G.R. No. L-44426 - Carvajal vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioner Kimric Casayuran Tan, originally a natural-born Filipino, is now a British citizen.
His Certificate of Live Birth indicates his surname as “Tan,” yet he has long been known and identified by the name “Kimric Florendo Casayuran.”
His middle name “Florendo” is his mother’s maiden name while “Casayuran” is her surname; these names have been used consistently in his personal and official records.

Kimric asserted that despite what his birth certificate records, he had never used “Tan” and, since childhood, was known in his community by “Kimric Casayuran.”
All school records, his driver’s license, marriage certificate, and even the birth certificate of his daughter reflect the name “Kimric Florendo Casayuran.”
He only discovered the discrepancy—in that his birth certificate stated “Tan”—in 2009 while processing documents at an embassy, prompting him to seek a change of name.
The change was also motivated by personal reasons, namely the desire to dissociate from the surname “Tan” associated with his absent biological father.

Documentary evidence from various institutions such as Woodridge College (student’s permanent record) and the Department of Education-Regional IV-A’s Special Order confirmed his long use of the name “Kimric F. Casayuran.”
His British passport, driver's license, and marriage certificate all bear “Kimric Casayuran” or “Kimric Florendo Casayuran.”
An affidavit by his mother explained that discrepancies—such as the place of birth (Makati in the birth certificate vs. Surigao del Norte in his passports)—resulted from errors made by the preparer of his British passport application.
Additional letters from primary schools in England corroborated his use of the name from a very early age.

The RTC found the petition sufficient in form, issued an Order for notice and publication, and heard the matter.
In its February 18, 2011 Decision, the RTC denied the petition on merit because:

Kimric failed to prove that “Kimric Casayuran” had been his dominant and long-used name, with his earliest use traced only to his early teens.
The evidence presented was deemed insufficient to show that continuing to use “Tan” would cause confusion or undue embarrassment.

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, which included an affidavit from his mother and additional school records, was also denied by the RTC.
The Court of Appeals later affirmed the RTC’s decision on August 17, 2015, agreeing that:

The documents on record—particularly the birth certificate—bound him to the surname “Tan.”
The absence of a compelling or extraordinary reason to diverge from the name as recorded, particularly because petitioner was aware of his “true name.”

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argued that the RTC lacked jurisdiction due to a defect in the required publication (i.e., the published Order did not specify the grounds for the change).
However, both the CA and the higher court later ruled that the OSG, having actively participated in the proceedings (such as through cross-examination), could not now challenge the RTC’s jurisdiction.
The publication, upon scrutiny, was held sufficient because it had appropriately indicated both the name used and the new name sought.

Whether Kimric is entitled to the change of name from “Kimric Casayuran Tan” to “Kimric Florendo Casayuran” based on his long-standing use of the latter.

Whether the petitioner’s evidence—demonstrating consistent use of “Kimric Casayuran” in personal, educational, and official documents—satisfies the requirement for a change of name.
Whether the discrepancy between his birth certificate (which states “Tan”) and other documents (which state “Casayuran”) impacts the credibility of his claim.
Whether the alleged defect in the publication of the RTC Order undermines the court’s jurisdiction, considering the OSG’s objection.
The potential for confusion and administrative burden if the petitioner were compelled to revert to using “Tan,” thereby affecting not only him but also his wife and daughter.

How the change of name may affect public records, familial associations, and state administrative functions in terms of identifying personal identity.