[G.R. No. 159966.

March 30, 2005]

IN RE: PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME AND/OR CORRECTION/CANCELLATION OF ENTRY IN CIVIL

DECISION

TINGA, J.:

I will not blot out his name out of the book of life.

Revelation 3:5

On 22 September 2002, petitioner Julian Lin Carulasan Wang, a minor, represented by his mother Anna
Lisa Wang, filed a petition dated 19 September 2002 for change of name and/or correction/cancellation
of entry in the Civil Registry of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang. Petitioner sought to drop his middle name and
have his registered name changed from Julian Lin Carulasan Wang to Julian Lin Wang.

The petition was docketed as Special Proceedings Case No. 11458 CEB and raffled to the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Cebu City, Branch 57.

The RTC established the following facts:

Julian Lin Carulasan Wang was born in Cebu City on February 20, 1998 to parents Anna Lisa Wang and
Sing-Foe Wang who were then not yet married to each other. When his parents subsequently got
married on September 22, 1998, ...they executed a deed of legitimation of their son so that the childs
name was changed from Julian Lin Carulasan to Julian Lin Carulasan Wang.

The parents of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang plan to stay in Singapore for a long time because they will let
him study there together with his sister named Wang Mei Jasmine who was born in Singapore. Since in
Singapore middle names or the maiden surname of the mother are not carried in a persons name, they
anticipate that Julian Lin Carulasan Wang will be discriminated against because of his current registered
name which carries a middle name. Julian and his sister might also be asking whether they are brother
and sister since they have different surnames. Carulasan sounds funny in Singapores Mandarin language
since they do not have the letter R but if there is, they pronounce it as L. It is for these reasons that the
name of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang is requested to be changed to Julian Lin Wang.[1]

On 30 April 2003, the RTC rendered a decision denying the petition.[2] The trial court found that the
reason given for the change of name sought in the petitionthat is, that petitioner Julian may be
discriminated against when studies in Singapore because of his middle namedid not fall within the
grounds recognized by law. The trial court ruled that the change sought is merely for the convenience of
the child. Since the State has an interest in the name of a person, names cannot be changed to suit the
convenience of the bearers. Under Article 174 of the Family Code, legitimate children have the right to
bear the surnames of the father and the mother, and there is no reason why this right should now be
taken from petitioner Julian, considering that he is still a minor. The trial court added that when
petitioner Julian reaches the age of majority, he could then decide whether he will change his name by
dropping his middle name.[3]

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision but this was denied in a resolution dated 20
May 2004.[4] The trial court maintained that the Singaporean practice of not carrying a middle name
does not justify the dropping of the middle name of a legitimate Filipino child who intends to study
there. The dropping of the middle name would be tantamount to giving due recognition to or
application of the laws of Singapore instead of Philippine law which is controlling. That the change of
name would not prejudice public interest or would not be for a fraudulent purpose would not suffice to
grant the petition if the reason for the change of name is itself not reasonable.[5]

Petitioner then filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari (Under Rule 45)[6] arguing that the trial court
has decided a question of substance not theretofore determined by the Court, that is: whether or not
dropping the middle name of a minor child is contrary to Article 174[7] of the Family Code. Petitioner
contends that [W]ith globalization and mixed marriages, there is a need for the Supreme Court to rule
on the matter of dropping of family name for a child to adjust to his new environment, for consistency
and harmony among siblings, taking into consideration the best interest of the child.[8] It is argued that
convenience of the child is a valid reason for changing the name as long as it will not prejudice the State
and others. Petitioner points out that the middle name Carulasan will cause him undue embarrassment
and the difficulty in writing or pronouncing it will be an obstacle to his social acceptance and integration
in the Singaporean community. Petitioner also alleges that it is error for the trial court to have denied
the petition for change of name until he had reached the age of majority for him to decide the name to
use, contrary to previous cases[9] decided by this Court that allowed a minor to petition for change of
name.[10]

