Facts:
Dolores Gemora and Vincent Co
were married in 1954. The union begot 5 children, namely: Michael, Abigail,
Rafael, Gabriel, and Annabelle. In 1960, Vincent left the conjugal home and has
since never returned or visited his family. Because of his continued absence,
Dolores filed a petition declaring Vincent an absentee, which was granted by
the court. In 1965, Dolores contracted a second marriage with Edward
Padilla. The five minor children, who had been living with said spouses,
were generously supported by Padilla and were treated by him with affection as
if they were his own children. This harmonious relation existing between said
minors and their stepfather prompted Dolores Gemora to file the instant
petition for change of the minors' surname from "Copuaco" or
"Co" to "Padilla", which petition was granted by the lower
court.
Issue:
Whether or not the 5 children should be allowed to use the surname of
Padilla
Held:
No. Our laws do not authorize legitimate children to adopt the
surname of a person who is not their father. Said minors are the legitimate
children of Vincent Co; and Article 364 of the Civil Code explicitly provides
that "legitimate children ... shall principally use the surname of their
father."
To allow said minors to adopt the surname of their mother's second
husband, who is not their father, could
result in confusion in their paternity. It could also create the suspicion that said minors, who were born during
the coverture of their mother with her first husband, were in fact sired by
Edward Padilla, thus bringing their legitimate status into discredit.
The case before us is not of first impression. In Moore vs.
Republic, a case involving the same factual melieu, we held
that: Our laws do not authorize a
legitimate child to use the surname of a person who is not his father. Article
364 of the Civil Code specifically provides that legitimate children shall
principally use the surname of their father, and Article 369 of the same Code
provides that in case of annulment of a voidable marriage the children
conceived before the annulment shall principally use the surname of the father,
and considering by analogy the effect of a decree of divorce, it is correctly
concluded that the children who are conceived before such a decree should also
be understood as carrying the surname of the real father.
If a child born out of a lawful wedlock be allowed to bear the surname
of the second husband of the mother, should the first husband die or be
separated by a decree of divorce, there may result a confusion as to his real
paternity. In the long run the change may redound to the prejudice of the child
in the community. While the purpose which may have animated petitioner, the
minor's mother, is plausible and may run along the feeling of cordiality and
spiritual relationship that pervades among the members of the family of her
second husband, there is a legal barrier which cannot at present be overlooked
or brushed aside. ...
Apart from the legal obstacles discussed above, We consider the instant
action taken by petitioner in behalf of her minor children to be premature.
Indeed, the matter of change of their surname should better be left to the
judgment and discretion of the children themselves when they reach the age of
maturity. If in their adulthood they want to change their surname, then they themselves
or any of them may take such appropriate action as the law may permit. Petition dismissed. (In the Matter of the Petition for
Change of Name. Dolores Gemora Padilla, in representation of her minor children
Michael, Abigail, Rafael, Gabriel and Annabelle, all surnamed Copuaco, except
the last whose surname is Co vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-28274 April 30, 1982)
0
Comments
