Haw Liong v. Republic of the Philippines 16 SCRA 677 (1966) Bautista Angelo, J.

Facts: Petitioner Haw Liong sought to change his name to Alfonso Lantin. Haw filed the petition before the CFI Leyte, averring that he is 47 years old, married, and has been a resident of Tacloban City for more than 20 years Haw said that he wants to change his name to Alfonso Lantin because he is called by his Filipino friends as Alfonso and the name of his father is Placido Lantin; that he wants to have a Filipino name because he will soon be a Filipino citizen; that there is no pending case against him as Haw Liong; and that in the event a case will arise against him as Haw Liong he is willing to appear and answer the same. After hearing, CFI Leyte allowed Haw Liong to change his name to Alfonso Lantin. The government has appealed. Issue/Held: WON the Haw Liong should be allowed to change name? NO. There is no proper or compelling reason that may justify the change of name desired by Haw Liong. Ratio: The State has an interest in the names borne by individuals for purposes of identification and that a change of name is a privilege and not a matter of right. Thus, before a person can be authorized to change the name given him either in his certificate of birth or civil registry, he must show proper or reasonable cause or any compelling reason which may justify such change. Otherwise, the request should be denied The following may be considered, among others, as proper or reasonable causes that may warrant the grant of a petitioner for change of name: 1) when the name is ridiculous, tainted with dishonor, or is extremely difficult to write or pronounce; 2) when the request for change is a consequence of a change of status, e.g. when a natural child is acknowledged or legitimated; and 3) when the change is necessary to avoid confusion IN THE CASE AT BAR, Haw has not shown any proper or compelling reason that may justify the request for a change of name other than his desire to adopt the name Alfonso for the reason that he has always been known by that name by his Filipino friends and associates and because that is the family name of his father which he desires to follow to conform with the customs and traditions in the Philippines. UNFORTUNATELY for Haw, this claim is merely supported by his own testimony. It cannot overcome the fact that the name given him from the very beginning is Haw Liong as in fact this is the name that appears in his landing certificate. The fact that he claims to be the son of one Placido Lantin, a Filipino, is of no moment. Also, if Haws claim true, isnt it strange that the name that was given him upon birth is Haw Liong even when he is born of a Filipino father? And why would he need to file a petition for naturalization to become a Filipino citizen if he is truly born of a Filipino father? The true situation however is, as was disclosed in his cross examination, that in his business dealings with other people he always signed as Haw Liong and never used the name Alfonso Lantin. He came to be called Alfonso only during the Japanese occupation when his Filipino friends asked him how he was called and he told them that his name was Alfonso. Aside from this fact, it is undisputed that he is known in Tacloban City as Haw Liong and he has not contracted with any person under the name of Alfonso Lantin. Dispositif: Wherefore, the decision appealed from is set aside. The petition (to change name) is hereby denied.

Braza, et al. v. Civil Registrar, et al. 607 SCRA 638 (2009) Carpio-Morales, J. Facts: Petitioner Ma. Cristina and Pablo Braza (aka Pablito Braza,) were married. Their union bore 3 children Pablo died in 2002 in a vehicular accident in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia. During the wake, a certain Lucille began introducing the minor Patrick Titular-Braza as her and Pablo's son Shocked, Ma. Cristina made inquiries, after which she obtained a copy of Patrick's birth certificate from the Local Civil Registrar of Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental Patricks birth certificate bore the following Annotation/Remarks: Acknowledge (sic) by the father Pablito Braza on January 13, 1997"; Legitimated by virtue of subsequent marriage of parents on April 22, 1998 at Manila. Henceforth, the child shall be known as Patrick Alvin Titular Braza Ma. Cristina likewise obtained a copy of a marriage contract of Pablo and Lucille, married April 1998 Thereafter, Ma. Cristina and children filed before RTC Himamaylan a petition to correct the entries in the birth record of Patrick in the Local Civil Register, contending that Patrick could not have been legitimated by the supposed marriage between Lucille and Pablo, said marriage being bigamous on account of the valid and subsisting marriage between Ma. Cristina and Pablo Thus, they prayed for (1) the correction of the entries in Patrick's birth record with respect to his legitimation, the name of the father and his acknowledgment, and the use of the last name "Braza"; 2) a directive to Patricks guardians to submit Patrick to DNA testing to determine his paternity and filiation; and 3) the declaration of nullity of the legitimation of Patrick as stated in his birth certificate and, for this purpose, the declaration of the marriage of Lucille and Pablo as bigamous. Patrick filed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and the RTC dismissed the petition but without prejudice, holding that in a special proceeding for correction of entry, the court, which is not acting as a family court under the Family Code, has no jurisdiction over an action to annul the marriage of Lucille and Pablo, impugn the legitimacy of Patrick, and order Patrick to be subjected to a DNA test. MR having been denied, petitioners filed the present petition for review. Ma. Cristina, et al. maintains that the RTC may pass upon the validity of marriage and questions on legitimacy even in an action to correct entries in the civil registrar. Issue/Held: WON the RTC had jurisdiction over the petition? NO. The dismissed of the petition is proper. Ratio: In a special proceeding for correction of entry under Rule 108, the trial court has no jurisdiction to nullify marriages and rule on legitimacy and filiation. Rule 108 vis a vis Article 412, CC charts the procedure by which an entry in the civil registry may be cancelled or corrected. The proceeding contemplated therein may generally be used only to correct clerical, spelling, typographical and other innocuous errors in the civil registry. A clerical error is one which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding; an error made by a clerk or a transcriber; a mistake in copying or writing, or a harmless change such as a correction of name that is clearly misspelled or of a misstatement of the occupation of the parent. Substantial or contentious alterations may be allowed only in adversarial proceedings, in which all interested parties are impleaded and due process is properly observed IN THE CASE AT BAR, Ma. Cristina, et al.s petition clearly seek to nullify the marriage between Pablo and Lucille on the ground that it is bigamous and impugn Patricks filiation in connection with which they ask the court to order Patrick to be subjected to a DNA test. By no stretch of the imagination can these be merely incidental to what Ma. Cristina claims to be as the main cause of action which is the correction of Patricks birth records. Contrary to Ma. Cristina, et al.s assertions, their cause of action is actually to seek the declaration of Pablo and Lucilles marriage as void for being bigamous and impugn Patricks legitimacy these causes of action are governed not by Rule 108 but by A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC and Art. 171 of the Family Code. THEREFORE, the petition should be filed in a Family Court as expressly provided in said Code. Doctrinally, validity of marriages as well as legitimacy and filiation can be questioned only in a direct action seasonably filed by the proper party, and not through collateral attack such The cases relied upon by Ma. Cristina, et al. are misplaced since the facts involved therein are off tangent with the ones obtaining in this case. Dispositif: the petition is DENIED.