G.R. No. 250520 - Santos vs. Republic

Case Summary (G.R. No. 250520)

Petitioner’s Factual Background

Petitioner was born in Quezon City on January 9, 1992 as “Francis Luigi Guzman.” His mother is Lovely Maria T. Guzman. He alleges biological paternity of Jose Marie Bautista, Jr., also known as Ramon “Bong” Revilla, Jr., who executed an Affidavit of Acknowledgment recognizing petitioner in 1996. Petitioner’s mother later married Patrick Joseph P. Santos (marriage recorded in 1999), and petitioner was legally adopted by Patrick Santos, resulting in the change of his surname to “Santos” for documentary and official purposes. Petitioner contends he was publicly associated with the Revilla family and, after entering show business, used “Luigi Revilla” as a screen name.

Relief Sought and Procedural Posture

Petitioner filed a Rule 103 petition to change his legal surname from “Santos” to “Revilla” in his Certificate of Live Birth, asserting grounds such as avoiding confusion and a sincere desire to associate with his biological father and the Revilla family. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the petition on April 30, 2018; the Court of Appeals (CA), First Division, affirmed by Decision dated August 28, 2019 and Resolution dated November 20, 2019. Petitioner elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via Rule 45.

Applicable Law and Governing Doctrines

Governing provisions and authorities invoked include Article 376 of the Civil Code (name change requires judicial authority), Articles 364–365 (use of surnames), Article 408 and Article 412 (civil registry entries), Rule 103 (change of name), Rule 108 (cancellation or correction of registry entries), R.A. 8552 (Domestic Adoption Act of 1998), R.A. 9048 and R.A. 10172 (administrative correction/change procedures), and pertinent jurisprudence (e.g., Republic v. Hernandez; Republic v. Mercadera; Republic v. Valencia; Republic v. Court of Appeals; Wong; Wang; Yu Chi Han). The Court applied the 1987 Constitution as the operative Constitution for cases decided in or after 1990.

Distinction Between Rule 103 and Rule 108; Administrative Remedies

The Court reiterated the settled distinction: Rule 103 is the special in rem proceeding to change a person’s true or official name as reflected in the civil register and is available when a petitioner seeks to alter the designation by which he is known for public identification; Rule 108 addresses cancellation or correction of entries in the civil register, generally focusing on clerical or substantial corrections to recorded facts and requiring impleading of persons who have or claim interest. R.A. 9048 (as amended by R.A. 10172) moved many clerical/typographical corrections and certain first-name and sex/date errors to an administrative remedy with the civil registrar as primary forum; judicial remedies under Rule 103 or Rule 108 become available only after the administrative petition is filed and denied when the error falls within R.A. 9048/10172 coverage.

Supreme Court’s Procedural Holding: Rule 103 Was Proper

The Supreme Court held that petitioner properly invoked Rule 103. The petition sought an alteration of the surname by which petitioner wished to be publicly known and did not seek correction of a clerical error or a substantive rectification of the civil status entries that would fall under Rule 108 or the administrative remedies of R.A. 9048/10172. The Court emphasized that Rule 103 does not require the impleading of all persons who may have an interest (the impleading requirement appears in Rule 108), and that publication under Rule 103 serves to notify the public and interested parties, permitting opposition and satisfying the in rem nature of the proceedings.

Supreme Court’s Rejection of CA’s Voidness Finding

The Court concluded the CA erred in declaring the proceedings void for failure to implead the adoptive and biological fathers under Rule 108. Rule 103’s procedural scheme does not impose the same party impleading requirements as Rule 108; instead it requires publication and permits any interested person to appear and oppose. Accordingly, the lack of impleading under Rule 108 did not nullify the Rule 103 proceedings.

Merits: Change of Name Is a Privilege Requiring Compelling Reasons

Although petitioner correctly used Rule 103, the Supreme Court agreed with the RTC and CA on the merits: a change of name is a privilege, not a right, and may be granted only upon satisfactory proof of proper and compelling reasons and that the petitioner would be prejudiced by the use of his official name. The Court reiterated the recognized grounds in precedent (e.g., names that are ridiculous or embarrassing; legal consequences of legitimation or adoption; avoidance of confusion; continuous public use since childhood; sincere adoption of a Filipino name to remove signs of alienage; or other compelling reasons absent fraud or prejudice).

Application of Facts to the Merits: No Compelling Reason Found

The Court analyzed the evidence and findings of the RTC (which were binding): petitioner was acknowledged by his biological father in 1996 but never legally used the Revilla surname in official documents; he has been legally adopted by Patrick Santos and has used “Santos” for documentary purposes since adoption; petitioner only began using “Revilla” after entering show business, effectively as a screen name; petitioner admitted that even if he continued to use “Santos” there would be no confusion; and after any name change Patrick Santos would remain the named father in the birth certificate unless adoption were rescinded. On these factual bases, the Court found petitioner failed to prove that a legal change to “Revilla” would avoid confusion or that he would be prejudiced by retaining “Santos.”

