Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Republic vs. Hon. Jose R. Hernandez
Republic vs. Hon. Jose R. Hernandez
Doctrine:
While it is true that there is no express prohibition against the joinder of a
petition for adoption and for change of name, we do not believe that there
is any relation between these two petitions, nor are they of the same nature
or character, much less do they present any common question of fact or
law, which conjointly would warrant their joinder. In short, these petitions
do not rightly meet the underlying test of conceptual unity demanded to
sanction their joinder under our Rules.
While the right of a natural parent to name the child is recognized,
guaranteed and protected under the law, the so-called right of an adoptive
parent to re-name an adopted child by virtue or as a consequence of
adoption, even for the most noble intentions and moving supplications, is
unheard of in law and consequently cannot be favorably considered.
d. Issue/s
(1) whether or not the court a quo erred in granting the prayer for the
change of the registered proper or given name of the minor adoptee
embodied in the petition for adoption; and
(2) whether the joinder of a petition for adoption and for change of
name was proper
e.Held:
1) YES. The adoptee’s first name must not be changed.
The law allows the adoptee to carry the surname of the adopter as a matter
of right and obligation upon the issuance of the adoption decree. The
adoptee's given or proper name, on the other hand, must remain the same
as it was when he or she was first recorded in the civil registry.
The establishment of an adoptive relationship does not grant the adopter
the right to change the adoptee's first name. The automatic modification
thereof, based solely on the adoption thus granted, is beyond the scope of
an adoption decree.
Changing a person's given or proper name as documented in the civil
register constitutes a significant change in one's official or legal name and
cannot be allowed without a judicial order.
If a name change is desired, it can only be accomplished by filing and
strictly adhering to the substantive and procedural provisions for a special
proceeding for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court,
where the sufficiency of the reasons or grounds for the change can be
threshed out and accordingly decided.
A petition for change of name being a proceeding in rem, strict compliance
with all the requirements therefor is indispensable in order to vest the court
with jurisdiction for its adjudication.
(2)
Although there is no explicit prohibition against the joinder of a petition for
adoption and a petition for change of name, the court ruled that there is no
relationship between these two petitions, nor are they of the same nature or
character, much less raise any common issue of fact or law that would
justify their joinder. According to the SC, said petitions do not rightly meet
the underlying test of conceptual unity demanded to sanction their joinder
under our Rules.
WHEREFORE, on the foregoing premises, the assailed order of
respondent judge is hereby MODIFIED. The legally adopted child of private
respondents shall henceforth be officially known as Kevin Earl Munson y
Andrade unless a change thereof is hereafter effected in accordance with
law. In all other respects, the order is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.