G.R. No. 273935

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Petition for Adoption is DENIED . SO ORDERED . (Emphasis in the original) Stephanie's Motion for Reconsideration was also denied by the Regional Trial Court in its October 15, 2021 Order. Aggrieved, Stephanie filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals, which partially granted her petition. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision and Order of the Regional Trial Court, denying the Petition for Adoption on the ground that Denise, the biological father of Brandon, did not give his consent to the adoption. However, the Court of Appeals granted Stephanie's prayer to change Brandon's name from "Brandon Tyler Ty Via" to "Brandon Tyler Ty" on the ground that nonmarital children shall use the surname of their mother pursuant to Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 9255. The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals' Decision reads: WHEREFORE, premises considered, theAppealfiled by petitioner-appellant Stephanie Oteyza Ty on 22 October 2021 under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court is PARTLY GRANTED . TheDecisionandOrderrendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 144, Makati City on 30 June 2021 and 15 October 2021 in Case No. R-MKT-18-05059-SP, denying petitioner-appellant Stephanie Oteyza Ty'sPetition for Adoption, are AFFIRMED. The Local Civil Registrar of Makati City and the Philippine Statistics Authority are ORDERED to cancel Brandon Tyler Ty Via's Certificate of Live Birth with Registry No. 2013-0756, and to issue a new one with his name appearing thereon as "Brandon Tyler Ty." SO ORDERED . (Emphasis in the original) In its May 17, 2024 Resolution, the Court of Appeals denied Denise's Motion for Partial Reconsideration. Hence, this Petition was filed by Denise where he claims that the Court of Appeals erred in partially granting Stephanie's appeal. He argues that the matter of the change of name was not raised as an issue on appeal and should be subject of a separate court proceeding. He adds that the change of surname will not redound to the best interest of the minor. In her Comment, respondent countered that the Court of Appeals did not err in acting upon the change of name since it was an incidental relief sought in the petition for adoption. Furthermore, the Court of Appeals did not err in granting the change of name in the absence of an affidavit to use the surname of the father as required by the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9255 and citing Barcelote v. Republic. The sole issue to be resolved is whether the Court of Appeals erred in granting respondent Stephanie Oteyza Ty's prayer to change the name of her minor child from Brandon Tyler Ty Via to Brandon Tyler Ty. The Petition is meritorious. I The application for change of name is an incidental relief sought in the petition for adoption. Respondent herself emphasizes that "the petition [she] filed before the trial court involves the incidental relief of change of surna