Facts:
Cynthia
Vicencio filed a petition for change of surname, from “Vicencio” to “Yu”. Cynthia alleged that she was born on 19 January
1971 in Quezon City, to the spouses Pablo Castro Vicencio and Fe Esperanza de
Vega Leabres. On 10 January 1972, after a marital spat, Pablo Vicencio left their
conjugal abode. Since then, Pablo Vicencio never reappeared nor sent support to his family
and it was Ernesto Yu who had come to the aid of her mother. On 15 April 1986, her
mother and Ernesto Yu got married.
Since her childhood, she had not known much
less remembered her real father Pablo Vicencio, and her known father had been
and still is Ernesto Yu. Despite of which she had been using the family name
“Vicencio” in her school and other activities. In view of such situation,
confusion arose as to her parentage and she had been subjected
to inquiries why she is using Vicencio as her family name, both by her
classmates and their neighbors, causing her extreme embarrassment. On two (2)
occasions when she ran as a beauty contestant in a Lions Club affair and in a
Manila Red Cross pageant, her name was entered as Cynthia L. Yu. Her
step-father had been consulted about the petition and had given his consent
thereto.
The
trial court granted the petition. The decision was affirmed by the Court of
Appeals, which held that it is for the best interest of Cynthia that her
surname be changed.
Issue:
Whether
the change of Cynthia’s surname to that of her step-father’s surname was
proper.
We have recognized inter alia, the
following as sufficient grounds to warrant a change of name: (a) when the name
is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (b)
when the change is a legal consequence of legitimation or adoption; (c) when
the change will avoid confusion; (d) when one has continuously used and been
known since childhood by a Filipino name and was unaware of alien parentage;
(e) when the change is based on a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to
erase signs of former alienage, all in good faith and without prejudice to
anybody; and (f) when the surname causes embarrassment and there is no showing
that the desired change of name was for a fraudulent purpose, or that the
change of name would prejudice public interest.
Private respondent asserts that her case falls
under one of the justifiable grounds aforecited. She says that
confusion has arisen as to her parentage because ever since childhood, Ernesto
Yu has acted as her father, assuming duties of rearing, caring and supporting
her. Since she is known in society as the daughter of Ernesto Yu,
she claims that she has been subjected to inquiries regarding her use of a
different surname, causing her much humiliation and embarrassment.
The Solicitor General however argues that there is
no proper and reasonable cause to warrant private respondent’s change of
surname. Such change might even cause confusion and give rise to
legal complications due to the fact that private respondent’s step-father has
two (2) children with her mother. In the event of her step-father’s
death, it is possible that private respondent may even claim inheritance
rights as a “legitimate” daughter. In his memorandum, the Solicitor
General, opines that “Ernesto Yu has no intention of making Cynthia as an
heir because despite the suggestion made before the petition for change of name
was heard by the trial court that the change of family name to Yu could very
easily be achieved by adoption, he has not opted for such a remedy.
The touchstone for the grant of a change of name is
that there be ‘proper and reasonable cause’ for which
the change is sought.” The assailed decision as affirmed by the appellate
court does not persuade us to depart from the applicability of the general rule
on the use of surnames, specifically the law which requires that legitimate
children shall principally use the surname of their father.
Private respondent Cynthia Vicencio is the
legitimate offspring of Fe Leabres and Pablo Vicencio. As previously stated, a
legitimate child generally bears the surname of his or her father. It
must be stressed that a change of name is a privilege, not a matter of
right, addressed to the sound discretion of the court, which has the duty to
consider carefully the consequences of a change of name and to deny the same
unless weighty reasons are shown.
Confusion indeed might arise with regard to private
respondent’s parentage because of her surname. But even, more
confusion with grave legal consequences could arise if we allow private
respondent to bear her step-father’s surname, even if she is not legally
adopted by him.
Similarly in Padilla vs. Republic, the Court
ruled that:
“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.”
Private
respondent might sincerely wish to be in a position similar to that of
her step-father’s legitimate children, a plausible reason the petition for
change of name was filed in the first place. Moreover, it is
laudable that Ernesto Yu has treated Cynthia as his very own daughter,
providing for all her needs as a father would his own flesh and blood. However,
legal constraints lead us to reject private respondent’s desire to use her
stepfather’s surname.
Further, there is no assurance the end result
would not be even more detrimental to her person, for instead of bringing a
stop to questions, the very change of name, if granted, could trigger much
deeper inquiries regarding her parentage. (Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals and Cynthia Vicencio, G.R. No. 88202. December 14, 1998)
0
Comments