The Court required the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to comment on the petition. The OSG filed
its Comment[11] positing that the trial court correctly denied the petition for change of name. The OSG
argues that under Article 174 of the Family Code, legitimate children have the right to bear the
surnames of their father and mother, and such right cannot be denied by the mere expedient of
dropping the same. According to the OSG, there is also no showing that the dropping of the middle
name Carulasan is in the best interest of petitioner, since mere convenience is not sufficient to support a
petition for change of name and/or cancellation of entry.[12] The OSG also adds that the petitioner has
not shown any compelling reason to justify the change of name or the dropping of the middle name, for
that matter. Petitioners allegation that the continued use of the middle name may result in confusion
and difficulty is allegedly more imaginary than real. The OSG reiterates its argument raised before the
trial court that the dropping of the childs middle name could only trigger much deeper inquiries
regarding the true parentage of petitioner. Hence, while petitioner Julian has a sister named Jasmine
Wei Wang, there is no confusion since both use the surname of their father, Wang. Even assuming that
it is customary in Singapore to drop the middle name, it has also not been shown that the use of such
middle name is actually proscribed by Singaporean law.[13]
We affirm the decision of the trial court. The petition should be denied.

The Court has had occasion to express the view that the State has an interest in the names borne by
individuals and entities for purposes of identification, and that a change of name is a privilege and not a
right, so that before a person can be authorized to change his name given him either in his certificate of
birth or civil registry, he must show proper or reasonable cause, or any compelling reason which may
justify such change. Otherwise, the request should be denied.[14]

The touchstone for the grant of a change of name is that there be proper and reasonable cause for
which the change is sought.[15] To justify a request for change of name, petitioner must show not only
some proper or compelling reason therefore but also that he will be prejudiced by the use of his true
and official name. Among the grounds for change of name which have been held valid are: (a) when the
name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (b) when the change
results as a legal consequence, as in legitimation; (c) when the change will avoid confusion; (d) when
one has continuously used and been known since childhood by a Filipino name, and was unaware of
alien parentage; (e) a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of former alienage, all in
good faith and without prejudicing anybody; and (f) when the surname causes embarrassment and
there is no showing that the desired change of name was for a fraudulent purpose or that the change of
name would prejudice public interest.[16]

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. What is involved is not a mere matter of allowance or disallowance
of the request, but a judicious evaluation of the sufficiency and propriety of the justifications advanced
in support thereof, mindful of the consequent results in the event of its grant and with the sole
prerogative for making such determination being lodged in the courts.[17]

The petition before us is unlike other petitions for change of name, as it does not simply seek to change
the name of the minor petitioner and adopt another, but instead seeks to drop the middle name
altogether. Decided cases in this jurisdiction involving petitions for change of name usually deal with
requests for change of surname. There are only a handful of cases involving requests for change of the
given name[18] and none on requests for changing or dropping of the middle name. Does the law allow
one to drop the middle name from his registered name? We have to answer in the negative.

A discussion on the legal significance of a persons name is relevant at this point. We quote, thus:

For all practical and legal purposes, a man's name is the designation by which he is known and called in
the community in which he lives and is best known. It is defined as the word or combination of words by
which a person is distinguished from other individuals and, also, as the label or appellation which he
bears for the convenience of the world at large addressing him, or in speaking of or dealing with him.
Names are used merely as one method of indicating the identity of persons; they are descriptive of
persons for identification, since, the identity is the essential thing and it has frequently been held that,
when identity is certain, a variance in, or misspelling of, the name is immaterial.
The names of individuals usually have two parts: the given name or proper name, and the surname or
family name. The given or proper name is that which is given to the individual at birth or baptism, to
distinguish him from other individuals. The name or family name is that which identifies the family to
which he belongs and is continued from parent to child. The given name may be freely selected by the
parents for the child; but the surname to which the child is entitled is fixed by law.

A name is said to have the following characteristics: (1) It is absolute, intended to protect the individual
from being confused with others. (2) It is obligatory in certain respects, for nobody can be without a
name. (3) It is fixed, unchangeable, or immutable, at least at the start, and may be changed only for
good cause and by judicial proceedings. (4) It is outside the commerce of man, and, therefore,
inalienable and intransmissible by act inter vivos or mortis causa. (5) It is imprescriptible.[19]

This citation does not make any reference to middle names, but this does not mean that middle names
have no practical or legal significance. 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.

