G.R. No. 207147 - EMELITA BASILIO GAN, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES.RESOLUTION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the RTC ordered the petitioner to make the necessary amendment to her petition to conform to the requirements of Rule 103 of the Rules of Court. [7] The petitioner filed with the RTC an Amended Petition [8] dated August 3, 2010 for change of name. The amended petition contained substantially the same allegations as in the petition for correction of entry in the birth certificate. On August 10, 2010, the RTC set the initial hearing of the petition in a newspaper of general circulation. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), as counsel of the Republic of the Philippines (respondent), filed its notice of appearance. The OSG authorized the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Libmanan, Camarines Sur to appear and assist the OSG in the proceedings before the RTC. [9] On July 19, 2011, after due proceedings; the RTC of Libmanan, Camarines Sur, Branch 29, issued an Order [10] granting the petition for change of name. The RTC, thus, directed the LCR of Libmanan, Camarines Sur to change the petitioner's name in her birth certificate from "Emelita Basilio" to "Emelita Basilio Gan." The RTC opined that, from the evidence presented, the said petition was filed solely to put into order the records of the petitioner and that changing her name in her birth certificate into Emelita Basilio Gan would avoid confusion in her personal records. [11] The respondent sought a reconsideration [12] of the RTC Order dated July 19, 2011, alleging that the petitioner, who is an illegitimate child, failed to adduce evidence that she was duly recognized by her father, which would have allowed her to use the surname of her father. [13] On October 17, 2011, the RTC issued an Order [14] denying the respondent's motion for reconsideration. Ruling of the CA On appeal, the CA, in its Decision [15] dated April 26, 2013, reversed and set aside the RTC Orders dated July 19, 2011 and October 17, 2011. The CA opined that pursuant to Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 9255, [16] the petitioner, as an illegitimate child, may only use the surname of her mother; she may only use the surname of her father if their filiation has been expressly recognized by her father. [17] The CA pointed out that the petitioner has not adduced any evidence showing that her father had recognized her as his illegitimate child and, thus, she may not use the surname of her father. [18] In this petition for review, the petitioner maintains that the RTC correctly granted her petition since she only sought to have her name indicated in her birth certificate changed to avoid confusion as regards to her personal records. [19] She insists that her failure to present evidence that her father recognized her as his illegitimate child is immaterial; a change of name is reasonable and warranted, if it is necessary to avoid confusion. [20] Ruling of the Court The petition is denied. A change of name is a privilege and not a matter of right; a proper and reasonable cause must exi