Petition DENIED.

The RTC established the following facts:

P has not shown any compelling ground to drop the middle name.
Being discriminated in Singapore is not enough reason. Julian Lin Carulasan Wang was born in Cebu City on February 20, 1998 to
Only person who can have no middle name are ILC who were not parents Anna Lisa Wang and Sing-Foe Wang who were then not yet married
legitimated. to each other. When his parents subsequently got married on September 22,
1998, ...they executed a deed of legitimation of their son so that the childs
name was changed from Julian Lin Carulasan to Julian Lin Carulasan Wang.
SECOND DIVISION
The parents of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang plan to stay in Singapore for a
long time because they will let him study there together with his sister named
[G.R. No. 159966. March 30, 2005] Wang Mei Jasmine who was born in Singapore. Since in Singapore middle
names or the maiden surname of the mother are not carried in a persons
name, they anticipate that Julian Lin Carulasan Wang will be discriminated
against because of his current registered name which carries a middle name.
IN RE: PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME AND/OR Julian and his sister might also be asking whether they are brother and sister
CORRECTION/CANCELLATION OF ENTRY IN CIVIL since they have different surnames. Carulasan sounds funny in Singapores
REGISTRY OF JULIAN LIN CARULASAN WANG also Mandarin language since they do not have the letter R but if there is, they
known as JULIAN LIN WANG, to be amended/corrected as pronounce it as L. It is for these reasons that the name of Julian Lin
JULIAN LIN WANG, JULIAN LIN WANG, duly represented Carulasan Wang is requested to be changed to Julian Lin Wang.[1]
by his mother ANNA LISA WANG, petitioner, vs. CEBU
CITY CIVIL REGISTRAR, duly represented by the Registrar On 30 April 2003, the RTC rendered a decision denying the
OSCAR B. MOLO, respondent. petition.[2] The trial court found that the reason given for the change of
name sought in the petitionthat is, that petitioner Julian may be
DECISION discriminated against when studies in Singapore because of his
TINGA, J.:
middle namedid not fall within the grounds recognized by law. The
trial court ruled that the change sought is merely for the convenience
of the child. Since the State has an interest in the name of a person,
I will not blot out his name out of the book of life.
names cannot be changed to suit the convenience of the bearers.
Under Article 174 of the Family Code, legitimate children have the
Revelation 3:5 right to bear the surnames of the father and the mother, and there is
no reason why this right should now be taken from petitioner Julian,
On 22 September 2002, petitioner Julian Lin Carulasan Wang, a considering that he is still a minor. The trial court added that when
minor, represented by his mother Anna Lisa Wang, filed a petition petitioner Julian reaches the age of majority, he could then decide
dated 19 September 2002 for change of name and/or whether he will change his name by dropping his middle name.[3]
correction/cancellation of entry in the Civil Registry of Julian Lin
Carulasan Wang. Petitioner sought to drop his middle name and have Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision but
his registered name changed from Julian Lin Carulasan Wang to this was denied in a resolution dated 20 May 2004.[4] The trial court
Julian Lin Wang. maintained that the Singaporean practice of not carrying a middle
name does not justify the dropping of the middle name of a legitimate
The petition was docketed as Special Proceedings Case No. Filipino child who intends to study there. The dropping of the middle
11458 CEB and raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu name would be tantamount to giving due recognition to or application
City, Branch 57. of the laws of Singapore instead of Philippine law which is controlling.
That the change of name would not prejudice public interest or would father, Wang. Even assuming that it is customary in Singapore to drop
not be for a fraudulent purpose would not suffice to grant the petition if the middle name, it has also not been shown that the use of such
the reason for the change of name is itself not reasonable.[5] middle name is actually proscribed by Singaporean law.[13]
Petitioner then filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari (Under We affirm the decision of the trial court. The petition should be
Rule 45)[6] arguing that the trial court has decided a question of denied.
