Republic of the Philippines vs. Judge of Branch III of the Court of First Instance of Cebu and Andrew Barretto

A petition for change of name is a proceeding in rem over which the court acquires jurisdiction only upon strict compliance with the publication requirements of Rule 103 of the Rules of Court — the petition and the order of publication must state in their title or caption the applicant's real name, his aliases and other names, if any, and the name he seeks to adopt, and the publication must recite the applicant's name, the cause for the change, and the new name asked for — and the change may be granted only upon a showing of proper and compelling cause.

Respondent Andrew Barretto is the illegitimate son of Lucy Barretto. After Lucy married Magin V. Velez, Barretto lived with the couple and bore his mother's surname, Barretto, rather than his stepfather's. Magin V. Velez had children of his own from before the marriage, and he and Lucy also had children of their own, all surnamed Velez. Petitions for change of name are governed by Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, which requires a verified petition and the publication of the order of hearing, the proceeding being one in rem.

Respondent Andrew Barretto is the illegitimate son of Lucy Barretto. After Lucy married Magin V. Velez, Barretto lived with the couple and came to bear his mother's surname, Barretto, rather than that of his stepfather. Magin V. Velez had children of his own from before his marriage to Lucy, and he and Lucy also had children of their own, all of whom bore the surname Velez.

On February 21, 1967, Barretto filed Special Proceeding No. 2742-R with the Court of First Instance of Cebu, praying that his name be changed from Andrew Barretto to Andrew Velez. He alleged as his reason that Velez is the surname of his stepfather, with whom he was living. The petition was filed in his own name although he was then only eighteen years old, having been born on November 10, 1948; he was represented by Magin V. Velez as guardian ad litem. On March 16, 1967, the trial court issued an order setting the petition for hearing and directing publication of the order. The name sought to be adopted — Velez — did not appear in the title or caption of the petition, nor in the title of the order of publication, and the order of publication did not state the cause for which the change of name was sought.

On August 1, 1967, the Republic of the Philippines filed an opposition, contending that the proposed change of name was unwarranted absent any showing that Barretto's present surname was ridiculous or tainted with dishonor, and that the ground alleged did not constitute proper and reasonable justification. On September 8, 1967, the Republic filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the title and caption of the petition and the order of publication failed to state the proposed new name and that Barretto, being a minor, had no legal capacity to file the petition. Barretto opposed the motion on September 14, 1967, and on October 5, 1967, the trial court denied it. On December 28, 1967, Barretto moved to declare the Republic or the Solicitor General in default; the Republic moved to strike out that motion on January 16, 1968, and on January 26, 1968, the trial court denied the motion for default.

On March 4, 1968, the trial court rendered a decision granting the petition and allowing Barretto to change his surname to Velez, relying on Del Prado vs. Republic. The court found that Barretto's use of the surname Barretto had caused him embarrassment because, as a half-brother of his mother's children who bore the surname Velez, people looked down upon him as an illegitimate son; that his chances for advancement might be impeded since employers consider family history, relations, and status; and that his wife, mother, and Magin Velez had agreed that changing his surname to Velez was to their best interest. The court also found that Barretto was then in his third year of commerce at the University of San Carlos, Cebu City; that the family had lived successively on V. Rama Street, in the Espina Compound on V. Rodriguez Street, and then back on V. Rama Street in a house built by Magin V. Velez and his mother; that he separated from them only after his marriage to Nympha Canares in the middle of 1967, after which the couple lived in Lipata, Minglanilla, Cebu; and that he was employed as an accounting clerk at Gold's Pump International Company in Cebu City with a monthly salary of P190.

• Jurisdiction — Caption of Petition: Petitioner Republic argued that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the petition because the caption and title thereof did not include the name sought to be adopted by the petitioner.
• Jurisdiction — Defective Publication: Petitioner Republic argued that the trial court failed to acquire jurisdiction over the petition for change of name in view of the defective publication thereof, which defect is jurisdictional.
• Absence of Proper and Reasonable Cause: Petitioner Republic argued that the trial court should have dismissed the petition for failure of the petitioner to show proper and reasonable cause or justification for the change of name sought.

