22 - Yu v. Republic

PRIL – No.
22
Yu v. Republic (1966)
J. Makalintal
Since a change of name does not alter one’s civil status, legal capacity, or citizenship, Philippine law applies to an
alien who desires to have his name changed. Article 15 of the Civil Code does not apply.
Facts
1. It appears that appellant Joselito Yu, represented by his guardian ad litem Juan Barrera, filed before the Juvenile
and Domestic Relations Court a petition for change of name. He alleged that: (a) he is 13 years old; (b) he is a
Chinese citizen who has been a resident of Manila for more than 3 years prior to the filing of the application; (c) he
has been using the name “Ricardo Sy”; (d) he grew up under the care and custody of Juan Sy Barrera; (e) he is
enrolled in school under the said name; and (f) he was baptized “Ricardo Sy with his real name also stated.”
2. The court a quo motu proprio dismissed the petition on the ground that Rule 103 (for change of name) cannot
be invoked by aliens.
3. Hence this appeal, where appellant contends that the lower court erred: (a) in ruling that an alien cannot avail
himself of the provisions of the rules of court relating to change of name; (b) in concluding that in this jurisdiction
family or personal rights of an alien should be governed by the laws of his country; (c) in concluding that a simple
reason why an alien's name should not be changed by judicial decree in this jurisdiction may be found in the
inability of the local judicial authority to provide for the alien’s change of name in his passport; and (d) in engaging
in judicial legislation beyond its authority when it applied the law on change of name.
Issue
4. Whether Rule 103 applies also to aliens.
Held
5. Yes.
6. The ratio decidendi:
“The Court a quo ruled that since the use of surnames is based on family rights, and since under Article 15
of the Civil Code laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of
persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines even though living abroad, the converse of the
principle must be recognized, that is to say, the same matters in respect of an alien must be governed by
the laws of his own country. The major premise of the proposition may be true in a general sense: one’s
surname is usually that by which not only one as an individual but one's family as well is known. Thus Title
XIII of the Civil Code (Articles 364 to 373) contains provisions for the use of surnames by legitimate,
legitimated, illegitimate, and adopted children, as well as by women who are married, widowed or legally
separated from their husbands. But a change of name as authorized under Rule 103 does not by itself
define, or effect a change in, one’s existing family relations, or in the rights and duties flowing therefrom;
nor does it create new family rights and duties where none before were existing. It does not alter one’s
legal capacity, civil status or citizenship. What is altered is only the name, which is that word or
combination of words by which a person is distinguished from others and which he bears as the label of
appellation for the convenience of the world at large in addressing him, or in speaking of or dealing with
him (38 Am. Jur. 596). The situation is no different whether the person whose name is changed be a
citizen or an alien.”
7. The obiter dictum:
“To be sure, there could be instances where the change applied for may be open to objection by parties
who already bear the surname desired by the applicant, not because he would thereby acquire certain
families with them but because the existence of such ties might be erroneously impressed on the public
mind. But this is precisely the purpose of the judicial application — to determine whether there is proper
and reasonable cause for the change of name. As held by this Court in several cases, in which pertinently
enough the petitioners were aliens, the change is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion, to be
exercised in the light of the reasons adduced and the consequences that will likely follow... In not one of
those cases, however, has it been ruled that an alien is not entitled to file a petition at all.”
8. The order is set aside and the case, remanded.
- P.R. Manalo

22 - Yu v. Republic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

22 - Yu v. Republic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PRIL – No.

4. Whether Rule 103 applies also to aliens.

6. The ratio decidendi:

8. The order is set aside and the case, remanded.

You might also like