Wang vs. Cebu City Civil Registrar

A petition to drop a middle name from a person's registered name cannot be granted based on mere convenience or anticipated discrimination in a foreign jurisdiction, as middle names serve the legally significant function of identifying maternal lineage and filiation, and the right to bear the surnames of both parents under the Family Code cannot be discarded without proper and reasonable cause.

Julian Lin Carulasan Wang, a minor born in Cebu City to parents who were unmarried at the time of his birth but subsequently married, was legitimated, resulting in his registered name carrying his mother's maiden surname as his middle name and his father's surname as his surname. His parents intended for him to study in Singapore, where middle names are not customarily used, prompting the petition to drop "Carulasan" to avoid alleged discrimination, confusion with his sister, and pronunciation issues.

• Birth and Legitimation: Julian Lin Carulasan Wang was born on February 20, 1998 in Cebu City to Anna Lisa Wang and Sing-Foe Wang, who were unmarried at the time of his birth. The parents married on September 22, 1998, executing a deed of legitimation that changed the child's name from Julian Lin Carulasan to Julian Lin Carulasan Wang.
• Reason for Change: The parents planned for Julian to study in Singapore with his sister, Wang Mei Jasmine, who was born in Singapore. Because Singaporean custom does not carry middle names or the maiden surname of the mother, the parents anticipated that Julian would face discrimination, confusion with his sister regarding their sibling relationship, and embarrassment because "Carulasan" sounds funny in Mandarin (where "R" is pronounced as "L").
• Petition Filed: On September 22, 2002, represented by his mother, Julian filed a petition to change his registered name from "Julian Lin Carulasan Wang" to "Julian Lin Wang," effectively dropping his middle name.

• Best Interest of the Child: Petitioner maintained that dropping the middle name is necessary for the child to adjust to his new environment in Singapore, ensure consistency and harmony with his sibling, and avoid discrimination and embarrassment.
• Convenience as Valid Ground: Petitioner argued that convenience of the child is a valid reason for a change of name as long as it does not prejudice the State or others, asserting that the middle name will cause undue embarrassment and difficulty in writing or pronunciation, obstructing social acceptance in Singapore.
• Right to Use Surname Not Mandatory: Petitioner contended that Article 174 of the Family Code, which gives legitimate children the right to bear the surnames of the father and mother, is not mandatory, meaning the child could use only one family name.
• Minor's Capacity to Petition: Petitioner argued that it was error for the trial court to deny the petition until the minor reaches the age of majority, citing previous cases that allowed minors to petition for a change of name.

• Right to Bear Surnames Cannot Be Denied: Respondent countered that under Article 174 of the Family Code, legitimate children have the right to bear the surnames of the father and mother, which cannot be denied by the mere expedient of dropping the middle name.
• Lack of Compelling Reason: Respondent argued that mere convenience is insufficient to support the petition, and the alleged confusion and difficulty are more imaginary than real.
• Potential Prejudice to Parentage: Respondent maintained that dropping the middle name could trigger deeper inquiries regarding the true parentage of the petitioner, noting that both siblings use the surname "Wang," negating confusion.
• Foreign Law Not Controlling: Respondent argued that the Singaporean practice of not carrying a middle name does not justify dropping the middle name of a legitimate Filipino child, as this would effectively apply foreign law over Philippine law, and it has not been shown that the use of a middle name is actually proscribed by Singaporean law.

• Propriety of Dropping Middle Name: Whether the dropping of a middle name of a minor child is justified by reasons of convenience and the best interest of the child to avoid discrimination in a foreign jurisdiction.
• Mandatory Nature of Article 174: Whether the right to bear the surnames of the father and the mother under Article 174 of the Family Code is mandatory, precluding the dropping of the middle name.
• Minor's Capacity: Whether a minor can file a petition for change of name, or if such petition must wait until the age of majority.

• Propriety of Dropping Middle Name: The petition to drop the middle name was denied because mere convenience and anticipated discrimination in a foreign country do not constitute proper and reasonable cause. Middle names serve the legally significant function of identifying maternal lineage and filiation. Unlike precedents where compelling reasons existed—such as avoiding the stigma of illegitimacy, avoiding confusion from long use of another name, or avoiding anti-Japanese sentiment post-WWII—the alleged embarrassment and pronunciation difficulties in Singapore were deemed amorphous and insufficient.
• Mandatory Nature of Article 174: While the right to use the mother's surname under Article 174 may not be strictly mandatory in the sense that a child might choose to use only one surname, dropping the middle name entirely from the civil registry requires proper and reasonable cause, which is absent here. Middle names distinguish a person's maternal lineage, which is especially crucial for legitimated or recognized illegitimate children whose status is reflected by the presence of a middle name.
• Minor's Capacity: Minors may petition for a change of name, but because the justification here was nebulous, it was best to leave the matter to the child's judgment when he reaches the age of majority. Granting the petition at his tender age might prejudice his rights under Philippine laws, as he may not yet understand and appreciate the value of the change.

• Change of Name as a Privilege, Not a Right — A change of name is a privilege, not a right. The State has an interest in the names borne by individuals for purposes of identification. Proper or reasonable cause, or any compelling reason, must be shown before a person can be authorized to change the name given in his certificate of birth or civil registry; otherwise, the request should be denied. The Court applied this doctrine to deny the petition, finding that the convenience of avoiding alleged discrimination in a foreign country is not a proper or reasonable cause.
• Legal Significance of Middle Names — Middle names serve to identify the maternal lineage or filiation of a person and further distinguish him from others who may have the same given name and surname. For legitimate, legitimated, and recognized illegitimate children, the middle name is a required entry in the civil registry reflecting their status. The Court relied on this principle to rule that dropping the middle name cannot be allowed absent compelling justification, as it strips the registered name of its function in identifying maternal lineage.

• "The touchstone for the grant of a change of name is that there be ‘proper and reasonable cause’ for which the change is sought." — Establishes the standard for evaluating petitions for change of name.
• "Middle names serve to identify the maternal lineage or filiation of a person as well as further distinguish him from others who may have the same given name and surname as he has." — Articulates the legal and practical significance of middle names in Philippine jurisprudence.

• Oshita v. Republic, 125 Phil. 1098 (1967) — Distinguished. The petition therein was granted due to anti-Japanese sentiment post-WWII and the petitioner's election of Philippine citizenship, and the petitioner was of age.
• Calderon v. Republic, 126 Phil. 1 (1967) — Distinguished. The petition for an illegitimate minor to use a stepfather's surname was granted to eliminate the stigma of illegitimacy, serving the best interest of the child.
• Alfon v. Republic, No. L-51201, 29 May 1980, 97 SCRA 858 — Distinguished. The petition was granted to avoid confusion because the petitioner had continuously used her mother's surname since childhood, and the petitioner was of age.
• Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97906, 21 May 1992, 209 SCRA 189 — Followed. Enumerated valid grounds for change of name and established that change of name is a privilege requiring proper and reasonable cause.

• Article 174, Family Code — Legitimate children have the right to bear the surnames of the father and mother. Cited to emphasize the right to bear both surnames and the legal significance of the middle name in reflecting maternal lineage and legitimation status.
• Article 364, Civil Code — Legitimate and legitimated children shall principally use the surname of the father. Cited as the basis for the use of surnames.
• Article 176, Family Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 9255 — Illegitimate children shall use the surname of their mother, unless their filiation is expressly recognized by the father. Cited to explain how naming conventions distinguish legitimate, legitimated, and illegitimate children, highlighting the role of the middle name in indicating filiation.

Puno (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Chico-Nazario.