• Admission of the Republic's Arguments: Respondent Andrew Barretto filed an Answer admitting the facts and the law as set forth in the petition and manifesting that, in all candor and motivated by a desire not to trifle with the precious time of the Court, and considering the very recent decision in Republic vs. Reyes, G.R. No. L-29850 (June 30, 1972), promulgated long after the questioned decision, he could not resist the arguments marshalled by the Solicitor General.

• Jurisdiction — Caption of Petition: Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the petition for change of name where the caption and title of the petition did not include the name sought to be adopted.
• Jurisdiction — Defective Publication: Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the petition where the publication of the order was defective for failing to state the cause for the change of name and the new name sought.
• Proper and Reasonable Cause: Whether the petitioner showed proper and reasonable cause or justification for the change of name sought.

• Jurisdiction — Caption of Petition: No. The petition and the order of publication must contain in their title or caption the applicant's real name, his aliases and other names, if any, and the name he seeks to adopt; the omission of the proposed new name from the caption is a jurisdictional defect.
• Jurisdiction — Defective Publication: No. Effective publication must recite the name or names of the applicant, the cause for which the change of name is sought, and the new name asked for; failure to comply with these requirements deprives the trial court of jurisdiction.
• Proper and Reasonable Cause: No. A change of name is a privilege, not a matter of right, and may be granted only upon a showing of proper and compelling cause; the reasons alleged were not compelling, and the change would invite confusion as to paternity to the prejudice of the stepfather's legitimate and other children.

• Jurisdiction — Caption of Petition: The formal requirements for a change of name are drawn from Rule 103 of the Rules of Court and pertinent jurisprudence. Under Section 2 of Rule 103, the verified petition must set forth the petitioner's bona fide residence in the province for at least three years prior to filing, the cause for which the change is sought, and the name asked for. Under Section 3, the court, if the petition is sufficient in form and substance, must issue an order reciting the purpose of the petition, fixing the date and place of hearing, and directing publication at least once a week for three successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the province. Beyond these, the petition and the order of publication and hearing must contain in their title or caption (a) the applicant's real name, (b) his aliases and other names, if any, and (c) the name he seeks to adopt, and this notwithstanding that the body of the petition or order includes the same information. The name sought to be adopted did not appear in the title of the petition or in the title of the order of publication. These are jurisdictional defects. The name Andrew Barretto, under which the petition was brought, is the applicant's baptized name, and there was no showing that it is also his real and official name as appearing in the Civil Registry; under Ng Yao Siong vs. Republic, the only name that may be changed is the true or official name recorded in the Civil Registry, so the petition was not sufficient in form and substance.

• Jurisdiction — Defective Publication: Change of name is a judicial proceeding in rem. Jurisdiction to hear and determine a petition therefor is acquired, by law, only after publication of the order reciting the purpose of the petition and the date and place of hearing, for three successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation. Publication is notice to the whole world that the proceeding has for its object to bar indifferently all who might be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established. For that publication to be effective, it must give correct information; it must recite, among others, the name or names of the applicant, the cause for which the change of name is sought, and the new name asked for. The order of publication was defective because it did not cite the cause for the change of name, and the publication itself was defective on three counts: the name Andrew Barretto appearing therein may not be the petitioner's real name; the cause for the change did not appear; and the name sought to be adopted did not appear in the title or caption of the published order. Strict compliance is required because a change of name is a matter of public interest: the petitioner might be a wanted criminal, one in hiding to avoid service of sentence or compliance with a judgment, or one who escaped from a penal institution; if an alien, he might have given cause for deportation or might be one against whom a deportation order had been issued; and the new name he desires to adopt may be similar to that of a respectable person who has an interest in protecting his good name against mistaken reference. Notices in newspapers usually appear in the back pages, and the reader merely glances at the title of the petition; the probability is that the portions of the publication containing the other names and aliases will escape the reader's notice, defeating the purpose of publication. The publication of the proposed name in the title of the order also preempts the possibility of any mercenary interest on the part of the alleged stepfather, who may become the heir of the minor applicant, or the guardian of his person and property during his minority, and thereby enjoy the administration of the applicant's property and its fruits.

