Case Digest (G.R. No. 234151)
Facts:
This case involves petitioner Gregorio Go and the respondent, the Republic of the Philippines, specifically represented by the Solicitor General. The matter arose from a decision issued by the Court of First Instance of Cebu led by Hon. Amador E. Gomez on November 29, 1965. The crux of the issue revolved around the desire of Gregorio Go to change the name of his minor child, initially registered as "Baby Go," to "Albert Go." Baby Go was born at the Cebu Maternity Hospital in Cebu City, where his name was recorded by representatives of the hospital without the knowledge or consent of his parents. The petition to change the name was grounded on the assertion that "Baby" is not a Christian name and does not reflect the accepted naming practices of Filipino Catholics. The Court of First Instance of Cebu approved the name change, allowing Baby Go to be renamed Albert Go. Following this, the Solicitor General appealed the decision, claiming that it contradicted Article 408 of the NewCase Digest (G.R. No. 234151)
Facts:
- Background and Registration
- Baby Go was born at the Cebu Maternity Hospital in Cebu City.
- At birth, the child was registered in the local civil registrar’s office under the name "Baby Go."
- The registration was carried out without the child's knowledge or the informed consent of his parents regarding the choice of name.
- Petition for Name Change
- The petitioner, Gregorio Go (acting in both capacities as petitioner and appellee), initiated a petition to change the child’s name.
- The main basis for the petition was that “Baby” is not considered a Christian name in the accepted practices of Filipino Catholics.
- The petitioner argued that a Christian name, specifically "Albert," was more appropriate and should replace the unthinking naming given at registration.
- Proceedings in the Lower Court
- The Court of First Instance of Cebu, under Hon. Amador E. Gomez, approved the change of the minor’s name from Baby Go to Albert Go.
- The decision included an order for the change to be effected in the local civil registrar’s records, specifically authorizing the correction.
- The court’s order was articulated such that the future use of the name “Albert Go” was to be recognized officially.
- Appeal and Grounds for Objection
- The Solicitor General, representing the provincial fiscal, appealed the decision from the lower court.
- The primary contention on appeal was that the order exceeded the jurisdiction of the lower court.
- The appeal was based on the alleged incompatibility with Article 408 of the New Civil Code in connection with Section 10 of Act No. 3753, which permits registration of a change of name but prohibits the alteration or erasure of original entries.
- The Solicitor General argued that the correction should not involve making cancellations or erasures in the original birth entry.
- There was also an observation in the appellee’s brief that timely presentation of the question regarding the order’s import by the appellant might have resolved the issue at the lower court level.
- Substantive Basis Presented
- The petition relied on Rule 103, Section 5, of the Rules of Court, necessitating satisfactory proof of all allegations.
- It was argued that if proper and reasonable cause is shown, the petition for a name change must be granted as prayed.
- The petitioner substantiated that not only were the allegations true, but also that proper and reasonable cause existed for the requested change.
Issues:
- Jurisdictional Inquiry
- Whether the lower court exceeded its jurisdiction by authorizing the change of name in the local civil registrar’s records.
- Whether the authorization to change the child's name contravened the provisions of Article 408 of the New Civil Code and Section 10 of Act No. 3753.
- Scope and Nature of the Correction
- Whether the order of the lower court improperly sanctioned the cancellation or alteration of the original entry in the civil registry.
- Whether the proper method was to merely effect marginal corrections or annotations rather than an outright change which might erase original details.
- Procedural and Evidentiary Considerations
- Whether there was sufficient proof to warrant the change, in line with the required standards set by the Rules of Court.
- Whether the absence of an earlier objection regarding the import of the order affected the validity of the petitioned name change.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)