substance not theretofore determined by the Court, that is: whether or
not dropping the middle name of a minor child is contrary to Article The Court has had occasion to express the view that the State
has an interest in the names borne by individuals and entities for
174[7] of the Family Code. Petitioner contends that [W]ith globalization
and mixed marriages, there is a need for the Supreme Court to rule purposes of identification, and that a change of name is a privilege
on the matter of dropping of family name for a child to adjust to his and not a right, so that before a person can be authorized to change
new environment, for consistency and harmony among siblings, his name given him either in his certificate of birth or civil registry, he
taking into consideration the best interest of the child.[8] It is argued must show proper or reasonable cause, or any compelling reason
that convenience of the child is a valid reason for changing the name which may justify such change. Otherwise, the request should be
as long as it will not prejudice the State and others. Petitioner points denied.[14]
out that the middle name Carulasan will cause him undue The touchstone for the grant of a change of name is that there be
embarrassment and the difficulty in writing or pronouncing it will be an proper and reasonable cause for which the change is sought.[15] To
obstacle to his social acceptance and integration in the Singaporean justify a request for change of name, petitioner must show not only
community. Petitioner also alleges that it is error for the trial court to some proper or compelling reason therefore but also that he will be
have denied the petition for change of name until he had reached the prejudiced by the use of his true and official name. Among the
age of majority for him to decide the name to use, contrary to previous grounds for change of name which have been held valid are: (a) when
cases[9] decided by this Court that allowed a minor to petition for the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or
change of name.[10] pronounce; (b) when the change results as a legal consequence, as in
The Court required the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) to legitimation; (c) when the change will avoid confusion; (d) when one
comment on the petition. The OSG filed its Comment[11] positing that has continuously used and been known since childhood by a Filipino
the trial court correctly denied the petition for change of name. The name, and was unaware of alien parentage; (e) a sincere desire to
OSG argues that under Article 174 of the Family Code, legitimate adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of former alienage, all in good
faith and without prejudicing anybody; and (f) when the surname
children have the right to bear the surnames of their father and
mother, and such right cannot be denied by the mere expedient of causes embarrassment and there is no showing that the desired
dropping the same. According to the OSG, there is also no showing change of name was for a fraudulent purpose or that the change of
that the dropping of the middle name Carulasan is in the best interest name would prejudice public interest.[16]
of petitioner, since mere convenience is not sufficient to support a In granting or denying petitions for change of name, the question
petition for change of name and/or cancellation of entry.[12] The OSG of proper and reasonable cause is left to the sound discretion of the
also adds that the petitioner has not shown any compelling reason to court. The evidence presented need only be satisfactory to the court
justify the change of name or the dropping of the middle name, for and not all the best evidence available. What is involved is not a mere
that matter. Petitioners allegation that the continued use of the middle matter of allowance or disallowance of the request, but a judicious
name may result in confusion and difficulty is allegedly more evaluation of the sufficiency and propriety of the justifications
imaginary than real. The OSG reiterates its argument raised before advanced in support thereof, mindful of the consequent results in the
the trial court that the dropping of the childs middle name could only event of its grant and with the sole prerogative for making such
trigger much deeper inquiries regarding the true parentage of determination being lodged in the courts.[17]
petitioner. Hence, while petitioner Julian has a sister named Jasmine
Wei Wang, there is no confusion since both use the surname of their
 The petition before us is unlike other petitions for change of significance. Middle names serve to identify the maternal lineage or
name, as it does not simply seek to change the name of the minor filiation of a person as well as further distinguish him from others who
petitioner and adopt another, but instead seeks to drop the middle may have the same given name and surname as he has.
name altogether. Decided cases in this jurisdiction involving petitions
for change of name usually deal with requests for change of surname. Our laws on the use of surnames state that legitimate and
There are only a handful of cases involving requests for change of the legitimated children shall principally use the surname of the
given name[18] and none on requests for changing or dropping of the father.[20] The Family Code gives legitimate children the right to bear
the surnames of the father and the mother,[21] while illegitimate
middle name. Does the law allow one to drop the middle name from
his registered name? We have to answer in the negative. children shall use the surname of their mother, unless their father
recognizes their filiation, in which case they may bear the fathers
A discussion on the legal significance of a persons name is surname.[22]
relevant at this point. We quote, thus:
Applying these laws, an illegitimate child whose filiation is not
recognized by the father bears only a given name and his mothers
For all practical and legal purposes, a man's name is the designation by
surname, and does not have a middle name. The name of the
which he is known and called in the community in which he lives and is best
unrecognized illegitimate child therefore identifies him as such. It is
known. It is defined as the word or combination of words by which a person
only when the illegitimate child is legitimated by the subsequent
is distinguished from other individuals and, also, as the label or appellation
marriage of his parents or acknowledged by the father in a public
which he bears for the convenience of the world at large addressing him, or
document or private handwritten instrument that he bears both his
in speaking of or dealing with him. Names are used merely as one method of
mothers surname as his middle name and his fathers surname as his
indicating the identity of persons; they are descriptive of persons for
surname, reflecting his status as a legitimated child or an
identification, since, the identity is the essential thing and it has frequently
acknowledged illegitimate child.
been held that, when identity is certain, a variance in, or misspelling of, the
name is immaterial. Accordingly, the registration in the civil registry of the birth of such
individuals requires that the middle name be indicated in the
The names of individuals usually have two parts: the given name or proper certificate. The registered name of a legitimate, legitimated and
name, and the surname or family name. The given or proper name is that recognized illegitimate child thus contains a given or proper name, a
which is given to the individual at birth or baptism, to distinguish him from middle name, and a surname.
other individuals. The name or family name is that which identifies the
Petitioner theorizes that it would be for his best interest to drop
family to which he belongs and is continued from parent to child. The given
his middle name as this would help him to adjust more easily to and
name may be freely selected by the parents for the child; but the surname to
integrate himself into Singaporean society. In support, he cites Oshita
which the child is entitled is fixed by law.
v. Republic[23] and Calderon v. Republic,[24] which, however, are not
apropos both.
