VOL.

495,JULY20,2006

729

Republic vs. Bolante

*

G.R.No.160597.July20,2006.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.

ROSELIE ELOISA BRINGAS BOLANTE a.k.a. MARIA
ELOISABRINGASBOLANTE,respondent.
Change of Name; Sections 2 and 3, Rule 103 of the Rules of
Court prescribe the procedural and jurisdictional requirements for a
change of name; Noncompliance with these requirements would be
fatal to the jurisdiction of the lower court to hear and determine a
petition for change of name.Sections
_______________
* SECONDDIVISION.

730

730

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republic vs. Bolante

2and3,Rule103oftheRulesofCourtprescribetheproceduraland
jurisdictionalrequirementsforachangeofname.Aswearticulated
in Republic v. Hon. Judge of Branch III of the CFI of Cebu, 132
SCRA 462 (1984), citing pertinent jurisprudence, noncompliance
with these requirements would be fatal to the jurisdiction of the
lowercourttohearanddetermineapetitionforchangeofname.
Same; 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.ItistheRepublicsposturethatthefactthat
the hearing took place on September 25, 2001, beyond the four
monthprohibitedperiod,didnotcurethejurisdictionaldefectsince
notice of the September 25, 2001 setting went unpublished.
Pressingon,theRepublicwouldstateandcorrectlysothatthein
rem nature of a change of name proceeding necessitates strict
compliance with all jurisdictional requirements, particularly on
publication,inordertovestthecourtwithjurisdictionthereover.
Same; It is the publication of such notice that brings in the
whole world as a party in the case and vests the court with
jurisdiction to hear and decide it.The Court, to be sure, is fully
aware that the required publication serves as notice to the whole

world that the proceeding in question has for its object to bar
indifferently all who might be minded to make an objection of any
andagainsttherightsoughttobeestablished.Itisthepublication
ofsuchnoticethatbringsinthewholeworldasapartyinthecase
andveststhecourtwithjurisdictiontohearanddecideit.
Same; Requisites for a Valid Publication.In the context of
Section3,Rule103oftheRules,publicationisvalidifthefollowing
requisites concur: (1) the petition and the copy of the order
indicatingthedateandplaceforthehearingmustbepublished;(2)
the publication must be at least once a week for three successive
weeks; and, (3) the publication must be in some newspaper of
general circulation published in the province, as the court shall
deem best. Another validating ingredient relates to the caveat
againstthepetitionbeingheardwithin30dayspriortoanelection
or within four (4) months after the last publication of the notice of
thehearing.
Same; The State has an interest in the names borne by
individuals for purposes of identification and that changing ones
name is a privilege and not a right; Certain Recognized Justifying
Grounds to Warrant a Change of Name.On the issue as to
proprietyofthedesiredchangeofname,weare
731

VOL.495,JULY20,2006

731

Republic vs. Bolante

guidedbydecisionallawonthematter.Aswehaveheld,theState
has an interest in the names borne by individuals for purposes of
identification,andthatchangingonesnameisaprivilegeandnota
right. Accordingly, a person can be authorized to change his name
appearing in either his certificate of birth or civil registry upon
showing not only of reasonable cause, or any compelling reason
whichmayjustifysuchchange,butalsothathewillbeprejudiced
by the use of his true and official name. Jurisprudence has
recognizedcertainjustifyinggroundstowarrantachangeofname.
Among these are: (a) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or
extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (b) when the change will
avoidconfusion;(c)whenonehasbeencontinuouslyusedandbeen
known since childhood by a Filipino name, and was unaware of
alienparentage;(d)whenthesurnamecausesembarrassmentand
there is no showing that the desired change of name was for a
fraudulentpurposeorthatthechangeofnamewillprejudicepublic
interest.
Same; 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
matterofgrantingordenyingpetitionsforchangeofnameandthe
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. What is involved in special proceedings for
changeofnameis,toborrowfromRepublic v. Court of Appeals,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.

