G.R. No. 48762 - Republic vs. Zosa

On February 10, 1977, respondent Lee King Sing, a naturalized Filipino citizen, filed a petition for change of name with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Samar.
The petitioner, born on January 3, 1934, sought to change his name to ANTONIO C. LEE to adopt a more Filipino nomenclature, as he was familiarly known as Antonio or Tony among friends and associates.
The petition cited that "Lee" in his original name was rendered following the Chinese custom (surname written first) and he desired to follow the Filipino custom by placing his new first name first.

The petition, docketed as Special Proceeding No. 5634, contained a detailed statement of the petitioner’s personal background, naturalization details (including Certificate of Naturalization No. 007217 issued on December 20, 1976 pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1055), and his expressed desire for a change of name.
An order setting the petition for hearing was issued on February 15, 1977 and the notice was published in the Leyte Forum on February 22, March 1, and March 3, 1977.

On March 18, 1977, the Solicitor General, representing the Republic of the Philippines, filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the petition’s title did not include the name sought to be adopted by the petitioner, nor the other names by which he was known.
The petitioner (respondent in the appeal) filed an opposition to the motion for dismissal on December 10, 1977.
On March 8, 1978, the lower court denied the motion to dismiss, permitting the petition to proceed.

After trial and full hearing, the Court of First Instance rendered an order on July 20, 1978 granting the petition for change of name, thereby instructing the civil registrar of Samar to register the new name.
The Republic of the Philippines subsequently appealed the lower court’s decision, contending that the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to the substantive defect in the title of the petition and in the publication of the notice of hearing.

Whether the failure to include the name sought to be adopted and the petitioner’s other appellations in the title or caption of the petition and the published order nullifies the acquisition of jurisdiction by the court.

Whether the omission of critical information in the notice publications, specifically the desired new name and the aliases by which the petitioner is known, defeats the purpose of due publication required for a change of name proceeding.
Whether such defects in the petition and the published order prevent an ordinary reader from being adequately informed of the identity of the applicant, thereby undermining the statutory intent of the publication requirement.

Whether the lower court’s decision to grant the petition for change of name can be sustained notwithstanding the defects in the petition’s title and the published notice.