G.R. No. 207147 - Gan vs. Republic

Emelita Basilio Gan was born on December 21, 1956, out of wedlock to a Chinese father and a Filipino mother, Consolacion Basilio.
Her birth certificate, registered at the Office of the Local Civil Registrar (LCR) of Libmanan, Camarines Sur, recorded her name as “Emelita Basilio.”

On June 29, 2010, the petitioner filed a petition for correction of name with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Libmanan, Camarines Sur.
The petitioner sought to change her name from “Emelita Basilio” to “Emelita Basilio Gan,” asserting that she had consistently used “Emelita Basilio Gan” in school records, employment records, her marriage contract, and other government documents.

On July 15, 2010, the RTC noted that the petition was not merely for a correction of an entry but amounted to a change of name, hence requiring an amendment of the petition to conform with Rule 103 of the Rules of Court.
The petitioner complied by filing an Amended Petition on August 3, 2010, which largely repeated the earlier allegations, and the hearing was set with publication in a newspaper on August 10, 2010.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), representing the Republic of the Philippines, appeared in the proceedings through its authorized representative, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Libmanan.

On July 19, 2011, after due proceedings, the RTC of Libmanan, Camarines Sur, Branch 29, issued an order granting the petition for change of name, directing the LCR to amend her birth certificate accordingly.
The RTC justified the ruling by stating that the petition was filed solely to correct or “order the records” and to eliminate confusion in her personal records.
The respondent, representing the state, filed a motion for reconsideration, contending that as an illegitimate child, the petitioner was entitled only to her mother’s surname unless there was clear evidence that her father had acknowledged her.
On October 17, 2011, the RTC denied the respondent’s motion for reconsideration.

In its Decision dated April 26, 2013, the CA reversed the RTC orders dated July 19 and October 17, 2011.
The CA held that under Article 176 of the Family Code (as amended by Republic Act No. 9255), an illegitimate child may only use the surname of the mother unless there is an express acknowledgment by the father.
The CA determined that the petitioner failed to adduce any evidence of paternal acknowledgment, and therefore, she was not entitled to use her father’s surname “Gan.”

Emelita Basilio Gan elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, contending that the RTC was correct in granting her petition on the ground that the change was merely to align her birth certificate with the name she had long used.
The petitioner argued that her failure to provide evidence of paternal acknowledgment was immaterial since the change was justified by the need to avoid confusion in her personal records.

Whether the petitioner, being an illegitimate child, could be allowed to change her name from “Emelita Basilio” to “Emelita Basilio Gan” by using her father’s surname without evidence of his acknowledgment.

The contention rested on whether the petitioner’s longstanding usage of “Gan” in various records sufficed to justify the change.

Whether the justification presented—that the change of name was necessary to avoid confusion in her personal records—constituted a proper and reasonable cause to allow a petition for change of name.

The statutory requirement under Article 176 of the Family Code and the pertinent provisions of the Civil Code must be considered in determining the merits of the justification.

Whether a petition for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court is a matter of right or a privilege, thus warranting strict scrutiny regarding the sufficiency and propriety of the justifications advanced.