Viña vs. Ty

A change of name sought as an incidental relief in a petition for adoption cannot be granted when the petition for adoption itself is denied, the incidental relief being contingent upon and deriving its jurisdictional support from the principal action. Furthermore, a nonmarital child already registered under the father's surname pursuant to Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 9255, may not be ordered to revert to the mother's surname absent a showing that the father did not expressly recognize filiation.

Denise Ellison M. Viña and Stephanie Oteyza Ty are the biological parents of Brandon, born on January 19, 2013. The parents married on March 17, 2013, after Brandon's birth, but the marriage was subsequently declared null and void due to the lack of authority of the solemnizing officer. As a consequence, Brandon was declared a nonmarital child, and Stephanie was granted sole parental authority. Brandon's birth certificate was registered under the surname "Viña," reflecting the father's surname.

Brandon Tyler Ty Viña was born on January 19, 2013 to Stephanie Oteyza Ty and Denise Ellison M. Viña. After Brandon's birth, Stephanie and Denise married on March 17, 2013. Their marriage, however, was eventually declared null and void due to the lack of authority of the solemnizing officer. Consequently, Brandon was declared a nonmarital child, and Stephanie was granted sole parental authority over him. Brandon's certificate of live birth was registered under the surname "Viña," the surname of his father.

Stephanie decided to adopt Brandon to give him the rights of a legitimate child. She sought Denise's consent, and Denise signed an Affidavit of Consent. According to Stephanie, Brandon knew that Denise was his father, and she allowed Denise to visit and communicate with him. Stephanie testified that she was aware that adoption would strip Denise of his legal rights over Brandon. She claimed that Denise was not concerned with Brandon's welfare and only gave support whenever he wanted, though she acknowledged that in addition to financial support, Denise would visit and spend time with Brandon. During cross-examination, Stephanie admitted that when she asked Denise to sign the Affidavit of Consent, she merely told him that the document was for the legitimization of Brandon.

On April 22, 2019, Denise filed his Opposition to the Petition for Adoption, together with a Repudiation and Withdrawal of Affidavit of Consent. Denise claimed that Stephanie only wanted to sever his relationship with Brandon and did not consider Brandon's best interest. He asserted that there was no compelling reason to change Brandon's last name and that it would only amount to declaring that he had no father, exposing him to shame and ridicule. Denise averred that he was not given the opportunity to examine the contents of the Affidavit of Consent, as Stephanie hurriedly asked him to sign the document without telling him it would be used in adoption proceedings. He also did not appear before the notary public who notarized the affidavit. Denise further asserted that since 2015 he had been giving financial support to Stephanie for Brandon's expenses, as shown by several receipts and deposit slips.

The court social worker, Ruby De Guzman, did not give any recommendation for the adoption, considering that Denise opposed the petition. She emphasized that an affidavit of consent from the biological parent is necessary for the adoption to proceed. The Regional Trial Court denied the petition for adoption because of the lack of consent from Denise, the biological father. Stephanie's Motion for Reconsideration was likewise denied. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of the petition for adoption but granted Stephanie's prayer to change Brandon's name from "Brandon Tyler Ty Viña" to "Brandon Tyler Ty," reasoning that nonmarital children shall use the surname of their mother pursuant to Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 9255. Denise's Motion for Partial Reconsideration was denied, prompting the present petition.

• Change of Name Not Properly Raised: Denise argued that the matter of the change of name was not raised as an issue on appeal and should be the subject of a separate court proceeding.
• Best Interest of the Minor: Denise maintained that the change of surname would not redound to the best interest of the minor child, as it would only amount to declaring that he had no father, exposing him to shame and ridicule.

• Incidental Relief: Respondent countered that the Court of Appeals did not err in acting upon the change of name since it was an incidental relief sought in the petition for adoption.
• Absence of Affidavit to Use Father's Surname: Respondent argued that the Court of Appeals did not err in granting the change of name in the absence of an affidavit to use the surname of the father as required by the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9255, citing Barcelote vs. Republic.

• Incidental Relief and Jurisdiction: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting the change of name as an incidental relief when the main petition for adoption was denied.
• Legal Basis for Change of Name: Whether the Court of Appeals' grant of the change of name had legal basis under Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 9255.

• Incidental Relief and Jurisdiction: Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The change of name was an incidental relief contingent upon the principal action of adoption; denial of the adoption foreclosed any need to act upon the application for change of name. The proper remedy was a separate petition for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court.
• Legal Basis for Change of Name: Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The child was already validly registered under the father's surname because the father had expressly recognized his filiation through the record of birth in the civil register, satisfying Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 9255. There was no basis to order the change of name.

• Incidental Relief and Jurisdiction: The application for change of name was an incidental relief sought in the petition for adoption. "Incidental" means contingent upon or pertaining to something that is more important — accessory, attendant, and dependent upon the principal. Under Article 189 of the Family Code, a necessary effect of adoption is that the adopted acquires the right to use the surname of the adopter, and under Article 365 of the Civil Code, an adopted child shall bear the surname of the adopter. Thus, the change of surname is more an incident rather than the object of adoption proceedings. The denial of the petition for adoption forecloses any need to act upon the application for change of name, the same being only contingent upon the main action and deriving its jurisdictional support therefrom. The proper remedy for respondent was to file a petition for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, which requires strict compliance with all jurisdictional requirements and proof of proper and compelling reasons, as a change of name is a privilege, not a right, addressed to the sound discretion of the court.