• Proper and Reasonable Cause: The touchstone for the grant of a change of name is that there be proper and reasonable cause for which the change is sought. It is a ruling of long standing that a change of name is not a matter of right; being a privilege, the petitioner must first show proper and compelling reason therefor, and what may constitute such reason depends on the particular circumstances of each case and upon the discretion of the court. The following may be considered proper grounds: (1) when the name is ridiculous, tainted with dishonor, or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (2) when the request is a consequence of a change of status, such as when a natural child is acknowledged or legitimated; and (3) when the change is necessary to avoid confusion. If no proper or reasonable cause or compelling reason is shown, the petition should be denied. The lower court relied on Del Prado vs. Republic, but that doctrine does not apply. In Del Prado, the child whose name was sought to be changed was a girl only three years old, the issue of a bigamous marriage between her mother Corazon Adolfo and her father Manuel del Prado, who was convicted of bigamy after her birth; here, all that appears is that Barretto is the illegitimate son of Lucy Barretto, without any showing why he is an illegitimate child. In Del Prado, it did not appear that the mother and stepfather had children of their own who might be prejudiced by the change; here, the lower court found that Barretto's mother has three sons with her husband Magin Velez, and Magin Velez likewise has two other sons not begotten with Barretto's mother, all boys bearing the surname Velez, whose consent does not appear to have been obtained or given. To authorize Barretto to use the surname Velez might result in the confusion of his real paternity, to the prejudice of the legitimate sons of his stepfather, and may later prejudice the successional rights of Magin Velez's real sons; as held in Moore vs. Republic, if a child born out of lawful wedlock be allowed to bear the surname of the second husband of the mother, there may result a confusion as to his real paternity. In Del Prado, the girl was only three years old, while Barretto is already married, employed, and living separately from his mother, stepfather, and half-brothers. Finally, the surname previously borne by the girl Gertrudes Josefina in Del Prado was that of her illegitimate father Manuel del Prado, whereas the name presently borne by Barretto is not the name of his illegitimate father but that of his mother Lucy Barretto. The reason alleged — that Velez is the surname of his stepfather with whom he lives — is not compelling enough. The surname Barretto is his mother's surname; he is the illegitimate child of Lucy Barretto but not a natural child of Magin V. Velez, and the circumstances of his illegitimate filiation are not known. Magin V. Velez had children of his own before he married Barretto's mother, and Magin Velez and Lucy Barretto also have their own children; to warrant the change of name sought would necessarily invite confusion as to paternity, to the prejudice of Magin V. Velez, Barretto's mother, and their common and separate offspring. The reasons found by the lower court — embarrassment from being looked down upon as an illegitimate son, possible impediment to employment advancement, and the agreement of his wife, mother, and Magin Velez — are not compelling enough; had they been so compelling, the change would not have been sought only after so many years. The lower court itself found that Barretto was in his third year of commerce, that he separated from the family only after his marriage in the middle of 1967, and that he was employed as an accounting clerk with a monthly salary of P190; all seemed well for him without a new name. On the separate matter of capacity, Barretto filed his application in his own name although he was only eighteen years old at the time of filing on February 21, 1967, and was represented by Magin V. Velez as guardian ad litem; but since his mother had married and it was never disputed that he himself was already married at the time the petition was filed, the Court found nothing wrong in the application, as Articles 288 and 329 in connection with Article 399 of the Civil Code permit this.

• Change of Name as a Proceeding in Rem and the Publication Requirement — A petition for change of name is a judicial proceeding in rem, and jurisdiction to hear and determine it is acquired only after publication of the order reciting the purpose of the petition and the date and place of hearing, for three successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation. Publication is notice to the whole world that the proceeding has for its object to bar indifferently all who might be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established. In this case, the defective publication — which failed to state the cause for the change and omitted the proposed new name from the caption — deprived the trial court of jurisdiction, rendering its decision null and void.

