Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
https://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c349c?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09
[IN RE: PETITION FOR USE OF AN ALIAS v. REPUBLIC OF F HE PHILIPPINES](https://lawyerly.ph/juris/view/c349c?user=fbGU2WFpmaitMVEVGZ2lBVW5xZ2RVdz09)
{case:c349c}
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show opinions
Show printable version with highlights
106 Phil. 762

[ G. R. No. L-14022, December 28, 1959 ]

IN RE: PETITION FOR THE USE OF AN ALIAS, YU KHENG CHIAU, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF F HE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLEE.

D E C I S I O N

BARRERA, J.:

This is an appeal taken from the decision  dated March 28,  1958 of the Court of  First Instance oi Manila  (in Civil Case  No.  3S940), denying petitioner's petition for the use of an  alias name.

On  October 7,  1957,  petitioner  filed  in  the  above-mentioned court, a petition for the use of an alias name, to wit:
"PETITION

"COMES NOW  the petitioner, by counsel, and  to  this Honorable court respectfully alleges:

"1. That he is of legal age, Chinese, married, residing at 962-A (Now 1854)  Alvarado Extension, Manila, at which City he has been a bona fide resident since 1925;

"2." That the petitioner's real  name is Yu  Khehg; the word Yu, in the Chinese language, being one and the  same with Yang or Young, and symbolized by the same written character: Yu being the pronounciation in the Amoy dialect; Yang in the Cantonese dialect; and Young, in the Mandarin dialect which is the national language of China;

"3.  That for these reasons the petitioner has also been known as 'Young' or 'Kheng Chiau Young' to his Filipino and foreign friends and business colleagues; and accordingly, in his  business and ordinary transactions, the petitioner has been signing his name as 'Kheng Chiau Young', Kheng C. Young', or simply 'K. C. Young', by which name, written in Occidental fashion, he has come to be better known and identified;

"4. That the signature and name: 'Kheng Chiau Young', or 'Kheng C. Young', is found by the petitioner not  only necessary for better identification, but also more convenient for business  purposes in the Philippines where the occidental way of signing is practiced;

"5. That the  petitioner further  desires  to comply with the strict letter of  Commonwealth Act No. 142.

"WHEREFORE,  it is respectfully prayed  that the petitioner be authorized by this  Honorable Court,  pursuant to law,  to use and employ the alias 'Kheng Chiau Young', as well as any of the Occidental forms thereof, to wit:  'Kheng C. Young' or 'K. C. Young', and sign himself in such manner or  style."
After  due publication of the petition and order of hearing and after receiving evidence, the court on  March  28,. 1958 rendered a decision which,  in part, reads:
"The Court understands the predicament of the  petitioner; but it is not disposed to grant his petition.  It may be true as petitioner says that in China, Young is the same as Yu so that Kheng Chiau Young is the same as Yu Kheng Chiau; but in the Philippines, Yu is not Young,  To grant  the  petition would be to add more confusion. More than that, the Court gathers from  petitioner's evidence that he intends to reside permanently in the Philippines;  the Court takes this from the fact that he has initiated a petition for naturalization; this being the case, it is only proper that he follow the Filipino way of using  only one name; if he believes that it would be better for him to write his  name following the Occidental method, he can easily file a petition for change of name, so that in lieu of the name, Yu Kheng  Chiau" he can,  abandoning the same, ask for authority  to adopt the name 'Kheng Chiau Young.'

"In view whereof, denied."
Petitioner's  motion for reconsideration  of  said decision filed on  April 24, 1958 having been denied,  he appealed to us on May 22, 1958.

Petitioner, in this instance, claims that the lower court erred in denying his petition for the use of an alias name, on the grounds stated in the  decision above-quoted.

