G.R. No. 160597 - Republic vs. Bolante

The respondent, Roselie Eloisa Bringas Bolante, also known as Maria Eloisa Bringas Bolante, filed a petition for change of name with the RTC of Bangued, Abra.
She alleged that, although her registered name in the Municipal Civil Registrar is Roselie Eloisa Bringas Bolante, she had always used the name Maria Eloisa Bringas Bolante in school, government, and private records.
She stated that her married name is Maria Eloisa B. Bolante-Marbella and that the change is sought to prevent confusion and ensure consistency in her personal records.

The petition was filed on October 18, 2000 and was initially set for hearing on February 20, 2001 after an order was issued on November 13, 2000 directing compliance with notice and publication requirements under Section 3, Rule 103 of the Rules of Court.
The notice of the initial hearing was published in the Norluzonian Courier on November 23, November 30, and December 7, 2000.
A formal offer of evidence was filed by the respondent on the same day as the initial hearing to establish jurisdictional facts.

Due to the issue of the hearing date falling within the four-month period after the last publication, the trial court rescheduled the hearing multiple times.

An initial notice set the hearing on February 20, 2001 despite the publication limitation.
The court then issued a notice for a July 18, 2001 hearing, and further reset the initial hearing to September 25, 2001.

During the September 25, 2001 session, the respondent presented several documents and offered witness testimony to support her claim.

Exhibits included the petition, notices, certificates of posting, a copy of the appearance of the Solicitor General, affidavits of publication, newspaper clippings, and additional supporting documents.
The respondent testified that she had used the name Maria Eloisa throughout her schooling, employment, and in all public and private records, and that she had no criminal record under either name.

On January 23, 2002, the RTC rendered a judgment granting the petition which ordered the Municipal Civil Registrar of Bangued, Abra to change her name from Roselie Eloisa Bringas Bolante to Maria Eloisa Bringas Bolante.
The appeal was taken by the Republic, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, which argued that the jurisdictional defect related to publication notification had not been cured, and that respondent’s testimony was insufficient to prove that the name change was not for illegal or fraudulent purposes.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision on October 21, 2003 with findings that the subsequent correction of the scheduling error and the acquiescence of the prosecutor in the hearing implied jurisdiction was properly established.

Whether respondent’s substantial compliance with Section 3, Rule 103 of the Rules of Court—despite the hearing initially falling within the prohibited four-month period—was sufficient to vest the trial court with jurisdiction to hear the petition.
Whether the trial court’s subsequent actions to reschedule the hearing with proper notice and the absence of objection by the Republic’s counsel constituted waiver of the defect.

Whether the respondent’s bare testimony, unsupported by additional evidence such as a police or NBI clearance, was sufficient to prove that the change of name was not being pursued for an illegal purpose or to avoid criminal entanglements.
The proper standard for evidence in a petition for change of name under the requirements of Rule 103, Sec. 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.