PETITIONforreviewoncertiorariofadecisionoftheCourt
ofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
The Solicitor Generalforpetitioner.
Elmer B. Velascoforprivaterespondent.
732

732

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republic vs. Bolante

GARCIA,J.:
In this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, the Republic of
the Philippines assails and seeks to
1
set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated
October21,2003inCAG.R. CV No. 74398affirmingthatof
theRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)ofBangued,AbrainSpecial
Proceeding Case No. 1916, a petition for change of name
thereat commenced by herein respondent Roselie Eloisa
Bringas Bolante also known as Maria Eloisa Bringas
Bolante.
In her petition before the RTC, respondent alleged,
amongotherthings,thefollowing:
1. ThatsheisaFilipino,oflegalage,married,bornto
spouses Floriano B. Bolante and Paula B. Bringas
andaresidentsincebirthofBangued,Abra;
2. ThatperrecordsintheOfficeoftheMunicipalCivil
Registrar, Bangued, Abra, her registered name is
Roselie Eloisa Bringas Bolantewhichname,as
farasshecanremember,shedidnotusebutinstead
thenameMaria Eloisa Bringas Bolante;
3. That the name Maria Eloisa appears in all her
school as well as in her other public and private
records;and
4. ThathermarriednameisMariaEloisaB.Bolante
Marbella.
Thus, to prevent confusion, Ms. Bolante prayed that her
registerednamebechangedtoconformtothenameshehas
alwayscarriedandused.
Findingthepetitionsufficientinformandsubstance,the
trial court ordered respondent, as petitioner thereat, to
comply with the jurisdictional requirements of notice and
publication,andsetthehearingonFebruary20,2001.
AtthescheduledFebruary20,2001initialhearing,the
trial court issued an Order giving respondent five (5) days
within which to file a written formal offer of evidence to
establishjurisdictionalfactsand

_______________
1PennedbyAssociateJusticeRodrigoV.Cosicoandconcurredinby

Associate Justices Mariano C. del Castillo and Rosalinda Asuncion

Vicente;Rollo,pp.3742.
733

VOL.495,JULY20,2006

733

Republic vs. Bolante

setthepresentationofevidenceproperonMarch26,2001.
IntheafternoonofFebruary20,respondentfiledherOffer
of Evidence for Marking and Identification Purposes to
Prove Jurisdictional Facts.
OnJune5,2001,thebranchclerkofcourt,actingupon
the trial courts express March 26, 2001 directive for a
resetting, issued a notice for a July 18, 2001 hearing.
Following another resetting, what actually would be the
initialhearingwas,afternotice,scheduledonSeptember25,
2001 and actually held. At that session, respondent
presented and marked in evidence several documents
without any objection on the part of herein petitioner
Republic,representedbytheOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral
(OSG), thru the duly deputized provincial prosecutor of
Abra.Amongthedocumentsthussubmittedandmarkedin
evidencewerethefollowing:
Exh.A

ThePetition

Exh.B

TheNoticeofInitialHearing

Exh.C

TheCertificateofPosting

Exh.D

TheAppearanceoftheSolicitorGeneral

Exh.E

TheAuthoritygiventotheOfficeoftheProvincial
Prosecutor

Exh.F

TheAffidavitofPublication

Exh.F
I

TheNewspaperClippings

Exh.G

TheNorluzonianCourier

Exh.H AnothercopyofNorluzonianCourier

Shortly after the trial court has declared its acquisition of

jurisdictionoverthecase,respondenttookthewitnessstand
to state that the purpose of her petition was to have her
registered name changed to that which she had actually
beenusingthrutheyears.Shealsocategoricallystatedshe
had not been accused of any crime under either her
registerednameorherpresentcorrectname.
Anexcerptofotherportionsofhertestimony,asrecited
intheRepublicspetitionwhichcitedthedecisionofthetrial
court:
At the witness stand the petitioner [herein respondent Bolante]
testified,amongothers,thatsheisnowmarriedtoJorgeMarbella,
Jr.andpres
734

734

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republic vs. Bolante

entlyresidingatBlissAngad,Bangued,Abrasince1995butbefore
sheresidedinZone4,Bangued,Abrasincebirth.Shepresentedher
birthcertificateandwasmarkedasExhibitJtoestablishsuchfact
of birth and to effect that the name Roselie Eloisa B. Bolante
enteredthereinisnothertrueandcorrectnamebutinsteadMaria
Eloisa Bolante which she had been using during her school days,
while being a government employee, and in all her public and
privaterecords.
ShepresentedherprofessionallicenseissuedbytheProfessional
Regulation Commission, Certificate issued by the Philippine
Institute of Certified Public Accountant and a Quick Count
document all issued in her name Maria Eloisa B. Marbella, which
documentsweremarkedasExhibitKandExhibitLandExhibit
M respectively. She likewise marked her marriage license as
ExhibitNtoprovehermarriagexxx.
xxxxxxxxx
Oncrossshestatedthatthepurposeoffilingthepetitionisthat,
shewantedtosecureapassportandwantedthatthesamebeissued
in her correct name and that she would not have filed the petition
was(sic)itnotforthepassport.
OnclarificatoryquestionbytheCourtshesaidthatherreasonin
filingthepetitionisherrealizationthattherewillbeacomplication
2
uponherretirement. (Wordsinbracketadded.)