Adoption Law and the Surname of the Adoptee

The Court emphasized statutory and jurisprudential principles on adoption: under the Family Code and R.A. 855

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 250520)

Procedural Posture

Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (G.R. No. 250520) filed by Francis Luigi G. Santos (petitioner) assails:
- Court of Appeals (CA), First Division, August 28, 2019 Decision (Assailed Decision) in CA-G.R. CV No. 111884; and
- CA November 20, 2019 Resolution (Assailed Resolution).
The CA affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 225, Quezon City, April 30, 2018 Decision and July 20, 2018 Order in Special Proceedings No. R-QZN-17-04454 denying petitioner’s Rule 103 petition for change of name (from “Francis Luigi G. Santos” to “Francis Luigi G. Revilla”).
Supreme Court resolution dated May 05, 2021 (Authored by Justice Caguioa) resolves issues of procedure and merits raised by petitioner and respondents.

Facts and Antecedent Proceedings

Petitioner born in Quezon City on January 9, 1992 and registered as “Francis Luigi Guzman.”
Biological parents identified in the record as Lovely Maria T. Guzman (mother) and Jose Marie Bautista, Jr. (also named in parts of the rollo as Ramon Bong Revilla, Jr.) (biological father).
Lovely Guzman and Bong Revilla were never married; petitioner’s Certificate of Live Birth did not bear the Revilla surname and father was marked as unknown.
April 24, 1996 — Bong Revilla executed an Affidavit of Acknowledgment recognizing petitioner as his son.
1999 — Lovely Guzman married Patrick Joseph P. Santos; Patrick Santos legally adopted petitioner, and petitioner’s name was changed to “Francis Luigi G. Santos.”
Petitioner lived with his mother but grew up close to Bong Revilla and Revilla family members, and was treated by them as a legitimate son.
Petitioner alleges he used the name “Luigi Revilla” upon entering show business.
Petitioner filed a Rule 103 petition to change his surname from “Santos” to “Revilla” to “avoid confusion,” to demonstrate his association with Bong Revilla and the Revilla family, and to have records reflect his true identity as Bong Revilla’s son.
June 19, 2017 — RTC found the petition sufficient in form and substance and ordered publication, notice to OSG and other offices, and posting in public places.
The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed opposition, arguing absence of compelling reason for the requested change.

RTC Ruling (April 30, 2018)

RTC denied the Rule 103 petition for change of name.
Key RTC findings and reasons:
- Change of name is not a matter of right; it is granted only for compelling reasons.
- Petitioner failed to show valid or justifiable grounds for the requested change.
- Allowing change from “Santos” to “Revilla” would create confusion because petitioner had been legally adopted by Patrick Santos in 2001, and adoption severs legal ties between adoptee and biological parents.
- As an adopted child, petitioner is bound to use the surname “Santos” (citing adoption effects).
- Petitioner never legally used “Revilla” despite 1996 acknowledgment; he used “Santos” for documentary purposes since adoption and only began using “Revilla” upon entering show business; “Luigi Revilla” was characterized as a screen name distinct from his legal name.

Court of Appeals Ruling (Assailed Decision, Aug. 28, 2019)

CA affirmed the RTC decision and held:
- A change of surname would create more confusion regarding petitioner’s status and filiation given prior legal adoption by Patrick Santos.
- The Family Code and Republic Act No. 8552 provide that an adopted child shall bear the surname of the adopting parents.
- Permitting the change sought would involve substantial amendments to the birth certificate and would constitute a change in status from “legitimate” to “illegitimate”; thus, the appropriate remedy should have been an adversarial proceeding under Rule 108 (cancellation/correction of entries).
- Because petitioner failed to implead both biological and adoptive fathers, the CA held the proceedings were void under Section 3, Rule 108 for failure to implead indispensable parties.

Issues Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that Rule 108 (cancellation/correction of entries) rather than Rule 103 (change of name) applies.
Whether the CA erred in denying petitioner’s Rule 103 petition to change surname from “Santos” to “Revilla.”

Petitioner’s Contentions Before the Supreme Court

Petitioner argued that:
- The CA erred in ruling Rule 108 applies and that the failure to implead indispensable parties rendered proceedings void.
- A change of name from “Santos” to “Revilla” may be allowed as an exception to the Civil Code’s mandatory provisions on the use of surnames.

OSG’s Position in Comment

The OSG contended that:
- The CA correctly denied the appeal for petitioner’s failure to comply with requirements under Rule 108.
- Petitioner failed to show proper or reasonable cause to justify the requested change of surname.

Supreme Court Ruling — Summary Disposition

The Supreme Court held:
- The Petition has partial merit.
- Petitioner properly availed himself of a Rule 103 petition; Rule 103, not Rule 108, governed the change-of-name petition.
- Nevertheless, petitioner failed to establish any compelling reason that would justify changing his surname from “Santos” to “Revilla.”
- The change-of-name petition wa