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.
No comments:
Post a Comment