On January 23, 2002, the trial court rendered judgment

grantingthebasicpetition,disposingasfollows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this petition is hereby
approvedandisgrantedbythisCourtforbeingmeritorious.
TheMunicipalRegistrarofBangued,Abra,isherebydirected:
a) Tochangethenameofthepetitionerinherrecordofbirth
from Roselie Eloisa Bringas Bolante to Maria Eloisa
Bringas Bolante;and,
b) To record this decision in the Civil Registry in accordance
withRegistryRegulations.
Furnish copy of this Order to the Municipal Civil Registrar of
Bangued,Abraforrecordingandcompliance.
_______________
2Rollo,pp.1819.

735

VOL.495,JULY20,2006

735

Republic vs. Bolante

3

SOORDERED. (Italicsadded)

In time, the Republic, through the OSG, went to the CA

whereatitsappellaterecoursewasdocketedasCAG.R. CV
No. 74398.
In the herein assailed Decision of October 21,
4
2003, the appellate court affirmed in toto that of the trial
court.

Hence, the Republics present petition on the following

issues:
I
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS SUBSTANTIAL
COMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 3, RULE 103 OF THE RULES OF
COURT IS SUFFICIENT TO VEST THE TRIAL COURT WITH
JURISDICTION TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE PETITION A
QUO.
II
WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS BARE TESTIMONY,
UNSUPPORTED BY ANY OTHER EVIDENCE, IS SUFFICIENT
TO PROVE THAT THE CHANGE OF HER NAME IS NOT
RESORTEDFORILLEGALPURPOSES.

Sections 2 and 3, Rule 103 of the Rules of Court prescribe

theproceduralandjurisdictionalrequirementsforachange
of name. As we articulated in Republic
v. Hon. Judge of
5
Branch III 6of the CFI of Cebu, citing pertinent
jurisprudence, noncompliance with these requirements
wouldbefataltothejurisdictionofthelowercourttohear
anddetermineapetitionforchangeofname.Theprovisions
advertedtoarepertinentlyquotedhereunder:
SEC.2.Contents of petition.A petition for change of name shall
besignedandverifiedbythepersondesiringhisnamechanged,or
someotherpersononhisbehalf,andshallsetforth:
_______________
3Liftedfrompp.1&2oftheCADecision;Rollo,pp.3738.
4SeeNote#1,supra.
5217Phil.442;132SCRA462(1984).
6 In

the Matter of the Change of Name of Hermogenes Diangkina.

Republic v. Reyes, 150A Phil. 962; 45 SCRA 570 (1972); Republic v.

Taada, 149 Phil. 506; 42 SCRA 419 (1971); Ng Yao Siong v. Republic,
L20306,March31,1966,16SCRA483.
736

736

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republic vs. Bolante

(a) That the petitioner has been a bona fide resident of the
province where the petition is filed for at least three (3)
yearspriortothedateofsuchfiling;
(b) The cause for which the change of the petitioners name is
sought;
(c) Thenameaskedfor.
SEC.3.Order for hearing.Ifthepetitionfiledissufficientinform
and substance, the court, by an order reciting the purpose of the
petition,shallfixadateandplaceforthehearingthereof,andshall
direct that a copy of the order be published before the hearing at
leastonceaweekforthree(3)successiveweeksinsomenewspaper
of general circulation published in the province, . . . . The date set

for the hearing shall not be within thirty (30) days prior to an
electionnorwithin four (4) months after the last publication of the
notice.(Italicsadded.)

Onthepostulatethattheinitialhearingofapetitionfora
change of name cannot be set within four (4) months from
thelastpublicationofthenoticeofsuchhearing,petitioner
submitsatthethresholdthatthetrialcourtdidnotacquire
jurisdictionoverthecaseforwantordefectivepublication.
Wearenotpersuaded.
Asgleanedfromtherecords,thebasicpetitionforchange
ofnamewasfiledonOctober18,2000andsetforhearingon
February 20, 2001 via an Order issued on November 13,
2000.ThenoticeofhearingwaspublishedintheNovember
23, and 30, 2000 and December 7, 2000 issues of the
Norluzonian Courier.Countedfromthelastday,December
7, 2000, of publication of the Order, the initial hearing
scheduled on February 20, 2001 is indeed within the four
month prohibited period prescribed under Section 3,
Rule
7
103 of the Rules. The Court, as did the CA, must
emphasize, however, that the trial court, evidently upon
realizing the error committed respecting the 4month
limitation, lost no time in rectifying its mistake by
rescheduling, with due notice to all concerned, the initial
hearingforseveraltimes,finallysettlingforSeptember 25,
2001.
ItistheRepublicsposturethatthefactthatthehearing
took place on September 25, 2001, beyond the fourmonth
prohibitedperiod,did
_______________
7Page2ofCADecision;Rollo,p.38.

