Title
IN RE: Ong Huan Tin vs. Republic
Case
G.R. No. L-20997
Decision Date
Apr 27, 1967
Alien Ong Huan Tin petitioned to change her name; court initially denied, citing aliens ineligible. Supreme Court ruled aliens domiciled in the Philippines may petition under Rule 103, reversing lower court.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-20997)

Facts:

  • Background of the Petition
    • Ong Huan Tin, the petitioner-appellant, filed a petition to change his name to Teresita Tan under Special Proceeding 03521 before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court.
    • Due publication was effected, and the petition was set for hearing on the merits.
  • Procedural History
    • Before the petition could be heard on its merits, the court, on its own motion, expressed the opinion that an alien is not entitled to avail himself of the provisions of the Rules of Court relating to change of name.
    • By its order dated November 6, 1962, the court denied the petition based on the said interpretation.
    • A subsequent motion to reconsider the decision was also rejected in the court’s order of November 24, 1962, leading to the present appeal.
  • Context of Jurisprudence
    • The issue centered on whether an alien may petition for a change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, focusing on the proper interpretation of the word “person.”
    • Reference was made to a previous decision in the Petition for the Change of Name of Joselito Yu (G.R. L-20874, May 25, 1966), where the Court held that the term “person” is generic and extends beyond Filipino citizens.

Issues:

  • Applicability of Rule 103
    • Whether the generic term “person” employed in Rule 103 includes aliens, thereby enabling them to file a petition for a change of name.
    • The extent to which the absence of a citizenship requirement in the Rule affects the eligibility of an alien to change his name.
  • Domicile Requirement for Aliens
    • Whether every alien residing in the Philippines, regardless of the duration of stay, may avail himself of the change of name proceedings.
    • Whether the concept of domicile, defined as a “permanent home” with the intent to return, limits the right to petition only to those aliens who are domiciled in the Philippines and precludes temporary residents from doing so.
  • Effect on Family Rights and Obligations
    • Whether a change of name, which does not alter legal capacity, family relations, or citizenship, should be treated with the same judicial discretion for both citizens and aliens.
    • The broader implications for third parties and the State when a change of name is effected, particularly in relation to family ties and societal perceptions.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.