UP Law F2021 112 Republic v Coseteng-Magpayo

Special Proceedings ROC 103 Sec. 2, ROC 108 Secs. 1, 3-4 2011 CARPIO MORALES, J.

SUMMARY
Son claiming to be illegitimate files petition in QC to change his surname. His records are in Makati and both
parents were not impleaded as parties. RTC QC granted the change but SC held that this was grave abuse of
discretion because the required procedures under Rule 108 (this being considered an adversarial
proceeding) were not complied with.

FACTS
 Born in Makati on September 9, 1972, Julian Edward Emerson Coseteng Magpayo (respondent) is the
son of Fulvio M. Magpayo Jr. and Anna Dominique Marquez-Lim Coseteng who were married on
March 26, 1972
 Julian, however, claiming his parents were never legally married filed on July 22, 2008 at RTC Quezon
City a petition to change his name to from Julian Edward Emerson Coseteng Magpayo to Julian
Edward Marquez-Lim Coseteng.
o In support of his petition, he submitted a certification from NSO stating that his mother does not
appear in its National Indices of Marriage.
o He also submitted academic records showing that he carried the name “Coseteng.”
o The birth certificate of his child where “Coseteng” also appeared as the surname
o In 1998, 2001, and 2004 Elections, he ran and won as councilor of 3rd district of QC using the
name “Julian M.L. Coseteng.”
 On order of RTC, he amended his petition by alleging compliance with the 3 year residency requirement
under Sec. 2 Rule 103 of ROC.
 Notice setting the petition for hearing was published in the newspaper for 3 consecutive weeks and OSG
was furnished a copy of the notice
 RTC Quezon City granted the petition and ordered the Makati City Civil Registrar to:
o Delete the entry for “Date and Place of Marriage of Parties”
o Change Last Name from “Magpayo” to “Coseteng”
o Delete “Coseteng” in the space for middle name
o Delete the Father’s name
 Republic filed an MR but it was denied thus the petition for review was filed with the SC on pure
questions of law. Republic argues:
o That the change of name involved a change of status from legitimate to illegitimate thus should be
made through adversarial proceedings

RATIO
W/N Julian’s action was simply a change of name and falls under ROC 103 or was a change in status
and falls under ROC 108 – [change in status under ROC 108]
 Under Rule 103, a person can effect a change of name using valid and meritorious grounds:
o when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or pronounce;
o when the change results as a legal consequence such as legitimation;
o when the change will avoid confusion;
o when one has continuously used and been known since childhood by a Filipino name, and was
unaware of alien parentage;
o a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of former alienage, all in good faith and
without prejudicing anybody; and
o when the surname causes embarrassment and there is no showing that the desired change of name
was for a fraudulent purpose or that the change of name would prejudice public interest.
 Julian’s reason for the change of name in this case cannot be considered as one of, or analogous to,
recognized grounds
 SC differentiates this case from Alfon v RP:
o In Alfon, the Court allowed petitioner to use the name she had been known since childhood to
avoid confusion. Alfon did NOT deny her legitimacy.
 o HOWEVER in the present case, Julian denies his legitimacy. It goes so far as to affect his legal
status in relation to his parents. Rule 103 would not suffice.
 Labayo-Rowe-Republic: “changes which may affect the civil status from legitimate to illegitimate . . . are
substantial and controversial alterations which can only be allowed after appropriate adversary
proceedings ...”
o Since Julian’s desired change affects his civil status, Rule 108 applies.
 Applying Rule 108, it would seem that not only was the petition not filed in Makati (because it was with
RTC QC), but that neither the civil registrar of Makati, his father, nor mother were made parties thereto.
 Julian: change of name was effected through an adversarial proceeding
o SC: The procedures recited in Rule 103 regarding change of name and in Rule 108 concerning the
cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry are separate and distinct. They may not be
substituted one for the other for the sole purpose of expediency.
 Republic v. Labrador: "a petition for a substantial correction or change of entries in the civil registry
should have as respondents the civil registrar, as well as all other persons who have or claim to have any
interest that would be affected thereby."
o The change of status of a child in relation to his parents is a substantial correction or change
of entry in the civil registry.
o All persons who may be affected by the change should be notified or represented. The truth is best
ascertained under an adversary system of justice.
o That the notice of hearing of the petition was published in a newspaper of general circulation and
notice served upon the State will not change the nature of the proceedings taken.
o If Rule 108 were to be extended beyond innocuous or harmless changes or corrections of errors
which are visible to the eye or obvious to the understanding, so as to comprehend substantial and
controversial alterations [concerning citizenship, legitimacy of paternity or filiation, or legitimacy
of marriage], without observing the proper proceedings, said rule would become an
unconstitutional exercise which would tend to increase or modify substantive rights
 Secs. 4 and 5 of Rule 108 mandates 2 sets of notices to different potential oppositors:
o The first notice is that given to the "persons named in the petition" and
o the second (which is through publication) is that given to other persons who are not named in the
petition but nonetheless may be considered interested or affected parties, such as creditors
o Reason: doubt may always be cast as to whether a petitioner under Rule 108 would know of all
the parties whose interests may be affected by the granting of a petition (Barco v CA)
o HOWEVER, non-impleading of one who is inadvertently left out or is not established to be known
by the petitioner to be affected by the grant is notified through publication
 In fine, when a petition for cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register involves
substantial and controversial alterations including those on citizenship, legitimacy of paternity
or filiation, or legitimacy of marriage, a strict compliance with the requirements of Rule 108 is
mandated.

FALLO: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated August 11, 2010 and the Resolution dated
October 5, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 82318 are AFFIRMED. The case is REMANDED to
the trial court for proper disposition. SO ORDERED.