737

VOL.495,JULY20,2006

737

Republic vs. Bolante

not cure the jurisdictional defect since notice of the
September25,2001settingwentunpublished.Pressingon,
theRepublicwouldstateandcorrectlysothatthein 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
8
jurisdictionthereover.
The Court, to be sure, is fully aware that the required
publication serves as notice to the whole world that the
proceedinginquestionhasforitsobjecttobarindifferently
all who might be minded to make an objection of any and
against the right sought to be established. It is the
publicationofsuchnoticethatbringsinthewholeworldas
apartyinthecaseandveststhecourtwithjurisdictionto
9
hearanddecideit.
In the context of Section 3, Rule 103 of the Rules,
publicationisvalidifthefollowingrequisitesconcur:(1)the
petition and the copy of the order indicating the date and
placeforthehearingmustbepublished;(2)thepublication

mustbeatleastonceaweekforthreesuccessiveweeks;and,
(3) the publication must be in some newspaper of general
circulation published in the province, as the court shall
deem best. Another validating ingredient relates to the
caveatagainstthepetitionbeingheardwithin30daysprior
to an election or within four (4) months after the last
publicationofthenoticeofthehearing.
It cannot be overemphasized that in a petition for
change of name, any interested person may appear at the
hearing and oppose the petition. Likewise, the Solicitor
General or 10
his deputy shall appear on behalf of the
Government. Thegovernment,asanagencyofthepeople,
represents the public and, therefore, the Solicitor General,
who appears on behalf
of the government, effectively
11
represents the public. In this case, the Solicitor General
deputizedtheprovincial
_______________
8 Republic

v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97906, May 21, 1992, 209

SCRA189.
9 Barco

v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120587, January 20, 2004, 420

SCRA162.
10Rule103,Sec.4.
11AntiChinese

League v. Felix,77Phil.1012(1947),citedinRepublic

v. Tan Keh,G.R.No.144742,November11,2004,442SCRA203.
738

738

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republic vs. Bolante

prosecutorofAbraforthepurposeofappearinginthetrial
onhisbehalf.Asitwere,theprovincialprosecutorofAbra
was fully apprised of the new dates of the initial hearing.
Accordingly,therewasnoactualneedforarepublicationof
theinitialnoticeofthehearing.
Not lost on the Court is the fact that during the
September 25, 2001 initial hearing which, to reiterate is
already outside the 4month limitation prescribed by the
Rules, the provincial prosecutor of Abra interposed no
objection as to the genuineness, authenticity, relevancy or
sufficiency of the exhibits presented to prove the
jurisdictionalrequirementsexactedbytheRules.Inavery
real sense, therefore, the petitioner Republic fully and
knowingly acquiesced in the jurisdiction of the trial court.
The peculiar circumstances obtaining in this case and the
requirementsoffairdealingdemandthatweaccordvalidity
totheproceedingsaquo.
On the issue as to propriety of the desired change of
name,weareguidedbydecisionallawonthematter.Aswe
haveheld,theStatehasaninterestinthenamesborneby
individualsforpurposesofidentification,andthatchanging
ones name is a privilege and not a right. Accordingly, a
personcanbeauthorizedtochangehisnameappearingin
eitherhiscertificateofbirthorcivilregistryuponshowing
not only of reasonable cause, or any compelling reason
which may justify such change, but also that he will be

12

prejudiced by the use of his true and official name.

Jurisprudencehasrecognizedcertainjustifyinggroundsto
warrantachangeofname.Amongtheseare:(a)whenthe
name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to
write or pronounce; (b) when the change will avoid
confusion; (c) when one has been continuously used and
been known since childhood by a Filipino name, and was
unaware of alien parentage; (d) when the surname causes
embarrassment and there is no showing that the desired
change of name was for a fraudulent purpose
or that the
13
changeofnamewillprejudicepublicinterest.
_______________
12In

Re: Petition for Change of Name and/or Correction/Cancellation

of Entry in Civil Registry of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang, G.R. No.