• Legal Basis for Change of Name: Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 9255, provides that nonmarital children shall use the surname of their mother, but may use the surname of their father if their filiation has been expressly recognized by the father through the record of birth appearing in the civil register, or through an admission in a public document or private handwritten instrument. The Court of Appeals merely cited Article 176 without any discussion on how it applied to Brandon, ignoring the second sentence permitting nonmarital children to use the father's surname upon express recognition. That Brandon was able to use the father's surname means Denise expressly recognized his filiation. This was strengthened by Denise's vehement opposition to the adoption and change of name, the fact that Brandon was aware Denise was his father, and that Denise provided financial support and was allowed to visit and spend time with Brandon. Respondent never alleged that Denise did not recognize his filiation. Respondent's reliance on the absence of an affidavit to use the father's surname under the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9255 was misplaced, as those Rules apply to nonmarital children whose births were unregistered or previously registered under the mother's surname — not to a child already registered under the father's surname. Barcelote vs. Republic was likewise inapplicable, as that case involved a biological father registering children without the mother's participation or consent, in violation of Act No. 3753; no such fact appeared in this case.

• Incidental Relief in Adoption Proceedings — A change of name sought in a petition for adoption is merely incidental to the principal action, contingent upon the grant of adoption. Under Article 189 of the Family Code and Article 365 of the Civil Code, the adopted child's use of the adopter's surname is a necessary effect of adoption. The denial of the petition for adoption forecloses any need to act upon the application for change of name, as the incidental relief derives its jurisdictional support from the main action. The proper remedy for a change of name when adoption is denied is a separate petition under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court.

• Use of Surname by Nonmarital Children (Article 176, Family Code, as amended by R.A. No. 9255) — Nonmarital children shall use the surname of their mother, but may use the surname of their father if the father expressly recognized their filiation through the record of birth appearing in the civil register, or through an admission in a public document or private handwritten instrument. Where a child is already registered under the father's surname, this constitutes express recognition of filiation, and there is no basis to order a change to the mother's surname absent a showing that the father did not recognize filiation. The Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9255, requiring an affidavit to use the father's surname, apply only to nonmarital children whose births are unregistered or previously registered under the mother's surname.

• Change of Name as a Privilege, Not a Right — A change of name is a privilege, not a right, addressed to the sound discretion of the court. Strict compliance with all jurisdictional requirements is essential, and the petitioner must show proper and compelling reasons. Recognized grounds include when the name is ridiculous or dishonorable, when the change results as a legal consequence of adoption, when it will avoid confusion, and when the surname causes embarrassment without fraudulent purpose.

• "Reversibly, the denial of the petition for adoption forecloses any need to act upon the application for change of name, the same being only contingent upon the main action and deriving its jurisdictional support therefrom." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi on the procedural issue: an incidental relief cannot survive the denial of the principal action.

• "Considering that Article 176 of the Family Code allows nonmarital children to use the surname of their father, provided that the father made an express recognition of their filiation, then there would have been no reason for the Court of Appeals to have granted respondent's prayer for her minor child's change of name." — This passage states the substantive holding: where the father has expressly recognized filiation and the child is registered under the father's surname, Article 176 provides no basis for changing the child's name to the mother's surname.

• "The Rules apply to nonmarital children whose births were unregistered or previously registered under the surname of the mother. Here, the child's birth certificate is already registered under the surname of the father, and it is the mother who now wants to change the surname of her child after her marriage with the father was nullified." — This passage distinguishes the Revised IRR of R.A. No. 9255 from the facts of the case, clarifying the limited scope of the affidavit requirement.

• Republic vs. Hernandez, 323 Phil. 606 (1996) — Followed for the propositions that a petition for change of name is a proceeding in rem requiring strict compliance with jurisdictional requirements, that change of name is a privilege not a right, and for the enumeration of recognized grounds for change of name.

• Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 284-A Phil. 643 (1992) — Followed for the principle that the change of surname of an adopted child is more an incident rather than the object of adoption proceedings.

• Barcelote vs. Republic, 815 Phil. 664 (2017) — Distinguished. That case involved a biological father registering nonmarital children's birth certificates without the mother's participation or consent, in violation of Act No. 3753. No such fact appeared in the present case.

• Municipality of Tupi vs. Faustino, 860 Phil. 363 (2019) — Cited for the definition of "incidental" as contingent upon or pertaining to something more important, synonymous with accessory, attendant, and dependent upon the principal.

• Article 176, Family Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 9255 — Governs the use of surname by nonmarital children: they shall use the mother's surname, but may use the father's surname if filiation is expressly recognized through the record of birth in the civil register, or through admission in a public document or private handwritten instrument. Applied to hold that Brandon's registration under the father's surname constituted express recognition, precluding any basis for a change of name.

• Article 189, Family Code — Provides that adoption vests in the adopted the right to use the surname of the adopter, establishing that change of surname is a necessary effect and incident of adoption.

• Article 365, Civil Code — States that an adopted child shall bear the surname of the adopter, reinforcing that change of surname is incidental to adoption.

• Rule 103, Rules of Court — Governs petitions for change of name as a special proceeding requiring strict compliance with jurisdictional requirements and proof of proper and compelling reasons. Identified as the proper remedy for respondent when the petition for adoption was denied.

• Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9255 (OCRG Administrative Order No. 01-04, 2004) — Requires an affidavit to use the father's surname, but applies only to nonmarital children whose births are unregistered or previously registered under the mother's surname; held inapplicable where the child was already registered under the father's surname.

Lazaro-Javier, J. Lopez, Kho, Jr., and Villanueva, JJ., concurred.