Pabellar v. Republic
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Mario Pabellar, born in 1937, filed a petition to change his surname from Pabellar to Carandang. He was baptized with the name Mario Pabellar, the surname of his mother, Teofila Pabellar, as his father was unknown at the time. However, his natural father, Esteban Carandang, later took Teofila Pabellar as his common-law wife, and Mario lived with them, consistently using the surname Carandang throughout his schooling and in various official documents and employment records. His baptismal certificate, not a birth certificate, listed his name as Mario Pabellar. 2. Procedural History: The petitioner filed a petition for change of name in the Court of First Instance of Quezon Province. The Republic of the Philippines, through the City Fiscal, opposed the petition, arguing that the change was unjustified and that as an illegitimate child, he had no right to use his father's surname. The lower court granted the petition, ordering the civil registrar of Lucena City to amend the records. The Republic of the Philippines appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: The Republic of the Philippines, in its appeal to the Supreme Court, contended that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable justification for the change of name and that the necessary jurisdictional requirements for a change of name petition were not met. Specifically, the title of the petition did not include the petitioner's aliases or the name sought to be adopted, and the published order for hearing omitted the petitioner's aliases and the grounds for the requested change. The Supreme Court noted that the petitioner, an illegitimate child, had been using his father's surname, Carandang, since childhood, a use permitted under Commonwealth Act No. 142, rendering the petition for a formal change of name unnecessary and legally unfounded.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner has sufficiently proven his alleged name in the civil register to warrant a change of surname. Whether the petitioner, as an illegitimate child, has the right to use his father's surname. Whether the petition for change of name was properly published and the court acquired jurisdiction over the case.
Ruling
The Court reversed the lower court's order. It held that the petition for change of name was devoid of factual and legal justification. The Court also found that the jurisdictional requirements, specifically regarding publication, were not met, thus the lower court did not acquire jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
On the sufficiency of proof for change of name: The Court held that the petitioner failed to prove that his name in the civil register is Mario Pabellar. The baptismal certificate presented was a private document and hearsay, not a conclusive proof of filiation or an official record of birth. The lower court's finding that his name in the civil register was Mario Pabellar was unfounded as no certified copy of the civil register entry was presented. The Court emphasized that the real name of a person is that given in the civil register, not the name by which he was baptized. Therefore, the petition for change of name was not supported by the required evidence. On the right to use the father's surname: While acknowledging that an illegitimate child should generally use his mother's surname, the Court noted the decisive fact that the petitioner had consistently and publicly used his father's surname, Carandang, for over three decades in school and official records. This use is allowed under Commonwealth Act No. 142, which permits a person to use a name by which he has been known since childhood. The Court clarified that what the petitioner truly sought was judicial authority for his continued use of the surname Carandang, which is permissible under the law and does not require a formal change of name. The petition for change of name was thus deemed uncalled for. On jurisdictional requirements and publication: The Court found the Solicitor General's contention regarding non-compliance with jurisdictional requirements to be correct. A change of name is a proceeding in rem, requiring due publication of the order for jurisdiction. In this case, the title of the petition did not include the petitioner's aliases and the name sought to be adopted. Furthermore, the published order for hearing did not state the petitioner's aliases and the cause for the change of name. These deficiencies in the title and the published order meant that the lower court did not acquire jurisdiction over the proceeding, warranting its dismissal.
Main Doctrine
A petition for change of name is devoid of factual and legal justification if the petitioner, an illegitimate child, has consistently and publicly used his father's surname for decades, and fails to prove that his official name in the civil register is his mother's surname. The use of a surname since childhood, even if not the official one, is permissible under Commonwealth Act No. 142, and does not require a judicial change of name. Furthermore, defective publication of the petition and hearing order deprives the court of jurisdiction.