159966,March30,2005,454SCRA155.
13Republic

v. Jose R. Hernandez,323Phil.606;253SCRA509(1996).
739

VOL.495,JULY20,2006

739

Republic vs. Bolante

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
thecourt.Theevidencepresentedneedonlybesatisfactory
14
to the court; it need not be the best evidence available.
Whatisinvolvedinspecialproceedingsforchangeofname
15
is,toborrowfromRepublic v. Court of Appeals, 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.
With the view we take of the case, respondents
submission for a change of name is with proper and
reasonable reason. As it were, she has, since she started
schooling, used the given name and has been known as
Maria Eloisa, albeit the name Roselie Eloisa is written on
herbirthrecord.Herscholasticrecords,aswellasrecordsin
government offices, including that of her drivers license,
professional license as a certified public accountant issued
bytheProfessionalRegulationCommission,andtheQuick
CountdocumentoftheCOMELEC,allattesttoherhaving
usedpracticallyallherlifethenameMaria Eloisa Bringas
Bolante.
The imperatives of avoiding confusion dictate that the
instantpetitionisgranted.Butbeyondpracticalities,simple
justice dictates that every person shall be allowed to avail
himself of any opportunity to improve his social standing,
provided he does so without causing prejudice
or injury to
16
theinterestsoftheStateorofotherpeople.
TheOSGsargumentthatrespondentsbaretestimonyis
insufficienttoshowthattherequestednameisnotsought
for any illegal purpose and/or in avoidance of any

entanglement with the law deserves scant consideration.

Surely,theissuanceofapoliceandNBI
_______________
14 Ching

v. Republic, 98 Phil. 1012 (1956); Oshita v. Republic, G.R.

No.L21180,March31,1967,19SCRA700.
15 Republic

v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97906, May 21, 1992, 209

SCRA189.
16Supranote9.

740

740

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Republic vs. Bolante

clearance or like certification, while perhaps apropos,

cannot,astheOSGsuggests,beaconvincingnormofones
good moral character or compelling evidence to prove that
the change of name is not sought for any evil motive or
fraudulentintent.Respondentsopencourttestimony,given
under pain of perjury and for which she was cross
examined,thatshehadnotbeenaccusedofanycrimeunder
herregisterednameorunderherpresentname(namethat
sheisusing)hadconvincedthetrialcourtofthebona fides
of her request for change of name. As the CA correctly
ratiocinated:
Inthecaseatbar,petitioner[nowrespondent]seekstochangeher
registerednameinordertoavoidconfusionhavingusedadifferent
nameallherlife.Thisisavalidgroundundertheaforementioned
enumeration not to mention that the instant remedy presents the
less cumbersome and most convenient way to set her records
straight.
Anentthecontentionofoppositorappellantthatpetitionerfailed
toprovethatthepetitionisnotresortedtoforanillegalpurposedue
to her inability to present NBI as well as police clearance to the
effect that she has no derogatory records, due perusal of the
requirementsofRule103revealsthatitdoesnotsoprovidesucha
quantum of proof to establish the fact that a petitioner has no
derogatory records. This purpose, we think, is served upon the
declarationandaffirmationofthepetitionerinopencourtthatthe
petitionisnottofurtherfraudbutforalegitimatepurpose,coupled
by the absence of any oppositor to the petition. There is yet no
jurisprudence requiring a petitioner in a petition for a change of
name to present NBI and police clearances to prove that the said
petition is not resorted to for purpose of fraud. Until such time, we
see no urgency to impose the requirements espoused by oppositor
appellant.(Wordinbracketadded.)

At bottom, petitioner Republic has not demonstrated that

theallowanceofthebasicpetitioniswhimsicalorbasedona
considerationotherthantoavoidconfusion.Thetrialcourt
appearstohaveexerciseditsdiscretionjudiciouslywhenit
granted the petition. Like the CA, the Court loathes to
disturbtheactionthustaken.
WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIEDandtheassailed
DecisionoftheCourtofAppealsdatedOctober21,2003is
AFFIRMED.

Nopronouncementastocosts.
741

VOL.495,JULY20,2006

741

G.Q. Garments, Inc. vs. Miranda

SOORDERED.
Puno (Chairperson), SandovalGutierrez, Coronaand
Azcuna, JJ.,concur.
Petition denied, assailed decision affirmed.
Note.Article 176 of the Family Code repealed Title
XIII, Book I of the New Civil Code regarding the Use of
Surnames.(Leonardo vs. Court of Appeals,410 SCRA 446
[2003])
o0o

Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.