based on Eric’s continuous use of “Chua.”
• "The same circumstances are attendant in the case at bar. As Eric has established, he is known in his community as "Eric Chua," rather than "Eric Kiat." Moreover, all of his credentials exhibited before the Court, other than his Certificate of Live Birth, bear the name "Eric Chua."" — This passage applies the Alfon vs. Republic precedent, finding that Eric’s established community reputation and official records support the change of name.
• "Thus, to compel him to use the name "Eric Kiat" at this point would inevitably lead to confusion. It would result in an alteration of all of his official documents, save for his Certificate of Live Birth. His children, too, will correspondingly be compelled to have their records changed. For even their own Certificates of Live Birth state that their father's surname is "Chua."" — This passage explains the concrete confusion that would result from denying the petition, extending the effect to Eric’s children’s records.
• "The imperatives of avoiding confusion dictate that the instant petition be granted. Additionally, public respondent failed to demonstrate that allowing petitioner to change his surname will prejudice the State, strengthening Our resolve to grant the sought-after relief." — This passage is the Court’s concluding rationale, combining avoidance of confusion with the absence of prejudice to the State.

• Republic vs. Coseteng-Magpayo, G.R. No. 189476, February 2, 2011, 641 SCRA 533 — Cited by the Court for the enumeration of recognized grounds for change of name; the Court used it as the doctrinal basis for considering avoidance of confusion.
• Alfon vs. Republic, 186 Phil. 600 (1980) — Cited as precedent where change of name was granted to avoid confusion because the petitioner had continuously used the desired name since childhood; the Court found the same circumstances in Eric’s case.

• Rule 45, Rules of Court — The petition for review on certiorari was filed under Rule 45; the Court resolved the appeal under this Rule and granted the petition.
• Section 13, Article VIII, Constitution — Cited in the Chief Justice’s certification that the conclusions in the Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion.

Lucas P. Bersamin, Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, Samuel R. Martires, and Alexander G. Gesmundo concurred. No separate concurring opinions are summarized in the text.