Grande vs. Antonio

The use of the father's surname by illegitimate children is discretionary and permissive, not compulsory, upon the father's recognition of filiation, pursuant to Article 176 of the Family Code as amended by RA 9255; administrative implementing rules mandating such use are void for exceeding statutory authority and contradicting the clear legislative intent.

Petitioner Grace Grande and respondent Patricio Antonio maintained an illicit relationship while Antonio was legally married to another, producing two sons born in 1998 and 1999. The children were registered under Grande's surname without Antonio's express recognition in the civil registry. When the relationship deteriorated, Grande relocated to the United States with the children in 2007, prompting Antonio to seek judicial recognition of paternity and ancillary reliefs including custody and change of surname.

• Nature of Relationship: Petitioner Grace Grande and respondent Patricio Antonio cohabited as husband and wife despite Antonio's subsisting marriage to another woman, producing two sons: Andre Lewis (born February 8, 1998) and Jerard Patrick (born October 13, 1999).
• Birth Registration: The children were registered under the surname "Grande" in the civil registry without express recognition by Antonio as their father in the Record of Births.
• Separation and Relocation: The relationship eventually deteriorated, leading Grande to depart for the United States with the children in May 2007.
• Respondent's Action: Antonio filed a petition for judicial approval of recognition, appending a notarized Deed of Voluntary Recognition of Paternity, and prayed for parental authority, physical custody, correction of surname, and a writ of preliminary injunction.
• Trial Court Ruling: The RTC granted Antonio's petition on September 28, 2010, ordering the Office of the City Registrar of Makati to enter Antonio's name as the father and change the children's surname to Antonio, awarding joint parental authority with primary custody to Antonio during weekdays (Monday to Friday), and directing Grande to surrender the children.
• Appellate Modification: The CA affirmed the recognition and support provisions but modified the custody arrangement, awarding sole custody to Grande with visitation rights to Antonio, while maintaining the directive to change the children's surname to Antonio.
• Children's Opposition: During the Supreme Court proceedings, the children, then aged 13 and 15, submitted letters expressing opposition to the change of surname to Antonio, though these were not formally offered in the trial court.

• Permissive Nature of Article 176: Petitioner argued that Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended by RA 9255, employs the permissive word "may," conferring discretion upon illegitimate children to use the father's surname rather than mandating such use upon recognition.
• Absence of Compulsory Legal Basis: Petitioner maintained that neither parent possesses the legal authority to compel the use of a particular surname by illegitimate children, and that the father's recognition does not automatically entitle him to impose his surname against the children's or mother's will.
• Invalidity of Implementing Rules: Petitioner contended that the IRR of RA 9255, which purportedly mandates the use of the father's surname upon recognition, contravenes the clear statutory language and exceeds administrative authority, as administrative regulations cannot amend or expand legislative enactments.

• Mandatory Application of Surname: Respondent countered that the IRR of RA 9255, specifically Rules 7 and 8, mandate the use of the father's surname upon express recognition of filiation, requiring the civil registrar to enter the father's surname in the certificate of live birth.
• Best Interest of the Child: Respondent argued that the use of the father's surname serves the best interest of the child, ensuring alignment with the father's identity and facilitating the exercise of parental authority and support obligations.
• Judicial Authority to Order Change: Respondent maintained that courts possess the authority to order the change of surname as an incident to the judicial approval of recognition, consistent with the father's constitutional right to establish the children's filiation and the universally protected "best-interest-of-the-child" standard.

• Discretionary Use of Surname: Whether Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended by RA 9255, grants illegitimate children the discretion to use or not use the father's surname upon recognition, or mandates such use.
• Validity of Implementing Rules: Whether Rules 7 and 8 of the IRR of RA 9255, which mandate the use of the father's surname, are valid administrative interpretations or void for contradicting the parent statute.
• Judicial Authority to Compel Surname Change: Whether courts may compel illegitimate children to use the father's surname against their will upon the father's recognition of filiation.