Our laws on the use of surnames state that legitimate and legitimated children shall principally use the
surname of the father.[20] The Family Code gives legitimate children the right to bear the surnames of
the father and the mother,[21] while illegitimate children shall use the surname of their mother, unless
their father recognizes their filiation, in which case they may bear the fathers surname.[22]

Applying these laws, an illegitimate child whose filiation is not recognized by the father bears only a
given name and his mothers surname, and does not have a middle name. The name of the unrecognized
illegitimate child therefore identifies him as such. It is only when the illegitimate child is legitimated by
the subsequent marriage of his parents or acknowledged by the father in a public document or private
handwritten instrument that he bears both his mothers surname as his middle name and his fathers
surname as his surname, reflecting his status as a legitimated child or an acknowledged illegitimate
child.

Accordingly, the registration in the civil registry of the birth of such individuals requires that the middle
name be indicated in the certificate. The registered name of a legitimate, legitimated and recognized
illegitimate child thus contains a given or proper name, a middle name, and a surname.

Petitioner theorizes that it would be for his best interest to drop his middle name as this would help him
to adjust more easily to and integrate himself into Singaporean society. In support, he cites Oshita v.
Republic[23] and Calderon v. Republic,[24] which, however, are not apropos both.

In Oshita, the petitioner therein, a legitimate daughter of a Filipino mother, Buena Bartolome, and a
Japanese father, Kishimatsu Oshita, sought to change her name from Antonina B. Oshita to Antonina
Bartolome. The Court granted her petition based on the following considerations: she had elected
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; her other siblings who had also elected
Philippine citizenship have been using their mothers surname; she was embarrassed to bear a Japanese
surname there still being ill feeling against the Japanese due to the last World War; and there was no
showing that the change of name was motivated by a fraudulent purpose or that it will prejudice public
interest.

In Calderon, the Court allowed petitioner Gertrudes Josefina del Prado, an illegitimate minor child acting
through her mother who filed the petition in her behalf, to change her name to Gertudes Josefina
Calderon, taking the surname of her stepfather, Romeo C. Calderon, her mothers husband. The Court
held that a petition for change of name of an infant should be granted where to do is clearly for the best
interest of the child. The Court took into consideration the opportunity provided for the minor
petitioner to eliminate the stigma of illegitimacy which she would carry if she continued to use the
surname of her illegitimate father. The Court pronounced that justice dictates that every person be
allowed to avail of any opportunity to improve his social standing as long as doing so he does not cause
prejudice or injury to the interests of the State or of other people.

Petitioner cites Alfon v. Republic,[25] in arguing that although Article 174 of the Family Code gives the
legitimate child the right to use the surnames of the father and the mother, it is not mandatory such
that the child could use only one family name, even the family name of the mother. In Alfon, the
petitioner therein, the legitimate daughter of Filomeno Duterte and Estrella Alfon, sought to change her
name from Maria Estrella Veronica Primitiva Duterte (her name as registered in the Local Civil Registry)
to Estrella S. Alfon (the name she had been using since childhood, in her school records and in her voters
registration). The trial court denied her petition but this Court overturned the denial, ruling that while
Article 364 of the Civil Code states that she, as a legitimate child, should principally use the surname of
her father, there is no legal obstacle for her to choose to use the surname of herm other to which she is
entitled. In addition, the Court found that there was ample justification to grant her petition, i.e., to
avoid confusion.

Weighing petitioners reason of convenience for the change of his name against the standards set in the
cases he cites to support his contention would show that his justification is amorphous, to say the least,
and could not warrant favorable action on his petition.

