Title
IN RE: Padilla vs. Republic
Case
G.R. No. L-28274
Decision Date
Apr 30, 1982
A mother sought to change her legitimate children’s surname to her second husband’s, but the Supreme Court ruled it violated the Civil Code, risking paternity confusion and deeming the petition premature.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-28274)

Facts:

  • Background and Family Situation:
    • Dolores Gemora, married to Vincent Co (a Chinese national) on May 5, 1954, is the petitioner.
    • The couple had five children: Michael, Abigail, Rafael, Gabriel, and Annabelle, originally bearing the surnames "Copuaco" or "Co."
  • Abandonment and Legal Declaration:
    • In November 1960, Vincent Co left the conjugal abode in Caloocan City and has since been absent.
    • Vincent Co was alleged to be a fugitive from justice, having faced charges of estafa in multiple courts.
    • On December 29, 1964, the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, in Special Proceedings No. 1776, officially declared Vincent Co as an absentee.
  • Second Marriage and Change in Family Dynamics:
    • On October 30, 1965, Dolores Gemora contracted a second marriage with Sgt. Edward Padilla, an American serviceman stationed at Clark Air Base, Angeles City.
    • The minor children, while still legitimate offspring of Vincent Co, lived with their mother and developed a close and affectionate relationship with their stepfather, Edward Padilla.
  • Petition for Change of Surname:
    • Motivated by the harmonious relationship with her second husband and an intent to reflect this new familial bond, Dolores Gemora filed a petition to change the minors' surname from "Copuaco" (or "Co") to "Padilla."
    • The lower court (Court of First Instance of Pampanga) granted the petition after due notice and hearing.
  • Appeal and Governmental Opposition:
    • The Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, appealed the decision.
    • The main contention was that the law does not authorize legitimate children to adopt the surname of a man who is not their biological father, as mandated by Article 364 of the Civil Code.

Issues:

  • Whether legitimate minor children are permitted under Philippine law to adopt the surname of their mother's second husband (a non-biological father) instead of the surname of their biological father.
  • Whether changing the surname of the legitimate children to that of the stepfather would lead to confusion or misrepresentation of their paternity and legitimate status.
  • Whether the petition for change of surname was prematurely filed, given that the children might later decide on this matter upon reaching the age of majority.

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.