Case Summary (G.R. No. 137884)
Relevant Dates and Procedural History
The adoption was judicially ordered on September 9, 1967. Maximo Wong filed for change of name upon reaching the age of 22. The trial court granted his petition for change of name on July 2, 1986. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The Republic filed a petition for review, which was resolved in 1992.
Applicable Law and Legal Issues
The 1987 Philippine Constitution applies as the case decision date is 1992. The pertinent laws include:
- Articles 341 and 365 of the Civil Code, mandating an adopted child to use the adoptive parents' surname.
- Presidential Decree No. 603 (Child and Youth Welfare Code), Article 39(3), affirming the right of an adopted child to use the adopter's surname.
- Executive Orders No. 209 and 227 (the 1988 Family Code), Article 189, recognizing the adopted child as legitimate and entitled to the adopter’s surname.
- Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, governing judicial proceedings for change of name.
The main legal issue is whether the reasons advanced by Maximo Wong for reverting to his original surname constitute valid, sufficient, and proper grounds under the law to justify the change despite the obligations under adoption laws.
Legal Significance of a Name
The Court emphasized that a name serves as a person’s foremost means of identification in the community. It clarified the distinction between a given name (personal name) and a surname (family name), the latter being generally fixed by law. The Court recognized the characteristics of a name as: absolute, obligatory, fixed initially but changeable for good cause via judicial authority, inalienable, and imprescriptible.
Adoption Law and Surname Usage
The law requires that an adopted child initially use the adopter’s surname. This is both a right and an obligation. Change of name is strictly regulated and cannot be undertaken without judicial approval. The law contemplates judicial discretion in granting name changes, in order to prevent fraud and maintain social order.
Change of Name Proceedings
Change of name is a special proceeding in rem, requiring jurisdictional compliance, particularly publication. The change must pertain to the true official name registered in the civil registry and cannot be confused with clerical corrections. Judicial discretion must be exercised judiciously, only granting petitions upon showing of reasonable or proper cause.
Court’s Evaluation of the Facts
The Court found the private respondent’s testimony credible and sufficient to establish valid grounds for the change of name. Maximo Wong testified that the surname Wong embarrassed him in his predominantly Muslim community because it conveyed a Chinese identity, which caused ridicule, social isolation, and business disadvantages. His adoptive mother consented to the change and attested to the social prejudice he suffered.
Jurisprudential Precedents and Principles
The Court relied on established rulings affirming that:
- Name changes must be supported by reasonable cause.
- Change of name petitions allow individuals to improve their personality and social standing.
- Solely personal reasons such as embarrassment and social handicap legitimize a name change if unaccompanied by fraud or prejudice to others or the State.
- The law protects the right of any person, including adopted children, to petition for a change of name under Rule 103.
Balancing Adoption Law With Name Change Requests
While Article 365 mandates that an adopted child bear the adopter’s surname, the Court held that this does not unqualifiedly prohibit a change of name petition. The change of surname is an incident of adoption, not its object. The Court reasoned that judicial approval under Rule 103 functions as an exception to the general rule and ensures individual rights and social realities are considered.
Rebuttal to Solicitor General’s Arguments
The Solicitor General argued that reverting to the natural surname would violate adoption laws and show ingratitude to the adoptive parents, suggesting revocation of adoption instead if the name was to be changed. The Court rejected this position as excessively rigid, noting that the law allows name changes as an exceptional remedy and the petitioner complied with procedural requirements including the consent of the adoptive mother.
Consent of the Adoptive Mother
The adoptive mother’s affidavit and testimony confirmed her voluntary consent to the change, stating the change would not affect the adoption itself or the petitioner’s rights as an heir. This demonstrates that the petitioner’s desire to revert
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 137884)
Facts of the Case
- Private respondent Maximo Wong, originally Maximo Alcala, Jr., was the legitimate son of Maximo Alcala, Sr. and Segundina Y. Alcala.
- At the age of two and a half, Maximo and his sister were adopted by spouses Hoong Wong and Concepcion Ty Wong, both naturalized Filipinos, per court order dated September 9, 1967.
- The Wongs, childless after 15 years of marriage, raised Maximo and his sister with parental love.
- Maximo used the surname "Wong" throughout his youth and studies.
- Upon reaching 22, Maximo, by then married and a junior engineering student, petitioned to change his name back to Maximo Alcala, Jr., his original name.
- He cited embarrassment and social isolation caused by the Chinese surname "Wong" in a predominantly Muslim Filipino community, damage to his business and social life, and alienation from relatives as reasons for the change.
- His adoptive mother gave consent to the petition, emphasizing that the change would not affect the legal adoption.
Procedural History
- The Regional Trial Court in Cotabato City granted Maximo’s petition on July 2, 1986, after finding jurisdictional requirements fulfilled.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision despite opposition by the Republic of the Philippines through the Solicitor General.
- The Republic of the Philippines filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, contesting the validity of the reasons for change of name.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the reasons articulated by Maximo Wong for his change of name are valid, sufficient, and proper.
- Whether the petition violates Articles 341 and 365 of the Civil Code concerning the obligation of an adopted child to bear the adopter’s surname.
- Whether reverting to his original surname is tantamount to severing his legal relationship with his adoptive parents or constitutes ingratitude.
Arguments of the Parties
- Petitioner (Republic of the Philippines/Solicitor General):
- Claims the allegations of ridicule and embarrassment are unsubstantiated.
- Asserts that changing the surname from Wong to Alcala violates Civil Code provisions mandating the use of the adopter’s surname.
- Argues that such change would disrespect the memory of the adoptive father and harm the adoptive mother, despite her expressed consent.
- Posits allowing the change sets a precedent for whimsical petitions undermining the law.
- Private Respondent (Maximo Wong):
- Contends he fulfilled legal obligations by initially using the adopter’s surname.
- Being of age and emancipated, he can now decide for himself.
- Testified that the name "Wong" causes embarrassment, alienation, and economic disadvantage in a Muslim community.
- Presented evidence of his adoptive mother’s consent and participation in the petition.
- Clarified that the change would not affect legal adoption status or rights.
Legal Principles on Names and Surnames
- A person's name is the primary means of identification in the community and carries legal significance.
- Names consist of a given name and a su