This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2010-12-08 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Rule 103 procedurally governs judicial petitions for change of given name or surname, or both, pursuant to Article 376 of the Civil Code.[16] This rule provides the procedure for an independent special proceeding in court to establish the status of a person involving his relations with others, that is, his legal position in, or with regard to, the rest of the community.[17] In petitions for change of name, a person avails of a remedy to alter the "designation by which he is known and called in the community in which he lives and is best known."[18] When granted, a person's identity and interactions are affected as he bears a new "label or appellation for the convenience of the world at large in addressing him, or in speaking of, or dealing with him."[19] Judicial permission for a change of name aims to prevent fraud and to ensure a record of the change by virtue of a court decree. | |||||
|
2007-10-19 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The procedure for change of name under Rule 103 is a proceeding in rem and as such strict compliance with all jurisdictional requirements, particularly on publication, is essential in order to vest the court with jurisdiction.[13] The reason for this is that a change of name is a matter of public interest.[14] | |||||
|
2007-10-19 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| (3) The change will avoid confusion. Petitioner's basis in praying for the change of his first name was his sex reassignment. He intended to make his first name compatible with the sex he thought he transformed himself into through surgery. However, a change of name does not alter one's legal capacity or civil status.[18] RA 9048 does not sanction a change of first name on the ground of sex reassignment. Rather than avoiding confusion, changing petitioner's first name for his declared purpose may only create grave complications in the civil registry and the public interest. | |||||
|
2006-07-20 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| It is the Republic's posture that the fact that the hearing took place on September 25, 2001, beyond the four-month prohibited period, did not cure the jurisdictional defect since notice of the September 25, 2001 setting went unpublished. Pressing on, the Republic would state - and correctly so - that the in rem nature of a change of name proceeding necessitates strict compliance with all jurisdictional requirements, particularly on publication, in order to vest the court with jurisdiction thereover.[8] | |||||
|
2006-07-20 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| The matter of granting or denying petitions for change of name 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.[14] What is involved in special proceedings for change of name is, to borrow from Republic v. Court of Appeals, [15] "not a mere matter of allowance or disallowance of the petition, but a judicious evaluation of the sufficiency and propriety of the justifications advanced in support thereof, mindful of the consequent results in the event of its grant and with the sole prerogative for making such determination being lodged in the courts." | |||||
|
2005-03-31 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| For all practical and legal purposes, a man's name is the designation by which he is known and called in the community in which he lives and is best known. It is defined as the word or combination of words by which a person is distinguished from other individuals and, also, as the label or appellation which he bears for the convenience of the world at large addressing him, or in speaking of or dealing with him.[8] It is both of personal as well as public interest that every person must have a name. | |||||
|
2005-03-30 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The touchstone for the grant of a change of name is that there be 'proper and reasonable cause' for which the change is sought.[15] To justify a request for change of name, petitioner must show not only some proper or compelling reason therefore but also that he will be prejudiced by the use of his true and official name. Among the grounds for change of name which have been held valid are: (a) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (b) when the change results as a legal consequence, as in 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.[16] | |||||