Can a legal name be changed?

By Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes III

An interesting trait among us Filipinos is the unique ability to suffuse with a sense of humor, endearment, sentimentality, identity, or family tradition the names we choose for our children. The name assigned to a child may be an appropriation of the first name and surname of a famous justice of the US Supreme Court followed by the surname of the child’s father, thus: “Louis Brandeis Reyes”. Or it could be from a famous foreign actor but with a local touch, like: “Thom Cruz”. Yet still, it may conflate the parents’ first names such as: “Edzel” or “Jayann”.

Sobriquets, nicknames, or monikers that we use elsewhere, or in social media, may be flippant. But legally speaking, what is the significance of a person’s name as recorded in the civil registry?

In Francis Luigi G. Santos v. Republic of the Philippines, The Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City, The Civil Registrar General, and All Interested Persons, G.R. No. 250520 which was handed down on May 5, 2021, a person’s name was explained as “x x x a word or combination of words by which he is known and identified, and distinguished from others, for the convenience of the world at large in addressing him, or in speaking of or dealing with him. It is both of personal as well as public interest that every person must have a name. The name of an individual has two parts: the given 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 at baptism, to distinguish him from other individuals. The surname 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”.  

                It was further emphasized in the same case that a person’s name, once entered in the civil registry, becomes permanent such that it is subsumed as a public interest matter. In order to make changes in the name that has been recorded in the registry, stringent requirements must be observed.

“Good reasons” for a change of name were adumbrated in Francis Luigi G. Santos v. Republic: “Jurisprudence has recognized, inter alia, the following grounds as being sufficient to warrant a change of name: (a) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (b) when the change results as a legal consequence of legitimation or adoption; (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) when the change is based on a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of former alienage, all in good faith and without prejudice to 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.”

In In Re: Petition for Change of Name and/or Correction of Entry in the Civil Registry of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang (Wang), the Court held: “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. X x x To emphasize, the surname identifies the family to which a person belongs. While the first name may be freely selected by the parents for the child, the surname to which the child is entitled is fixed by law”.

In the earlier case of ANACLETO BALLAHO ALANIS III v. COURT OF APPEALS, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, AND HON. GREGORIO Y. DE LA PENA III, PRESIDING JUDGE, BR. 12, REGIONALTRIAL COURT OF ZAMBOANGA CITY, G.R. No. 216425, November 11, 2020, a petition for change of name was granted in order “to avoid confusion”. In this case, a legitimate child was allowed to drop his father’s surname and instead he was allowed to carry his mother’s surname. Here are the facts: “Petitioner has been using the name Abdulhamid Ballaho in all his records and transactions. He is also known to and called by his family and friends by such name. He has never used the name Anacleto Ballaho Alanis III even once in his life. To have the petitioner suddenly use the name Anacleto Ballaho Alanis III would cause undue embarrassment to the petitioner since he has never been known by such name. Petitioner has shown not only some proper or compelling reason but also that he will be prejudiced by the use of his true and official name. A mere correction of his private and public records to conform to the name stated in his Certificate of Live Birth would create more confusion because petitioner has been using the name Abdulhamid Ballaho since enrollment in grade school until finishing his law degree. The purpose of the law in allowing change of name as contemplated by the provisions of Rule 103 of the Rules of Court is to give a person an opportunity to improve his personality and to provide his best interest[.] There is therefore ample justification to grant fully his petition, which is not whimsical but on the contrary is based on a solid and reasonable ground, i.e. to avoid confusion”.

Too, in Republic v. Bolante, a change of name petition was also granted “where the respondent had been known as “Maria   Eloisa” her   whole   life, as   evidenced   by   scholastic   records, employment records, and licenses, this Court found it obvious that changing the name written on her birth certificate would avoid confusion”. Chua v. Republic arrived at the same conclusion, thus: “As Eric has established, he is known in his community as “Eric Chua”, rather than “Eric Kiat”. Moreover, all of his credentials exhibited before the Court, other than his Certificate of Live Birth, bear the name “Eric Chua”. Guilty of reiteration, Eric’s Certificate of Baptism, Voter Certification, Police Clearance, National Bureau of Investigation Clearance, Passport, and High School Diploma all reflect his surname to be “Chua”. Thus, to compel him to use the name “Eric Kiat” at this point would inevitably lead to confusion”.

Then again, there could be serious objections to a petition for change of name. Reverting to the case of Francis Luigi G. Santos v. Republic, petitioner was not allowed to change his surname to “Revilla” even if he is a recognized son of “Bong Revilla”, because he is already the adopted son of Patrick Santos and thus he is legally bound to carry the surname of his adopter which is “Santos”.

True, in a previous case, a petitioner was allowed to ditch the surname of his father but this was owing to the fact that such surname elicited “embarrassment and ridicule”, thus:

“From the testimony of petitioner-appellee and of his adopter mother Concepcion Ty-Wong, We discern that said appellee was prompted to file the petition for change of name because of the embarrassment and ridicule his family name ‘Wong’ brings in his dealings with his relatives and friends, he being a Muslim Filipino and living in a Muslim community. Another cause is his desire to improve his social and business life. It has been held that in the absence of prejudice to the state or any individual out of sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of a former alien nationality which only hamper social and business life, is a proper and reasonable cause for change of name (Uy vs. Republic, L-22712, Nov. 25, 1965, Que Liong Sian vs. Republic, L-23167, Aug. 17, 1967, 20 SCRA 1074). Justice dictates that a person should be allowed to improve his social standing as long as in doing so, he does not cause prejudice or injury to the interest of the State or of other persons (Calderon vs. Republic, supra).

But unfortunately in the case of Francis Luigi G. Santos v. Republic, the Supreme Court held that “No similar compelling reason was alleged nor proved in this case”. And scathingly, the Court remarked that: “A sincere desire to associate oneself to a certain person or family, without more, does not justify a change of surname”.

                In the end, it boils down to embracing our legal names not only because they are infused with our parents’ touch in putting them together, but more so on account of the identity we find based on the family culture and tradition that the names evoke.

(The author is the senior partner of ET Reyes III & Associates– a law firm based in Iloilo City. He is a litigation attorney, a law professor and a book author. His website is etriiilaw.com).