We  do not  agree with petitioner.  Section  2 of Commonwealth Act No.  142 provides that "Any person desiring to use an alias or aliases shall apply for authority therefor in proceedings like those legally provided to obtain judicial authority for  a change of name" under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court,  which states in Section 5, as follows:
"SEC. 5. Judgment. Upon satisfactory proof in  open court on the date fixed in the order that  such  order  has been published as directed and that  the allegations of the petition are true, the court shall, if proper  and reasonable cause  appears  for change the name of the petitioner, adjudge that such name be changed in accordance with the prayer  of the petition."  (Italics supplied.)
Under this  provision,  a petitioner  seeking the  change of his name or the use of an alias name, as in the  instant case, must  show to the satisfaction of  the court  "proper and  reasonable" grounds, in  order to  entitle him to the grant of his petition.  An order granting  or denying the petition is a matter of judicial discretion, not of right.[1]
"Such a petitioner is required,  among other things, to state the is no statutory duty resting on the district court to make the order demanded except:

Upon being duly satisfied, by proof in open court, of the truth of the allegations  set forth in the petition, and that there exists proper and  reasonable cause  for changing the  name  of  the petitioner.'

"Proof of proper and reasonable  cause sufficient to  satisfy  the district court is  a condition of the statutory relief.  At common law a man may change his name any time; but in this state, if he desires a  judicial record thereof, he  must adduce  evidence to  satisfy  the court that there is sufficient  and reasonable cause  for the change. In exercising the power  to change names the district court is  not subject to the whims of every petitioner.  *  * *  Under the statute requiring  sufficient and reasonable cause for a change  of  name,  a decree is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. Sufficient and  reasonable cause  for changing  the name of petitioner has  not been  shown."   (In re Taminosien, 97 Neb.  514;  150  N.W.  824; Italics supplied.)
There can hardly be any doubt that petitioner's use of the alias  "Kheng Chiau Young"  in  addition to his real name "Yu Kheng  Chiau" would  add to more  confusion. That  he  is known  in his  business, as  manager  of the Robert  Reid, Inc. by  the former name, is  not. sufficient reason to  allow him its use.   After all, petitioner admitted that he is known to his associates by both names.  In fact, the Anselmo Trinidad, Inc., of which  he is a customer, knows him by  his  real name.  Neither would the fact that he had encountered certain difficulties in his transactions with governments offices, which required him to explain  why he bore two names, justify  the  grant  of his petition, for petitioner could easily avoid  said  difficulties by simply  using  and sticking only to his real name "Yu Kheng Chiau."  

The fact that petitioner intends to reside permanently in the Philippines, as shown by his having filed a petition for  naturalization in Branch V  of the above-mentioned court, argues the more against the grant, of his petition, because  if  naturalized as a Filipino citizen, there  would then be no necessity for his further using said alias, as it would be contrary to the usual Filipino way and practice of using only one name in  ordinary  as  well  as business transactions.  And,  as  the lower court correctly observed, if he believes (after he is naturalized)  that it would be better  for  him to write his name following the Occidental method,  "he can easily file a petition for change of  name, so that  in lieu  of the name 'Yu  Kheng Chiau', he  can, abandoning the  same, ask for authority to adopt the name 'Kheng Chiau Young'".

All things considered,  we  are  of the opinion and so hold, that  petitioner has not  shown satisfactorily proper and  reasonable grounds under the  aforequoted provisions of Commonwealth Act  No. 142 and the  Rules of Court, to warrant the  grant of his  petition for the use of an alias name.

Wherefore, finding no error  in the judgment of the court a quo, we hereby affirm the same, with costs against the petitioner-appellant.   So ordered.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion,  Endencia, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.  



[1] In re Ross, 67 P. 2d  94, 8 Cal. 2d 608, 110 ALR  217;  In re Useldinger, 96 P. 2d. 958, 35 Cal. App. 2d 723; In re Yeserski, 47 Pa Dist. & Co.  259;  Petition of  Rounick, 47 Pa. Dist. & Co. 71; Petition of Winstein, 35 Pa. Dist.  & Co. 227, 65 CJS 20.

tags