Republic vs Chule Lim

REPUBLIC vs. CHULE Y. LIM

G.R. No. 153883.  January 13, 2004

FACTS:

Chule Y. Lim filed a petition for correction of entries under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court with the Regional Trial Court of Lanao del Norte. She claimed that she was born on 29 October 1954 in Buru-an, Iligan City. Her birth was registered in Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte but the Municipal Civil Registrar of Kauswagan transferred her record of birth to Iligan City. the Court finding the petition sufficient in form and substance ordered the publication of the hearing of the petition.

During the hearing, Lim testifies that:

1. Her surname "Yu" was misspelled as "Yo". She has been using "Yu" in all her school records and in her marriage certificate.She presented a clearance from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to further show the consistency in her use of the surname "Yu".

2. She claims that her father’s name in her birth record was written as "Yo Diu To (Co Tian)" when it should have been "Yu Dio To (Co Tian).

3. Her nationality was entered as Chinese when it should have been Filipino considering that her father and mother never got married. Only her deceased father was Chinese, while her mother is Filipina. She claims that her being a registered voter attests to the fact that she is a Filipino citizen.

4. It was erroneously indicated in her birth certificate that she was a legitimate child when she should have been described as illegitimate considering that her parents were never married. She also presented a certification attested by officials of the local civil registries of Iligan City and Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte that there is no record of marriage between Placida Anto and Yu Dio To from 1948 to the present.

The RTC granted the petition and directed the civil register of Iligan City to make the following corrections in the birth records of Lim:

1. Her family name from "YO" to "YU";

2. Her father’s name from "YO DIU TO (CO TIAN)" to "YU DIOTO (CO TIAN)";

3. Her status from "legitimate" to "illegitimate" by changing "YES" to "NO" in answer to the question "LEGITIMATE?"; and,

4. Her citizenship from "Chinese" to "Filipino".

Petitioner Republic appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial court’s decision. Petitioner claims that Lim never complied with the legal requirement in electing her citizenship. Petitioner also assails the Court of Appeals’ decision in allowing respondent to use her father’s surname despite its finding that she is illegitimate.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not Lim complied with the legal requirement in electing her citizenship

2. Whether the CA erred in allowing Lim to to use her father’s surname despite its finding that she is illegitimate.

HELD:

1. The Republic avers that respondent did not comply with the constitutional requirement of electing Filipino citizenship when she reached the age of majority.  It cites Article IV, Section 1(3) of the 1935 Constitution, which provides that the citizenship of a legitimate child born of a Filipino mother and an alien father followed the citizenship of the father, unless, upon reaching the age of majority, the child elected Philippine citizenship. Likewise, the Republic invokes the provision in Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 625, that legitimate children born of Filipino mothers may elect Philippine citizenship by expressing such intention “in a statement to be signed and sworn to by the party concerned before any officer authorized to administer oaths, and shall be filed with the nearest civil registry.  The said party shall accompany the aforesaid statement with the oath of allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of the Philippines.”

Plainly, the above constitutional and statutory requirements of electing Filipino citizenship apply only to legitimate children. These do not apply in the case of respondent who was concededly an illegitimate child, considering that her Chinese father and Filipino mother were never married.  As such, she was not required to comply with said constitutional and statutory requirements to become a Filipino citizen.  By being an illegitimate child of a Filipino mother, respondent automatically became a Filipino upon birth.  Stated differently, she is a Filipino since birth without having to elect Filipino citizenship when she reached the age of majority.

This notwithstanding, the records show that respondent elected Filipino citizenship when she reached the age of majority.  She registered as a voter in Misamis Oriental when she was 18 years old. The exercise of the right of suffrage and the participation in election exercises constitute a positive act of election of Philippine citizenship.

2. The Republic’s submission is misleading.  The Court of Appeals did not allow respondent to use her father’s surname.  What it did allow was the correction of her father’s misspelled surname which she has been using ever since she can remember.  In this regard, respondent does not need a court pronouncement for her to use her father’s surname.

Firstly, Petitioner-appellee is now 47 years old.  To bar her at this time from using her father’s surname which she has used for four decades without any known objection from anybody, would only sow confusion.  Concededly, one of the reasons allowed for changing one’s name or surname is to avoid confusion.

Secondly, under Sec. 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 142, the law regulating the use of aliases, a person is allowed to use a name “by which he has been known since childhood.”

Thirdly, the Supreme Court has already addressed the same issue.  In Pabellar v. Rep. of the Phils., we held: Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 142, which regulates the use of aliases, allows a person to use a name “by which he has been known since childhood” (Lim Hok Albano v. Republic, 104 Phil. 795; People v. Uy Jui Pio, 102 Phil. 679; Republic v. Tañada, infra). Even legitimate children cannot enjoin the illegitimate children of their father from using his surname (De Valencia v. Rodriguez, 84 Phil. 222).

While judicial authority is required for a change of name or surname, there is no such requirement for the continued use of a surname which a person has already been using since childhood.

The doctrine that disallows such change of name as would give the false impression of family relationship remains valid but only to the extent that the proposed change of name would in great probability cause prejudice or future mischief to the family whose surname it is that is involved or to the community in general. In this case, the Republic has not shown that the Yu family in China would probably be prejudiced or be the object of future mischief.  In respondent’s case, the change in the surname that she has been using for 40 years would even avoid confusion to her community in general.

CA decision is affirmed.