The factual antecedents and unique circumstances of the cited cases are not at all analogous to the case
at bar. The instant case is clearly distinguishable from the cases of Oshita and Alfon, where the
petitioners were already of age when they filed their petitions for change of name. Being of age, they
are considered to have exercised their discretion and judgment, fully knowing the effects of their
decision to change their surnames. It can also be unmistakably observed that the reason for the grant of
the petitions for change of name in these two cases was the presence of reasonable or compelling
grounds therefore. The Court, in Oshita, recognized the tangible animosity most Filipinos had during
that time against the Japanese as a result of World War II, in addition to the fact of therein petitioners
election of Philippine citizenship. In Alfon, the Court granted the petition since the petitioner had been
known since childhood by a name different from her registered name and she had not used her
registered name in her school records and voters registration records; thus, denying the petition would
only result to confusion.
Calderon, on the other hand, granted the petition for change of name filed by a mother in behalf of her
illegitimate minor child. Petitioner cites this case to buttress his argument that he does not have to
reach the age of majority to petition for change of name. However, it is manifest in Calderon that the
Court, in granting the petition for change of name, gave paramount consideration to the best interests
of the minor petitioner therein.

In the case at bar, the only reason advanced by petitioner for the dropping his middle name is
convenience. However, how such change of name would make his integration into Singaporean society
easier and convenient is not clearly established. That the continued use of his middle name would cause
confusion and difficulty does not constitute proper and reasonable cause to drop it from his registered
complete name.

In addition, petitioner is only a minor. Considering the nebulous foundation on which his petition for
change of name is based, it is best that the matter of change of his name be left to his judgment and
discretion when he reaches the age of majority.[26] As he is of tender age, he may not yet understand
and appreciate the value of the change of his name and granting of the same at this point may just
prejudice him in his rights under our laws.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

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

[1]
RTC Decision, penned by Judge Enriqueta Loquillano-Belarmino, Rollo, p. 21.
[2]
Id. at 20-23.
[3]
Ibid.
[4]
Id. at 24-25.
[5]
Ibid.
[6]
Id. at 3-58; with Annexes.
[7]
Art. 174. Legitimate children shall have the right: (1) To bear the surnames of the father and mother,
in conformity with the provisions of the Civil Code on Surnames; .
[8]
Rollo, p. 5.
[9]
Petitioner cites the following cases: Tse v. Republic, No. L-20708, 31 August 1967, 20 SCRA 1261;
Calderon v. Republic, 126 Phil. 1 (1967); and Republic v. Lee Wai Lam, No. L-22607, 30 July 1969, 28
SCRA 1043. In these three cases, the Court allowed the minor to petition for change of name. Ibid.
[10]
Ibid.
[11]
Rollo, pp. 63-80.
[12]
Ibid.
[13]
Id. at 71.
[14]
Republic v. Lee Wai Lam, No. L-22607, 30 July 1969, 28 SCRA 1040, 1047-48, citing Yu Chi
Han v. Republic, No. L-22040, 29 November 1965 and Yap Ek Siu v. Republic, No. L-25437, 28 April 1969.
[15]
Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88202, 14 December 1998, 300 SCRA 138.
[16]
Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97906, 21 May 1992, 209 SCRA 189.
See also Republic v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 117209, 9 February 1996, 253 SCRA 509.
[17]
Ibid.
[18]
Go v. Republic, No. L-20160, 29 November 1965; In re: Flaviano C. Zapanta v. Local Civil Register, G.R.
No. 55380, 26 September 1994; Republic v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 117209, 9 February 1996.
[19]
Republic v. Court of Appeals, supra at note 16.
[20]
Article 364, Civil Code.
[21]
Article 174, Family Code. Supra at note 7.
[22]
Article 176, Family Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 9255 (An Act Allowing Illegitimate Children
to Use the Surname of Their Father, Amending for the Purpose Article 176 of Executive Order No. 209,
Otherwise Known as the Family Code of the Philippines), which took effect on 19 March 2004, by
allowing illegitimate children to 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 when an
admission in a public document or private handwritten instrument is made by the father.
[23]
125 Phil. 1098 (1967).
[24]
Supra note 9.
[25]
No. L-51201, 29 May 1980, 97 SCRA 858.
[26]
In Republic v. Marcos, G.R. No. 31065, 15 February 1990, 182 SCRA 223, and Padilla v. Republic, 199
Phil. 226 (1982), the Court denied the petitions for change of name filed by mothers in behalf of their
minor children for prematurity.