A name is said to have the following characteristics: (1) It is absolute,
intended to protect the individual from being confused with others. (2) It is In Oshita, the petitioner therein, a legitimate daughter of a Filipino
obligatory in certain respects, for nobody can be without a name. (3) It is mother, Buena Bartolome, and a Japanese father, Kishimatsu Oshita,
fixed, unchangeable, or immutable, at least at the start, and may be changed sought to change her name from Antonina B. Oshita to Antonina
only for good cause and by judicial proceedings. (4) It is outside the Bartolome. The Court granted her petition based on the following
commerce of man, and, therefore, inalienable and intransmissible by act inter considerations: she had elected Philippine citizenship upon reaching
vivos or mortis causa. (5) It is imprescriptible.[19] the age of majority; her other siblings who had also elected Philippine
citizenship have been using their mothers surname; she was
This citation does not make any reference to middle names, but embarrassed to bear a Japanese surname there still being ill feeling
this does not mean that middle names have no practical or legal against the Japanese due to the last World War; and there was no
showing that the change of name was motivated by a fraudulent their discretion and judgment, fully knowing the effects of their
purpose or that it will prejudice public interest. decision to change their surnames. It can also be unmistakably
observed that the reason for the grant of the petitions for change of
In Calderon, the Court allowed petitioner Gertrudes Josefina del name in these two cases was the presence of reasonable or
Prado, an illegitimate minor child acting through her mother who filed compelling grounds therefore. The Court, in Oshita, recognized the
the petition in her behalf, to change her name to Gertudes Josefina tangible animosity most Filipinos had during that time against the
Calderon, taking the surname of her stepfather, Romeo C. Calderon, Japanese as a result of World War II, in addition to the fact of therein
her mothers husband. The Court held that a petition for change of
petitioners election of Philippine citizenship. In Alfon, the Court
name of an infant should be granted where to do is clearly for the best granted the petition since the petitioner had been known since
interest of the child. The Court took into consideration the opportunity childhood by a name different from her registered name and she had
provided for the minor petitioner to eliminate the stigma of illegitimacy not used her registered name in her school records and voters
which she would carry if she continued to use the surname of her registration records; thus, denying the petition would only result to
illegitimate father. The Court pronounced that justice dictates that confusion.
every person be allowed to avail of any opportunity to improve his
social standing as long as doing so he does not cause prejudice or Calderon, on the other hand, granted the petition for change of
injury to the interests of the State or of other people. name filed by a mother in behalf of her illegitimate minor child.
Petitioner cites this case to buttress his argument that he does not
Petitioner cites Alfon v. Republic,[25] in arguing that although have to reach the age of majority to petition for change of name.
Article 174 of the Family Code gives the legitimate child the right to However, it is manifest in Calderon that the Court, in granting the
use the surnames of the father and the mother, it is not mandatory petition for change of name, gave paramount consideration to the best
such that the child could use only one family name, even the family interests of the minor petitioner therein.
name of the mother. In Alfon, the petitioner therein, the legitimate
daughter of Filomeno Duterte and Estrella Alfon, sought to change her In the case at bar, the only reason advanced by petitioner for the
name from Maria Estrella Veronica Primitiva Duterte (her name as dropping his middle name is convenience. However, how such
registered in the Local Civil Registry) to Estrella S. Alfon (the name change of name would make his integration into Singaporean society
she had been using since childhood, in her school records and in her easier and convenient is not clearly established. That the continued
voters registration). The trial court denied her petition but this Court use of his middle name would cause confusion and difficulty does not
overturned the denial, ruling that while Article 364 of the Civil Code constitute proper and reasonable cause to drop it from his registered
states that she, as a legitimate child, should principally use the complete name.
surname of her father, there is no legal obstacle for her to choose to
use the surname of herm other to which she is entitled. In addition, In addition, petitioner is only a minor. Considering the nebulous
the Court found that there was ample justification to grant her foundation on which his petition for change of name is based, it is best
petition, i.e., to avoid confusion. that the matter of change of his name be left to his judgment and
discretion when he reaches the age of majority.[26] As he is of tender
Weighing petitioners reason of convenience for the change of his age, he may not yet understand and appreciate the value of the
name against the standards set in the cases he cites to support his change of his name and granting of the same at this point may just
contention would show that his justification is amorphous, to say the prejudice him in his rights under our laws.
least, and could not warrant favorable action on his petition.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition for Review
The factual antecedents and unique circumstances of the cited on Certiorari is DENIED.
cases are not at all analogous to the case at bar. The instant case is
clearly distinguishable from the cases of Oshita and Alfon, where the SO ORDERED.
petitioners were already of age when they filed their petitions for Puno, (Chairman), Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Chico-
change of name. Being of age, they are considered to have exercised Nazario, JJ., concur.