Rule 103

Rule 103 of the Rules of Court used to govern petitions for

change of name whether it is the first name, the nickname, the middle
name or the surname. However, in view of the passage of RA 9048 and
its implementing rules, the provisions of the Rules of Court are
believed to be still applicable for the change of the surname and
middle name. The provisions of RA 9048 on the other hand deals with
first names and nick names only.

VENUE (Sec. 1)

A person desiring to change his name shall present a petition for

change of name to the Regional Trial Court where the petitioner
resides.

CONTENTS OF THE PETITION (Sec. 2)

The petition must be signed and verified by the person desiring

his name changed or some other person on his behalf and shall set
forth the following:

1. That the petitioner has been a bona fide resident of the

province where the petition is filed for at least 3 years prior to
the date of such filing;
2. The cause for which the change of the petitioner’s name is
sought; and
3. The name asked for. (Sec. 2)

The Petition should be supported by the following:

1. Certificate of Birth;
2. School records, driver’s license, marriage contract, and such
other documents of similar nature;
3. Affidavit of 2 disinterested persons;
4. Clearances such as Barangay, PNP, MTC, RTC, NBI; Aliens
must secure such clearances from their resident consul.

Justifiable causes for change of name.

 A change of name is not a matter of right but a privilege. Before
a person can be authorized to change his name, he must show proper
or reasonable cause, or a compelling reason to justify such change.
The following are some of the justifiable causes of change of name:

1. When the name is ridiculous, tainted with dishonor, or is

extremely difficult to write or pronounce;

2. When the request for a change is a consequence of a change

of status, as when a natural child is acknowledged or
legitimated;

3. When the change is necessary to avoid confusion.

The mere fact that several individuals use the same name
is not a valid reason for a change of such name in the
absence of evidence showing that prejudice to the applicant
had been caused by the duplication. (Ong Te vs. Republic,
June 30, 1962);

4. When the petition is to correct the name appearing in the

registry of birth; and

5. When the purpose is to remove the stigma of

illegitimacy.

A minor may sign a petition for change of name.

Sec. 2 of Rule 103 provides that the petition shall be signed and
verified by the person desiring his name changed, or some other
person in his behalf. It does not provide that a person desiring to
change his name must be of age. (Tse vs. Republic, August 31, 1967)

Verification is not a juridical requirement in a petition for change of

name.

In the case of Oshito vs. Republic, the Supreme Court ruled that
verification is a formal, and not a jurisdictional requirement. The lack of
verification is not a ground for dismissing the petition.

In a change of name, what is altered is only the name. It does

not alter legal capacity, civil status, and citizenship. Moreover, the
change of name does not:
 1. Affect or change existing family relations;
2. Affect or change the rights and duties in consequence of
family relations; and
3. Create new rights on existing rights in consequence of family
relations.

An alien may file a petition for change of name in the Philippines.

The Supreme Court, in the case of Ong Tuan Tin vs. Republic
(November 29, 1961) ruled that an alien may file a petition for change
of name even without applying for a Filipino citizenship. The only
condition in order that the alien may file such petition is that he must
be domiciled in the Philippines.

ORDER OF HEARING (Sec. 3)

If the petition filed is sufficient in form and substance, the court

shall promulgate an order:

1. Reciting the purpose of the petition;

2. Fixing the date and place of hearing;
3. Directing that a copy of the order be published before the
hearing at least once a week for three (3) successive weeks in
some newspaper of general circulation

The date of hearing shall not be within thirty (30) days prior to an
election nor within four (4) months after the last publication of the
notice of hearing. (Sec. 3)

Necessity of Publication

A Petition for change of name is a proceeding in rem. Strict

compliance with the requirements of publication is essential (Tan vs.
Republic, April 26, 1962). The publication of the Notice of Hearing is a
jurisdictional requirement.

Discrepancy in Petition and Published Order

 A discrepancy in the name sought to be adopted as stated in the
petition and in the published order constitutes a substantial defect
because it did not correctly identify the parties to the proceedings. As
such, there is no strict compliance with the publication requirement
and renders the entire proceedings null and void since the court has
not acquired jurisdiction. (Jacobo vs. Republic)

A difference in one letter may mean a distinction of identity of

one person with that of another. The defect is fatal and the petition
must be denied. (Tan vs. Republic April 26, 1962)

WHO MAY OPPOSE THE PETITION (Sec. 4)

Sec. 4 provides that the petition for change of name may be

opposed by:

1. Any interested person; or

2. The Solicitor General or the proper provincial/city fiscal shall
appear on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines.

The Solicitor General must be notified by service of a copy of the

petition.

WHEN CHANGE OF NAME MAY BE GRANTED (Sec. 5)

If there is satisfactory proof in open court on the date fixed in the

order that such order has been published as directed and that the
allegations of the petition are true, the court shall, if proper and
reasonable cause appears for changing the name of the petitioner,
adjudge that such name be changed in accordance with the prayer in
the petition.

SERVICE OF JUDGMENT (Sec. 6)

Judgments and orders allowing the change of name shall be

furnished to the civil registrar of the municipality or city where the
court issuing the same is situated, who shall forthwith enter the same
in the civil register.
CASES ON RULE 103

Garcia vs. Republic (GR L-16085, November 29, 1961)

FACTS: A natural child has been using his mother’s surname

because has not yet been acknowledged by his natural father. Later,
the natural father expressed and manifested his willingness to
recognize the child.

ISSUE: Whether or not the child is required to file a petition for change
of name.

RULING: The child’s remedy is not to file a petition for change of name
to change his surname from that of the mother to the surname of his
father. The proper remedy is to file an action for recognition. Once the
child is recognized, he can use the surname of his father, as he
becomes entitled, by law, to use the surname of his father.

Tolentino vs. Court of Appeals (June 10, 1988)

ISSUE: Whether or not a woman who has been legally divorced from
her husband may be enjoined by the latter’s present wife from using
the surname of her former husband.

RULING: The Philippine law is silent as there are no provisions for

divorce. The use of surnames by a divorced wife had not been
provided for. Thus, there is no usurpation of the petitioner’s name and
surname. The use of the husband’s surname by the former wife
cannot be said to have injured the petitioner’s right. There is no actual
legal injury to the petitioner except for deep hurt to her feelings which
is not a proper basis for injunctive relief.

Pabellar vs. Republic (March 4, 1976)

FACTS: A person has been using the surname of his father with the
father’s consent for more than 30 years. He then found out that he was
an illegitimate child and was baptized under the surname of the
mother.

ISSUE: Whether or not he is required to file a petition for change of

name.
RULING: Since he had been authorized and had actually been using his
father’s surname for a period of more than 30 years, the petition for
change of name is not necessary.

In the Matter of the Change of Names of Sean Kok and Marilyn Se

(August 30, 1973)

If the husband was able to change his name in a judicial

proceeding but failed to include his wife and children, a separate civil
action must be brought.