Oshita vs. Republic

Verification of a pleading is a formal, not jurisdictional, requirement, the non-compliance of which does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective; the court may order correction or act on the unverified pleading where circumstances warrant. A sincere desire to adopt a Filipino surname to erase signs of a former alien nationality, in the absence of fraud or prejudice to the State or any individual, is a proper and reasonable cause for a change of name under the sound discretion of the court.

Antonina B. Oshita is the legitimate daughter of Kishimatsu Oshita, a deceased Japanese citizen, and Buena Bartolome, a Filipino. She was born in Davao City on May 9, 1940, and has resided there since birth. Upon reaching the age of majority, she elected Philippine citizenship and took her oath of allegiance. The petition for change of name was filed under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, which requires that such petitions be verified.

Antonina B. Oshita, the legitimate daughter of Kishimatsu Oshita, a Japanese citizen now deceased, and Buena Bartolome, a Filipino, was born in Davao City on May 9, 1940, and has resided there since birth. Upon reaching the age of majority, she elected Philippine citizenship and took her oath of allegiance. Desiring to have her family name changed from "Oshita" to "Bartolome," the surname of her mother, she filed a petition for change of name on February 15, 1962, with the Court of First Instance of Davao. The petition was signed by the petitioner herself and was "subscribed and sworn to" by her before the Deputy Clerk of Court, but it was not verified in the manner prescribed by the Rules of Court. The requirements for publication of the hearing were duly complied with.

The Assistant City Attorney of Davao City, acting in behalf of the Solicitor General, filed a motion to dismiss on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the petition was not verified in accordance with Section 6, Rule 15 of the Rules of Court, and that the petition did not state a cause of action. The petitioner filed an opposition, and the lower court denied the motion to dismiss and set the case for hearing.

At the hearing, the evidence established that the petitioner felt embarrassed when introduced as bearing a Japanese surname, that her older brother and sister who had earlier elected Philippine citizenship have been using the surname "Bartolome," and that she has no criminal record nor a pending tax liability. The Assistant City Attorney did not present any evidence in support of his opposition but simply reiterated his motion to dismiss. The trial court granted the petition, observing that ill feeling among Filipinos against the Japanese due to the last Pacific war persisted among some Filipinos, and that the petitioner's desire to change her surname was not motivated by fraudulent purpose nor would it prejudice public interest.

• Verification as Formal Requirement: Petitioner argued that the absence of proper verification of the petition was not a jurisdictional defect and did not warrant dismissal of the petition.
• Sufficient Cause for Change of Name: Petitioner maintained that her desire to adopt a Filipino surname after electing Philippine citizenship, consistent with the practice of her siblings, constituted a proper and reasonable cause for the change of name.

• Lack of Jurisdiction: The Solicitor General insisted that the lower court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case because the petition was not verified as required by Section 2 of Rule 103 of the Rules of Court.
• Insufficient Reason: The Solicitor General contended that no sufficient reason had been shown to justify the change of the surname of the appellee, urging that under Article 364 of the Civil Code, legitimate children shall principally use the surname of the father.

• Verification as Jurisdictional Requirement: Whether the lower court lacked jurisdiction over the petition for change of name because the petition was not verified in accordance with the Rules of Court.
• Sufficient Cause for Change of Name: Whether sufficient reasons were shown to justify the change of the petitioner's surname from "Oshita" to "Bartolome."

• Verification as Jurisdictional Requirement: No. Verification is a formal, not jurisdictional, requisite; the absence of proper verification does not render the pleading fatally defective or affect the jurisdiction of the court.
• Sufficient Cause for Change of Name: Yes. The petitioner's sincere desire to adopt a Filipino surname after electing Philippine citizenship, in the absence of fraud or prejudice to the State or any individual, constitutes a proper and reasonable cause for a change of name.

• Verification as Jurisdictional Requirement: The Court reasoned that while Section 2, Rule 103 requires that a petition for change of name be verified, no provision in the rules declares that such requirement is jurisdictional. The requirement regarding verification of a pleading is intended to secure an assurance that the allegations are true and correct and that the pleading is filed in good faith. It is a condition affecting the form of pleading, the non-compliance of which does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order the correction of the pleading if verification is lacking, or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances warrant dispensing with strict compliance to serve the ends of justice. The Court cited The Philippine Bank of Commerce vs. Macadaeg, where it was held that where material facts alleged are a matter of record and the questions raised are mainly of law, verification is not an absolute necessity and may be waived. The Court also cited Tavera vs. El Hogar Filipino, Inc. and a land registration case (Miller vs. The Director of Lands) holding that lack of verification is not a jurisdictional defect. While the petition was not verified, it was subscribed and sworn to by the petitioner, and the lower court did not commit reversible error in denying the motion to dismiss. The Court noted, however, that the lower court should have required appellee to have her petition verified before setting the case for hearing.

