Facts:

The case involves Mario Pabellar as the petitioner-appellee and the Republic of the Philippines as the oppositor-appellant. The decision was rendered by the Second Division of the Supreme Court on March 4, 1976, concerning a petition for change of name filed by Mario Pabellar. He was born on November 11, 1937, in Lucena, Tayabas, but no official birth record was presented in evidence. His baptismal certificate, dated May 27, 1938, identifies him as the illegitimate child of Teofila Pabellar, with an unknown father, and lists his name as Mario Pabellar. Throughout his life, however, he has used the name Mario Carandang, which is derived from his natural father, Esteban Carandang, who had a common-law relationship with Teofila Pabellar. Mario lived with his parents in Lucena and consistently used the surname Carandang in various official documents, including school certificates and employment records. On February 28, 1966, he filed a petition to change his surname from Pabellar...

Facts:

1. Background of the Petitioner:

   • Mario Pabellar was born on November 11, 1937, in Lucena, Tayabas.
   • His birth was not registered in the civil register, and no birth certificate was presented as evidence.
   • He was baptized on May 27, 1938, as the illegitimate child of Teofila Pabellar, with an unknown father. His baptismal certificate records his name as Mario Pabellar.

2. Use of the Name "Mario Carandang":

   • The petitioner claimed that his father is Esteban Carandang, who is married to Rufina Marasigan but lived with Teofila Pabellar as a common-law wife.
   • The petitioner has consistently used the name "Mario Carandang" since childhood, as evidenced by:
     • His elementary school certificate (1953).
     • His high school diploma (1958).
     • His ROTC certificate (1960).
     • His employment records with the Manila Railroad Company (1965).
     • His GSIS policy (1965).
     • The birth certificates of his children, where he is listed as "Mario Pabellar Carandang."

3. Petition for Change of Name:

   • On February 28, 1966, the petitioner filed a petition to change his surname from "Pabellar" to "Carandang."
   • The notice of hearing was published in the Quezon Times for three consecutive weeks.
   • The City Fiscal opposed the petition, arguing that the change was unjustified and that, as an illegitimate child, the petitioner had no right to use his father's surname.

4. Deficiencies in the Petition:

   • The petitioner failed to present a birth certificate or any official record proving his name in the civil register.
   • The title of the petition did not include his alias ("Mario Carandang") or the name he sought to adopt.
   • The published order for the hearing did not state the cause for the change of name or the new name sought.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

1. Change of Name Requires Proof of Official Name:

   • A petition for change of name can only be granted if the petitioner proves their official name as recorded in the civil register. The petitioner failed to present a birth certificate or any official record, making his petition baseless.

2. Use of a Name Since Childhood is Allowed:

   • Under Commonwealth Act No. 142, a person may use a name they have been known by since childhood, even if it differs from their official name. The petitioner had already been using "Mario Carandang" for over three decades, rendering the petition unnecessary.

3. Jurisdictional Requirements Must Be Strictly Complied With:

   • A petition for change of name is a proceeding in rem, and jurisdiction is acquired only after proper publication of the order. The title of the petition and the published order must include the applicant's real name, aliases, the cause for the change, and the new name sought. The petitioner's failure to comply with these requirements deprived the lower court of jurisdiction.

4. Illegitimate Children and Surnames:

   • While illegitimate children are generally required to use their mother's surname, the petitioner's consistent use of his father's surname since childhood, with his father's approval, justified his continued use of "Carandang" without the need for a formal change of name.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the petitioner's request for a change of name was unnecessary and lacked legal and factual justification. The lower court's decision was reversed, and no costs were awarded.