Grande v. Antonio
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Grace Grande and respondent Patricio Antonio cohabited and had two sons, Andre Lewis and Jerard Patrick, despite Antonio being married to another woman. The children were not initially recognized by Antonio in the civil registry. Grande later moved to the United States with the children. Antonio subsequently filed a petition for judicial approval of recognition of paternity, seeking parental authority, custody, correction of surname, and injunctive relief. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted Antonio's petition, approving the recognition of paternity and ordering the change of the children's surname from Grande to Antonio. The RTC also granted Antonio primary custody, joint parental authority, and specific visitation rights for Grande, along with shared financial support. Grande's motion for reconsideration was denied. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) modified the RTC's decision, awarding sole custody to Grande but maintaining the change of surname to Antonio, citing the best interests of the child and the legal consequence of recognition. Grande's subsequent motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: Grande filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision regarding the change of surname. She argued that Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 9255, does not grant a father the right to compel the use of his surname by his illegitimate children without the mother's consent, as the word "may" in the law indicates discretion. The Supreme Court, in its decision, disapproved and declared void Rules 7 and 8 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9255, holding that the use of the father's surname is discretionary for the illegitimate child and remanding the case for the determination of the children's chosen surname.
Issue(s)
Whether the father of illegitimate children can compel the use of his surname upon recognition of their filiation. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the change of the minors' surname to 'Antonio' despite the mother's opposition. Whether the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9255 can amend the clear mandate of Article 176 of the Family Code.
Ruling
The petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Court modified the Court of Appeals' decision, awarding sole custody to the mother, maintaining visitation rights for the father, upholding the shared support, and remanding the case to the Regional Trial Court for the sole purpose of determining the surname to be chosen by the children. Rules 7 and 8 of the Office of the Civil Registrar General Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2004, were declared NULL and VOID.
Ratio Decidendi
On the right of a father to compel the use of his surname by his illegitimate children: The Court held that Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended by RA 9255, clearly states that illegitimate children 'may use the surname of their father' if their filiation is expressly recognized. The use of the word 'may' signifies discretion, meaning the illegitimate child is not compelled to use the father's surname. The law grants the discretion to the child, not to the father or mother. Therefore, the father cannot legally compel the use of his surname. On the Court of Appeals' order to change the minors' surname: The Court found no legal basis for the RTC or the CA to order the change of the minors' surname to 'Antonio' against the mother's opposition and without considering the children's choice. Such an order would contravene the explicit provision of Article 176 of the Family Code, which vests the discretion upon the illegitimate child. The Court emphasized that the best interest of the child is paramount, and this includes their right to choose their surname. On the validity of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9255: The Court ruled that administrative issuances cannot amend or expand the coverage of a legislative act. While the IRR of RA 9255 used the word 'shall' in certain provisions regarding the use of the father's surname, the primary law, Article 176 of the Family Code, uses the permissive word 'may.' In cases of conflict between the law and its implementing rules, the law prevails. Thus, the Court declared Rules 7 and 8 of the OCRG Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2004, void insofar as they provide for the mandatory use of the father's surname.
Main Doctrine
Under Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended by RA 9255, illegitimate children have the discretion to use the surname of their father upon recognition of their filiation; the father or mother cannot compel the child to use the father's surname. Administrative issuances cannot amend legislative acts, thus, the word 'may' in Article 176, granting discretion, prevails over any 'shall' in implementing rules.