• Discretionary Use of Surname: Article 176, as amended by RA 9255, clearly provides that illegitimate children "may" use the surname of their father if filiation is expressly recognized; the use of "may" is permissive and confers discretion upon the child, not the parents, rendering the use of the father's surname optional rather than compulsory.
• Invalidity of Implementing Rules: Rules 7 and 8 of the IRR of RA 9255, which employ the mandatory term "shall" regarding the use of the father's surname, are hereby declared null and void for exceeding statutory authority; administrative regulations cannot amend, expand, or modify legislative acts, and where a statute is clear and unambiguous, administrative construction must yield to the legislative text.
• Remand for Determination: The case was remanded to the Regional Trial Court for the sole purpose of determining the surname chosen by the children Jerard Patrick and Andre Lewis, consistent with their right to discretion under Article 176 and the best interest of the child standard.

• Plain Meaning Rule in Statutory Construction — Where the language of a statute is clear, unequivocal, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without interpretation; the word "may" is permissive and denotes discretion, while "shall" is mandatory.
• Hierarchy of Laws — Administrative implementing rules and regulations cannot amend, alter, or expand the provisions of the law they seek to implement; in case of irreconcilable conflict between a statute and its implementing rules, the statute prevails.
• Best Interest of the Child Standard — In all matters affecting children, including the determination of surname, the paramount consideration is the child's best interest; the child's choice of surname serves this interest by preserving identity and avoiding psychological trauma from forced changes.
• Constitutional Authority over Rules — Under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the Constitution, the Supreme Court possesses the prerogative to strike down rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies when found contrary to statutes or the Constitution.

• "Art. 176 gives illegitimate children the right to decide if they want to use the surname of their father or not. It is not the father (herein respondent) or the mother (herein petitioner) who is granted by law the right to dictate the surname of their illegitimate children." — Establishes that the right to choose belongs to the child, not the parents.
• "The use of the word 'may' in the provision readily shows that an acknowledged illegitimate child is under no compulsion to use the surname of his illegitimate father. The word 'may' is permissive and operates to confer discretion upon the illegitimate children." — Explains the statutory interpretation of "may" as permissive.
• "The hornbook rule is that an administrative issuance cannot amend a legislative act... the power of administrative officials to promulgate rules in the implementation of a statute is necessarily limited to what is found in the legislative enactment itself." — Establishes the limitation on administrative rule-making authority.
• "The rule regarding the use of a child's surname is second only to the rule requiring that the child be placed in the best possible situation considering his circumstances." — Emphasizes the primacy of the best interest standard in surname determinations.

• Alfon v. Republic, No. L-51201, May 29, 1980, 97 SCRA 858 — Cited for the principle that the best interest of the child may justify allowing even a legitimate child to use the mother's surname rather than the father's.
• Calderon v. Republic, 126 Phil. 1 (1967) — Referenced for the ruling allowing the use of a surname different from both parents when consistent with the child's best interest.
• Republic of the Philippines v. Capote, G.R. No. 157043, February 2, 2007, 514 SCRA 76 — Applied for the doctrine that the choice of an illegitimate minor to use the mother's surname serves the best interest of the child, particularly in facilitating family reunification.
• MCC Industrial Sales Corp. v. Ssangyong Corporation, G.R. No. 170633, October 17, 2007, 536 SCRA 408 — Controlling precedent establishing that implementing rules cannot extend or expand the law they implement.

• Article 176, Family Code of the Philippines (as amended by Republic Act No. 9255) — Governs the rights of illegitimate children regarding surname, parental authority, and support; the provision uses "may" regarding the use of the father's surname, interpreted as permissive rather than mandatory.
• Section 5(5), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution — Grants the Supreme Court the power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure, and to disapprove rules of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies; invoked to justify nullification of the IRR provisions.
• Rule 132, Section 19, Rules of Court — Defines public documents, including documents acknowledged before a notary public; cited regarding the notarized Deed of Voluntary Recognition submitted by Antonio.

Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno (Chief Justice), Antonio T. Carpio, Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (on leave), Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, Lucas P. Bersamin, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Jose Portugal Perez, Jose Catral Mendoza (no part), Bienvenido L. Reyes, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen.