Facts:
Cynthia Vicencio filed a petition for change of surname, from “Vicencio” to “Yu”. She alleged that she was born to Spouses Pablo Vicencio and Fe Leabres. After a marital spat, Pablo left the conjugal abode and never returned. The marriage of her parents was later dissolved and her mother dropped the surname Vicencio. Fe thereafter married Ernesto Yu. Since her childhood, she had not known much less remembered her real father Pablo, 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. She consulted her step-father about the petition, and the latter consented to it.
The Solicitor General opposed but 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.
The Solicitor General appealed, arguing that there is no proper and reasonable cause to warrant Cynthia’s change of surname. Such change might even cause confusion and give rise to legal complications due to the fact that her step-father has two (2) children with her mother. In the event of her step-father’s death, it is possible that Cynthia may even claim inheritance rights as a “legitimate” daughter. The Solicitor General opines that Ernesto Yu has no intention of making Cynthia as an heir because the change of family name to Yu could very easily be achieved by adoption, but Ernesto has not opted for such a remedy.
Cynthia Vicencio filed a petition for change of surname, from “Vicencio” to “Yu”. She alleged that she was born to Spouses Pablo Vicencio and Fe Leabres. After a marital spat, Pablo left the conjugal abode and never returned. The marriage of her parents was later dissolved and her mother dropped the surname Vicencio. Fe thereafter married Ernesto Yu. Since her childhood, she had not known much less remembered her real father Pablo, 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. She consulted her step-father about the petition, and the latter consented to it.
The Solicitor General opposed but 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.
The Solicitor General appealed, arguing that there is no proper and reasonable cause to warrant Cynthia’s change of surname. Such change might even cause confusion and give rise to legal complications due to the fact that her step-father has two (2) children with her mother. In the event of her step-father’s death, it is possible that Cynthia may even claim inheritance rights as a “legitimate” daughter. The Solicitor General opines that Ernesto Yu has no intention of making Cynthia as an heir because the change of family name to Yu could very easily be achieved by adoption, but Ernesto has not opted for such a remedy.
Issue:
May Cynthia be allowed to adopt the surname of his step-father?
Held:
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.
Cynthia 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 respondents parentage because of her surname. But even, more confusion with grave legal consequences could arise if we allow private respondent to bear her step-fathers surname, even if she is not legally adopted by him. While previous decisions have allowed children to bear the surname of their respective step-fathers even without the benefit of adoption, these instances should be distinguished from the present case. In Calderon vs. Republic, and Llaneta vs. Agrava, this Court allowed the concerned child to adopt the surname of the step-father, but unlike the situation in the present case where private respondent is a legitimate child, in those cases the children were not of legitimate parentage.
Indeed, 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.
In Padilla vs. Republic, the Court ruled that:
To allow said minors to adopt the surname of their mothers 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-fathers 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 respondents desire to use her stepfathers 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)
Cynthia 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 respondents parentage because of her surname. But even, more confusion with grave legal consequences could arise if we allow private respondent to bear her step-fathers surname, even if she is not legally adopted by him. While previous decisions have allowed children to bear the surname of their respective step-fathers even without the benefit of adoption, these instances should be distinguished from the present case. In Calderon vs. Republic, and Llaneta vs. Agrava, this Court allowed the concerned child to adopt the surname of the step-father, but unlike the situation in the present case where private respondent is a legitimate child, in those cases the children were not of legitimate parentage.
Indeed, 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.
In Padilla vs. Republic, the Court ruled that:
To allow said minors to adopt the surname of their mothers 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-fathers 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 respondents desire to use her stepfathers 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
Post a Comment