• Sufficient Cause for Change of Name: The Court acknowledged that under Article 364 of the Civil Code, legitimate children shall principally use the surname of the father, but this provision is not absolute because under Article 264 of the same Code, legitimate children have the right to bear the surname of the father and of the mother. Hence, if there is sufficient reason, the change of a child's surname from that of the father to that of the mother may be authorized by the court. In this case, the petitioner elected Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority, desired to adopt a Filipino surname, her older brother and sister who had also elected Philippine citizenship have been using the surname "Bartolome," and she felt embarrassed when introduced as bearing a Japanese surname. The lower court observed that ill feeling among Filipinos against the Japanese due to the last Pacific war persisted. There was no showing that the appellee was motivated by any fraudulent purpose or that the change of her surname would prejudice public interest. The Court further held that the matter of granting or denying a petition for change of name is left to the sound discretion of the court, and the evidence presented need only be satisfactory to the Court. Citing Uy vs. Republic, the Court held that in the absence of prejudice to the State or any individual, a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of a former alien nationality which unduly hamper social and business life is a proper and reasonable cause for a change of name, not trivial, whimsical, or capricious.

• Verification as a Formal, Not Jurisdictional, Requisite — The requirement of verification of a pleading is intended to secure an assurance that the allegations are true and correct and that the pleading is filed in good faith. It is a condition affecting the form of pleading, the non-compliance of which does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective. The court may order correction of the pleading if verification is lacking, or act on the pleading if the attending circumstances warrant dispensing with strict compliance to serve the ends of justice. In this case, the Court applied this doctrine to hold that the lower court's jurisdiction was not affected by the absence of proper verification of the petition for change of name.

• Proper and Reasonable Cause for Change of Name — The question of "proper and reasonable cause" for a change of name is left to the sound discretion of the court, and the evidence presented need only be satisfactory to the Court. In the absence of prejudice to the State or any individual, a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of a former alien nationality which unduly hamper social and business life is a proper and reasonable cause for a change of name, not trivial, whimsical, or capricious. The Court applied this doctrine to affirm the grant of the petition, noting the petitioner's election of Philippine citizenship, her siblings' use of the surname "Bartolome," and the absence of fraudulent purpose.

• "The requirement regarding verification of a pleading is simply intended to secure an assurance that what are alleged in the pleading are true and correct and not the product of the imagination or a matter of speculation, and that the pleading is filed in good faith. The requirement regarding verification of a pleading is simply a condition affecting the form of pleading, the non-compliance of which does not necessarily render the pleading fatally defective." — This passage articulates the Court's holding that verification is a formal, not jurisdictional, requirement, and is the ratio decidendi for the first issue.

• "In the absence of prejudice to the State or any individual, a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of a former alien nationality which unduly hamper social and business life, is a proper and reasonable cause for a change of name. It is not trivial, whimsical or capricious." — This passage, quoted from Uy vs. Republic, states the controlling standard for determining what constitutes a proper and reasonable cause for a change of name.

• "In granting or denying petitions for change of name, the question of 'proper and reasonable cause' is left to the sound discretion of the court. The evidence presented need only be satisfactory to the Court and not all the best evidence available." — This passage establishes the discretionary standard applied by courts in change of name cases.

• The Philippine Bank of Commerce vs. Macadaeg, L-14174, October 31, 1960 — Cited as controlling precedent for the proposition that lack of verification of a petition is not a fatal defect, particularly where the material facts alleged are a matter of record and the questions raised are mainly of law.

• Tavera vs. El Hogar Filipino, Inc., 98 Phil. 481 — Cited as precedent holding that lack of verification of a petition filed in a probate court for the sale of real property belonging to the estate of a minor is not a jurisdictional defect.

• Miller vs. The Director of Lands, L-16761, October 31, 1964 — Cited as precedent holding that an unverified opposition is sufficient to confer standing in court to oppositors in a land registration case, notwithstanding the statutory requirement of verification.

• Uy vs. Republic, L-22712, November 29, 1965 — Cited as controlling precedent for the standard that a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of a former alien nationality, in the absence of prejudice to the State or any individual, is a proper and reasonable cause for a change of name.

• Section 2, Rule 103, Rules of Court — Requires that a petition for change of name be verified. The Court held that this requirement is formal, not jurisdictional, and its absence does not affect the court's jurisdiction.

• Section 6, Rule 7 (formerly Section 6, Rule 15), Rules of Court — Governs the formal requirements of pleadings, including verification. The Court noted that the petition's simple jurat by the Deputy Clerk of Court did not comply with this provision, but the defect was not fatal.

• Article 364, Civil Code — Provides that legitimate children shall principally use the surname of the father. The Court held that this provision is not absolute.

• Article 264, Civil Code — Provides that legitimate children have the right to bear the surname of the father and of the mother. The Court relied on this provision to justify authorizing the change of surname from that of the father to that of the mother where sufficient reason exists.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Regala, Bengzon, J.P., Sanchez and Castro, JJ., concurred. Makalintal, J., took no part.