Case Summary (G.R. No. 216425)
Key Dates
• February 1, 2007 – Petition for change of name filed before RTC.
• April 9 and June 2, 2008 – RTC orders denying petition and motion for reconsideration.
• September 2–3, 2008 – Untimely notice of appeal filed; denied by RTC.
• May 26, 2014 – CA Decision denying petition for certiorari.
• December 15, 2014 – CA Resolution denying motion for reconsideration.
• November 11, 2020 – Supreme Court decision.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article II, Section 14 (fundamental equality of women and men).
• Civil Code, Article 364 (legitimate and legitimated children shall principally use the father’s surname).
• Family Code, Article 174 (legitimate children have the right to bear both parents’ surnames).
• Republic Act No. 7192, Section 2 (state policy to ensure gender equality).
• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
Procedural History
Petitioner sought a special proceeding under Rule 103, invoking Article 364 of the Civil Code. The RTC denied the petition, ruling that “principal” use of the father’s surname excludes exclusive use of the mother’s surname and that mere usage does not justify a name change. Petitioner’s counsel missed the appeal period due to alleged shooting incident. The CA denied relief for failure to show grounds to relax technical rules. Petitioner elevated the matter via Rule 65 certiorari to the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether the CA gravely abused its discretion in denying the petition for certiorari.
- Whether a legitimate child may choose to use the mother’s surname.
- Whether petitioner established valid grounds to change his given and family names.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
Procedural Compliance
The CA did not commit grave abuse of discretion. Counsel’s failure to appeal on time, despite a multi-lawyer office, is binding on petitioner under established jurisprudence. Excusable negligence was not proved; petitioner did not demonstrate that his case was exceptionally meritorious to justify relaxing appeal periods.
Substantive Rights to Surname Choice
The word “principally” in Civil Code Article 364 does not imply exclusivity. A legitimate child has equal entitlement to both parents’ surnames under Family Code Article 174. The State’s constitutional mandate (Art. II, Sec. 14, 1987 Constitution), RA 7192, and CEDAW oblige courts to interpret surname provisions in a manner that ensures gender equality. Prior decisions (e.g., Alfon v. Republic) recognize the right of legitimate children to adopt the mother’s surname.
Grounds for Name Change
Jurisprudence identifies “avoidance of confusion” as a valid ground. Petitio
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 216425)
Facts
- Petitioner Anacleto Ballaho Alanis III was born to Mario Alanis y Cimafranca (father) and Jarmila Imelda Ballaho y Al-Raschid (mother).
- His birth certificate records his name as “Anacleto Ballaho Alanis III.”
- Since childhood, petitioner has used the given name “Abdulhamid” and his mother’s maiden surname “Ballaho” in private and public records.
- His parents separated when he was five; his mother single-handedly raised him and his siblings.
- To demonstrate his consistent use of that name, petitioner presented:
• Yearbook and publication photographs bearing the name “Abdulhamid Ballaho.”
• High school and college diplomas issued in the name “Abdulhamid Ballaho.”
• Student IDs, driver’s license, certificates of participation, and community tax certificates reflecting “Abdulhamid Ballaho.”
Procedural History
- February 1, 2007: Petitioner filed a petition in RTC‐Zamboanga City, Br. 12 for change of name to Abdulhamid Ballaho.
- April 9, 2008: RTC denied the petition for lack of legal grounds, holding that:
• Legitimate children “principally” use the father’s surname under Art. 364, Civil Code.
• Mere long‐term use of a different name does not justify a change of name.
• Correction of other records, not birth certificate, was the proper remedy. - June 2, 2008: RTC denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
- September 2–3, 2008: Petitioner’s belated notice of appeal was filed, invoking counsel’s excusable neglect due to a shooting incident.
- September 16, 2008: RTC denied the appeal as filed out of time.
- May 26, 2014: Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s petition for certiorari, finding no abuse of discretion.
- December 15, 2014: CA denied reconsideration.
- November 11, 2020: SC resolution granting due course to petitioner’s Rule 65 pe