Title
IN RE: Tan vs. Republic
Case
G.R. No. L-16384
Decision Date
Apr 26, 1962
A Chinese-born petitioner sought to change his name from Go Chang to Jayme S. Tan, citing confusion and professional needs. The Supreme Court denied the petition, citing jurisdictional defects, lack of evidence, and violation of the Anti-Alias Law.
change of name
citizen
error
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-16384)

Factual Background

Go Chang, described as a citizen of the Republic of Nationalist China who was born in the Philippines, filed a verified petition for change of name to be known as Jayme S. Tan. The petition alleged jurisdictional facts, including age, status, citizenship, residence, place of birth, and the name of parents, and stated that he had been registered with the Local Civil Registrar and the Immigration Bureau under the name Go Chang. It also alleged that he was baptized as Jaime Descals Go Chang, and that from his early schooling through college he had been enrolled under the name Jayme S. Tan, with “Tan” described as the surname of his uncle and the middle initial “S” explained as standing for the surname of his mother, Lim Sy. The petition asserted that his friends knew him as Jayme S. Tan and that he sought the change in good faith to correct an error, not to conceal any unfavorable record.

To comply with the publication requirement, documentary evidence was offered during the hearing, including an affidavit from the Publisher of “La Prensa” and clippings of the order of hearing. The Provincial Fiscal later filed a motion for bill of particulars, which the trial court denied as improper and for delay.

Trial Court Proceedings and Trial Court Ruling

At the hearing, the petitioner testified that when he began schooling at the Colegio de Santa Maria in San Juan, Rizal, he was enrolled under Jayme S. Tan, and that he continuously used that name up to college. He also claimed that he desired the change to avoid confusion and to address discrepancies in his school records and alien certificate of registration, which he alleged caused the Board of Medical Examiners to refuse to issue him a “Medical Number” to be considered a medical student unless he obtained a court order allowing him to use the name Jayme S. Tan. The Provincial Fiscal, representing the Solicitor General, did not file a written opposition but attended the hearing and cross-examined the petitioner.

After trial, the lower court granted the petition on August 29, 1959, finding that the evidence supported the petition’s allegations and that there was no pending obligation with the Government. It further held that the petitioner had never been accused of any offense and that no suit had been filed against him. The trial court found that the petitioner’s purpose was to have Jayme S. Tan as his sole official name, that good faith was shown, and that no confusion of identity would result from using the name. It also reasoned that without judicial authority the petitioner would not be allowed by the Board of Medical Examiners to take the board examinations for physicians. The court explicitly anchored its authority on Rule 103 of the Rules of Court and ordered that the petitioner should use JAIME S. TAN after due registration with the proper Local Civil Registrar.

The Appeal and the Republic’s Arguments

The Republic appealed, anchoring its arguments on two points. First, it claimed that the lower court erred in taking cognizance of the petition because it allegedly failed to acquire jurisdiction due to substantial defects in the petition and in the publication of the order for hearing. Second, it asserted that the lower court erred in granting the petition because the petitioner allegedly failed to adduce any proper and reasonable reason for the change of name.

A central focus of the jurisdictional objection was a discrepancy in the spelling of the petitioner’s name. The petition stated “Jayme S. Tan,” while the published order apparently used “Jaime S. Tan.” The appellate argument treated this as substantial because it purportedly prevented correct identification of the party in the proceedings and thus undermined the strict publication requirement considered essential for proceedings in rem.

Jurisdictional Defect: Publication and Identification

The appellate reasoning stressed that petitions for change of name are proceedings in rem, and that strict compliance with publication requirements is essential because publication is one means by which the court acquires jurisdiction over the res. The appellate position relied on Aida Jacobo vs. Republics (as cited in the text). It was emphasized that the difference in one letter could create a distinction of identity between persons, and that the discrepancy was therefore not merely technical. The Republic’s argument further asserted that the defect was misleading to the courts and prejudicial to the general public because it could make it difficult for persons with adverse interests to oppose the petition.

The Court addressed the possibility that the difference was a minor typographical variation, but it treated the divergence in spelling as capable of affecting identity. It underscored that if the petitioner truly considered the difference a mistake, he should have exerted efforts to correct it.

Lack of Proper and Reasonable Ground for the Name Change

Beyond jurisdiction, the appellate reasoning also attacked the substantive basis for the petition. It found that no reasonable circumstance warranted the change. The petitioner alleged in his petition that he was baptized as Jayme Go Chang and that he had been enrolled under Jayme S. Tan and known by friends with that name. However, the Court considered the baptismal certificate (Exh. D) which showed that his baptismal name was “Jaime Descals Go Chang.” It also found that, aside from the petitioner’s own testimony, no other evidence was introduced to corroborate that he was using and/or known by the name Jayme S. Tan in school or among friends.

As to the petitioner’s claim that the Board of Medical Examiners refused to issue him a “Medical Number” unless he obtained a court order, the Court noted the absence of corroborative evidence. It further treated the Certificate of Enrollment issued by the Southwestern College (Exh. E) as undermining the petitioner’s claim that he had continuously used Jayme S. Tan from Grade I through college, because the certificate referred to a Jaime S. Tan as officially enrolled.

The Court also stated that if the purpose was to correct an error or avoid confusion, the petitioner should have retained the name Go Chang appearing in the Civil Registrar and Bureau of Immigration as the real and official name. It reiterated the rule that a person’s real name is the one given in the Civil Registrar, not the name used in baptism or by which one is known in the community, and cited Chomi vs. Local Civil Registrar of Manila for that proposition.

The Court questioned the practical purpose attributed to the requested change, noting that it appeared unnecessary for the petitioner’s claimed goal because he alleged he needed a court order for a “medical number.” It also observed that, based on the petitioner’s alien status, he could not be admitted to take the Medical Board examinations, making the claimed purpose doubtful.

Finally, the Court found that the

...continue reading

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.

About Privacy Terms