Republic vs. Coseteng- Magpayo Case Digest G.R. No. 189476 ; February 2, 2011

Republic vs. Coseteng- Magpayo Case Digest 

G.R. No. 189476 ; February 2, 2011

DOCTRINE/S:

Special Proceedings

a) Valid ground for change of name under Rule 103

(a) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or pronounce;

(b) when the change results as a legal consequence such as legitimation;

(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) a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of former alienage, all in good faith and without prejudicing 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.

b) Rule 103 does not cover change of name involving change of status

"Changes which may affect the civil status from legitimate to illegitimate . . . are substantial and controversial alterations which can only be allowed after appropriate adversary proceedings . . ."

c) Rule 108 the proper remedy for change of name involving change of civil status

When a petition for cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register involves substantial and controversial alterations including those on citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, a strict compliance with the requirements of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is mandated.

d) Venue under Sec. 1 of Rule 108

Petition is filed with the RTC of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located.

e) Parties to be impleaded under Sec. 3 of Rule 108

- civil registrar

- Anyone who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby

e) Two sets of notices to different "potential oppositors" under Sec. 4 & 5 of Rule 108

First notice - given to the "persons named in the petition"

Second (which is through publication) - given to other persons who are not named in the petition but nonetheless may be considered interested or affected parties, such as creditors.

*The two sets of notices are mandated.

Purpose: bind the whole world to the subsequent judgment on the petition.

Effect: The sweep of the decision would cover even parties who should have been impleaded under Section 3, Rule 108 but were inadvertently left out.

FACTS: Respondent Julian Edward Emerson Coseteng Magpayo, son of Fulvio M. Magpayo Jr. and Anna Dominique Marquez-Lim Coseteng, filed a Petition to change his name to Julian Edward Emerson Marquez Lim Coseteng at the RTC. He alleged that his parents were never married but his certificate of live birth shows that his parents contracted marriage. To support his petition, respondent submitted a certification from the NSO stating that his mother "does not appear in [its] National Indices of Marriage”, academic records from elementary up to college showing that he carried the surname "Coseteng" and the birth certificate of his child where "Coseteng" appears as his surname. The RTC granted respondent’s petition and ordered the Civil Registrar to delete respondent’s certificate of live birth the date of marriage of his parents, his father’s name and to change his name to surname Coseteng.

The Republic of the Philippines, thru the OSG, lodged the present petition for review to the Supreme Court on pure question of law. The Republic contends that the deletion of the entry on the date and place of marriage of respondent’s parents from his birth certificate has the effect of changing his civil status from legitimate to illegitimate, hence, any change in civil status of a person must be effected through an appropriate adversary proceeding.

ISSUE/S:

1) WON Rule 103 is the applicable remedy where a change in name involves change in civil status of a person.

2) WON Respondent complied with the jurisdictional requirements provided under Rule 108.

HELD: 

1) NO. The valid ground for change of name under Rule 103 are a) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (b) when the change results as a legal consequence such as legitimation; (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) a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of former alienage, all in good faith and without prejudicing 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. In relation to the case at hand, respondent’s reason for changing his name cannot be considered as one of, or analogous to, recognized grounds.

Furthermore, respondent seeks to change his legitimacy to that of illegitimacy. It affects his legal status. When a petition for cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register involves substantial and controversial alterations including those on citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, a strict compliance with the requirements of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is mandated. Rule 103 would not suffice to grant respondent’s supplication.

2) NO. Rule 108 directs that a petition which concerns one’s civil status should be filed in the civil registry in which the entry is sought to be cancelled or corrected and "all persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected thereby" should be made parties to the proceeding. It also provides that there are two sets of notices to different "potential oppositors." The first notice is that given to the "persons named in the petition" and the second (which is through publication) is that given to other persons who are not named in the petition but nonetheless may be considered interested or affected parties, such as creditors. These two sets of notices are mandated.

In the present case, there is wrong venue and failure to implead the proper parties. There is improper venue since the petition of respondent was not filed in Makati where his birth certificate was registered but in Quezon City. There is failure to implead the proper parties since neither his father nor mother were made parties thereto. No notice was sent to his parents in order to implead them.