• Formal Requirements for a Petition for Change of Name — Three requirements must be satisfied: (1) under Rule 103, Sections 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court, the verified petition must state the petitioner's bona fide residence in the province for at least three years prior to filing, the cause for the change, and the name asked for, and the court must issue an order reciting the purpose of the petition, fixing the date and place of hearing, and directing publication at least once a week for three successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation; (2) the petition and the order of publication and hearing must contain in their title or caption the applicant's real name, his aliases and other names, if any, and the name he seeks to adopt, even if the body of the petition or order includes the same information; and (3) there must be effective publication reciting the name or names of the applicant, the cause for which the change of name is sought, and the new name asked for. Failure to comply with these requirements results in the lower court acquiring no jurisdiction to hear and determine the petition. The Court applied this test and found the petition defective on all counts.

• Change of Name is a Privilege, Not a Right — The touchstone for the grant of a change of name is the existence of proper and reasonable cause for which the change is sought. A change of name is not a matter of right; being a privilege, before it can be authorized, the person petitioning must first show proper and compelling reason therefor. What may constitute proper and compelling reason depends on the particular circumstances of each case and upon the discretion of the court. If no proper or reasonable cause or compelling reason is shown, the petition should be denied. The Court held that the embarrassment and employment-advancement reasons alleged by Barretto were not compelling.

• Proper Grounds for a Change of Name — The following, among others, may be considered proper grounds: (1) when the name is ridiculous, tainted with dishonor, or is extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (2) when the request for change is a consequence of a change of status, such as when a natural child is acknowledged or legitimated; and (3) when the change is necessary to avoid confusion. The Court found none of these grounds present in Barretto's case.

• Only the True or Official Name Recorded in the Civil Registry May Be Changed — The only name that may be changed is the true or official name recorded in the Civil Registry. Where the name under which the petition was brought is merely the applicant's baptized name and there is no showing that it is also his real and official name as appearing in the Civil Registry, the petition is not sufficient in form and substance. The Court applied this doctrine to Barretto, whose petition was brought under the name Andrew Barretto, his baptized name.

• "Change of name is a judicial proceeding in rem. Jurisdiction to hear and determine a petition therefor, by law is acquired after publication of the order reciting the purpose of the petition and the date and place for the hearing thereof - for three (3) successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation. Publication is notice to the whole world that the proceeding has for its object 'to bar indifferently all who might be minded to make an objection of any sort against the right sought to be established." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on jurisdiction: it characterizes the change-of-name proceeding as one in rem and identifies publication as the operative act that confers jurisdiction, grounding the Court's holding that the defective publication rendered the trial court's decision null and void.

• "For that publication to be effective, it must give a correct information. To inform, the publication should recite, amongst others, the following facts: (1) the name or names of the applicant, (2) the cause for which the change of name is sought, and (3) the new name asked for." — This passage supplies the canonical three-part content requirement for effective publication, a formulation drawn from Ng Yao Siong vs. Republic and applied by the Court to strike down the publication in this case.

• "The touchstone for the grant of a change of name is that there be 'proper and reasonable cause' for which the change is sought. It is a ruling of long standing in this jurisdiction that a change of name is not a matter of right; that, being a privilege, before it can be authorized, the person petitioning for such change must first show proper and compelling reason therefor." — This passage articulates the substantive standard governing change-of-name petitions and is the basis for the Court's independent holding that Barretto failed to show proper or compelling cause.

• "The name Andrew Barretto, under which the petition for change of name was brought, is the applicant's baptized name. There is no showing whether the same is also his real and official name, i.e., his name as appearing in the Civil Registry. In Ng Yao Siong vs. Republic, supra, this Court declared that the only name that may be changed is the true or official name recorded in the Civil Registry. Thus, the present petition is not sufficient in form and substance." — This passage defines the scope of a change-of-name petition, limiting it to the true or official name recorded in the Civil Registry, and explains why Barretto's petition was insufficient in form and substance.

