SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS | Alanis v. CA, G.R. No. 216425, Nov. 11, 2020
Alanis v. CA,
G.R. No. 216425, Nov. 11, 2020
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
The matter ofgranting or denying petitions for change ofname and the corollary issue of what is a proper and reasonable cause therefor rests on the sound discretion of the court. The evidence presented need only be satisfactory to the court; it need not be the best evidence available.
FACTS
Petitioner filed a Petition .before the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City, Branch 12, to change his name. He alleged that he was born to Mario Alanis y Cimafranca and Jarmila Imelda Ballaho y Al- Raschid,7 and that the name on his birth certificate .was "Anacleto ·Ballaho Alanis III. However, he wished to remove his father's surname "Alanis III," and instead use his mother's maiden name "Ballaho," as it was what he has been using since childhood and indicated in his school records. He likewise wished to change his first name from "Anacleto" to "Abdulhamid" for the same reasons.
Regional Trial Court denied the Petition, holding that petitioner failed to prove any ofthe grounds to warrant a change of_name. It noted that the mere fact that petitioner has been using a different name and has become known by it is not a valid ground for change of name. It also held that to allow him to drop his last name was to disregard the surname of his natural and legitimate father, in violation of the Family Code and Civil Code, which provide that legitimate children shall principally use their fathers' sumames. The Regional Trial Court acknowledged that confusion could exist here, but found that granting his petition would create more confusion. Thus, the trial court concluded that, instead of seeking to change his name in his birth certificate, petitioner should have had the other private and public records corrected to conform to his true and correct name.
Petitioner has been using the name Abdulhamid Ballaho in all his records and transactions. He is also known to and called by his family and friends by such name. He has never used the name Anacleto Ballaho Alanis III even once in his life. To have the petitioner suddenly use the name Anacleto Ballaho Alanis III would cause undue embarrassment to thepetitionersincehehasneverbeenknownbysuchname. Petitionerhas shown not only some proper or compelling reason but also that he will be prejudiced by the use of his true and official name. A mere correction of his private and public records to conform to the name stated in his Certificate of Live Birth would create more confusion because petitioner has been using the name Abdulhamid Ballaho since emollment in grade school until finishing his law degree. The purpose of the law in allowing change of name as contemplated by the provisions of Rule 103 of the Rules of Court is to give a person an opportunity to improve his personality and to provide his best interest[.] There is therefore ample justification to grant fully his petition, which is not whimsical but on the contrary is based on a solid and reasonable ground, i.e. to avoid confusioin.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner has established a recognized ground for changing his name.
RULING
There is no question that reading Article 364 of the Civil Code together with the State's declared policy to ensure the fundamental equality of women and men before the law, a legitimate child is entitled to use the surname of either parent as a last name. Now to the issue at bar. Having resolved the question of whether a legitimate child is entitled to use their mother's surname as their own, this Court proceeds to the question of changing petitioner's first name from "Anacleto" to “Abdulhamid."
Whether grounds exist to change one's name is a matter generally left to the trial court's discretion.The Regional Trial Court correctly cited the instances recognized under jurisprudence as sufficient to warrant a change of name, namely: ... (a) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (b) when the change results as 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.
Here, the Regional Trial Court itself also recognized the confusion that may arise here. Despite this, it did not delve into the issue of changing "Anacleto" to "Abdulhamid," but instead concluded that granting the petition would create even more confusion, because it "could trigger much deeper inquiries regarding [his] parentage and/or paternity[.]” This Court fails to see how the change of name would create more confusion. Whether people inquire deeper into petitioner's parentage or paternity because of a name is inconsequential here, and seems to be more a matter of intrigue and gossip than an issue for courts to consider. Regardless of which name petitioner uses, his father's identity still appears in his birth certificate, where it will always be written, and which can be referred to in cases where paternity is relevant. Aside from being unduly restrictive and highly speculative, the trial court's reasoning is also contrary to the spirit and mandate of the Convention, the Constitution, and Republic Act No. 7192, which all require that the State take the appropriate measures to ensure the fundamental equality ofwomen and men before the law.