• Republic vs. Tañada, L-31563, Nov. 29, 1971, 42 SCRA 419 — Controlling precedent requiring that the petition and the order of publication contain in their title or caption the applicant's real name, aliases and other names, and the name sought to be adopted, notwithstanding inclusion of the same information in the body; the Court relied on it in finding a jurisdictional defect.
• Republic vs. Lee Wai Lam, L-22607, 28 SCRA 1043 (July 30, 1969) — Cited with Republic vs. Tañada for the same caption requirement in change-of-name petitions.
• Ng Yao Siong vs. Republic, L-20306, 16 SCRA 483 (March 31, 1966) — Source of the rule that only the true or official name recorded in the Civil Registry may be changed, and of the three-part content requirement for effective publication; also the source of the oft-quoted justification for strict compliance with the publication requirement.
• Republic vs. Reyes, L-29850, 45 SCRA 570 (June 30, 1970) — Cited for the rule that failure to comply with the publication and caption requirements results in the lower court acquiring no jurisdiction; also the recent decision invoked by respondent Barretto in admitting he could not resist the Solicitor General's arguments.
• Del Prado vs. Republic, L-18127, 19 SCRA 721 (April 5, 1967) — Distinguished. The lower court relied on it, but the Court held it inapplicable because the child there was a three-year-old girl, the issue of a bigamous marriage, with no showing of other children who might be prejudiced, and the surname borne was that of her illegitimate father.
• Moore vs. Republic, L-18407, June 26, 1983 — Cited for the principle that allowing a child born out of lawful wedlock to bear the surname of the mother's second husband may result in confusion as to his real paternity.
• Ang Chay vs. Republic, L-28507, 34 SCRA 224 (July 31, 1970) — Cited for the rule that what may constitute proper and compelling reason for a change of name depends on the particular circumstances of each case and upon the discretion of the court.
• Chin Hap Chin vs. Republic, L-20018, 16 SCRA 864 (April 30, 1966) — Cited, with Haw Liong and Yu Chi Han, for the enumeration of proper grounds for a change of name.
• Haw Liong vs. Republic, L-21194, 16 SCRA 677 (April 29, 1966) — Cited for the same enumeration of proper grounds for a change of name.
• Yu Chi Han vs. Republic, L-22040, 15 SCRA 454 (Nov. 29, 1965) — Cited for the rule that if no proper or reasonable cause or compelling reason is shown for the change of name, the petition should be denied.

• Section 2, Rule 103, Rules of Court — Requires that a petition for change of name be signed and verified by the person desiring his name changed, or some other person on his behalf, and set forth (a) that the petitioner has been a bona fide resident of the province where the petition is filed for at least three years prior to the date of filing; (b) the cause for which the change of the petitioner's name is sought; and (c) the name asked for. The Court used this provision to frame the formal requirements for a change-of-name petition and to assess the sufficiency of Barretto's petition.
• Section 3, Rule 103, Rules of Court — Provides that if the petition is sufficient in form and substance, the court, by an order reciting the purpose of the petition, shall fix a date and place for the hearing and direct that a copy of the order be published before the hearing at least once a week for three successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation published in the province, with the date set for hearing not within thirty days prior to an election nor within four months after the last publication of the notice. The Court cited this provision in laying down the publication requirement that is jurisdictional in a change-of-name proceeding.
• Article 288, Civil Code — Provides that minor children mentioned in the preceding article are under the parental authority of the mother. Cited by the Court in addressing the objection that Barretto, then a minor, had no legal capacity to file the petition.
• Article 329, Civil Code — Provides that when the mother of an illegitimate child marries a man other than its father, the court may appoint a guardian for the child. Cited with Article 288 in resolving the capacity issue.
• Article 399, Civil Code — Provides that emancipation by marriage or by voluntary concession shall terminate parental authority over the child's person; it shall enable the minor to administer his property as though he were of age, but he cannot borrow money or alienate or encumber real property without the consent of his father or mother, or guardian, and he can sue and be sued in court only with the assistance of his father, mother, or guardian. Cited by the Court in holding that, because Barretto was already married at the time the petition was filed, there was nothing wrong in the application.

Aquino, Guerrero, Abad Santos, Escolin, and Cuevas, JJ., concur. Concepcion, Jr., J., is on leave.