The Petition is meritorious.

I

The application for change of name is an incidental relief sought in the petition for adoption. Respondent herself emphasizes that “the petition [she] filed before the trial court involves the incidental relief of change of surname, should the petition for adoption be granted.”⁴⁴ “Incidental” means – “contingent upon or pertaining to something that is more important; that which is necessary, appertaining to, or depending upon another known as the principal.” Incidental is synonymous with “accessory, accidental, added, additional, allied, associated, attendant.”⁴⁵ (Citation omitted) Naturally so, because under Article 189⁴⁶ of Executive Order No. 209 or the Family Code of the Philippines, a necessary effect of adoption is that the adopted acquires the right to use the surname of the adopter. Further, under Article 365 of the Civil Code⁴⁷ “[a]n adopted child shall bear the surname of the adopter.” Thus, “the change of the surname of the adopted child is more an incident rather than the object of adoption proceedings.”⁴⁸

The law allows the change of the surname of the adopted as a natural and necessary consequence of the adoption granted.⁴⁹ Reversibly, the denial of the petition for adoption forecloses any need to act upon the application for change of name, the same being only contingent upon the main action and deriving its jurisdictional support therefrom. Hence, the Court of Appeals erred in proceeding to grant the change of name despite its affirmance of the denial of the petition for adoption.

In this instance, the proper remedy for respondent is to file a petition for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court. The official name of a person whose birth is registered in the civil register is the name appearing therein. If a change in one’s name is desired, this can only be done by filing and strictly complying with the substantive and procedural requirements for a special proceeding for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, wherein the sufficiency of the reasons or grounds therefor can be threshed out and accordingly determined.⁵⁰ It must be stressed, however, that the grant of a change of name is conditioned upon strict compliance with all jurisdictional requirements and proof of proper and compelling reasons supporting the change requested. As held in Republic v. Hernandez:⁵¹

[A] petition for change of name being a proceeding in rem, impressed as it is with public interest, strict compliance with all the requisites therefor in order to vest the court with jurisdiction is essential, and failure therein renders the proceedings a nullity.

 

It must likewise be stressed once again that a change of name is a privilege not a matter of right, addressed to the sound discretion of the court which has the duty to consider carefully the consequences of a change of name and to deny the same unless weighty reasons are shown. Before a person can be authorized to change his name, that is, his true or official name or that which appears in his birth certificate or is entered in the civil register, he must show proper and reasonable cause or any convincing reason which may justify such change.

 

Jurisprudence has recognized, inter alia, the following grounds as being sufficient to warrant a change of name: (a) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (b) when the change results as a legal consequence of legitimation or adoption; (c) when the change will avoid confusion; (d) when one has continuously used and been known since childhood by a Filipino name and was unaware of alien parentage; (e) when the change is based on a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of former alienage, all in good faith and without prejudice to anybody; and (f) 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.⁵² (Citations omitted)

II

The Court of Appeals’ approval of the change of name is not only procedurally flawed but also lacked legal basis.

Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 9255, provides guidance on the use of surname by a nonmarital child: Article 176. Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of their mother, and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this Code. However, illegitimate children may use the surname of their father if their filiation has been expressly recognized by the father through the record of birth appearing in the civil register, or when an admission in a public document or private handwritten instrument is made by the father. Provided, the father has the right to institute an action before the regular courts to prove non-filiation during his lifetime. The legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of one-half of the legitime of a legitimate child. In granting respondent’s prayer to change Brandon’s name from “Brandon Tyler Ty Viña” as appearing on his certificate of live birth to “Brandon Tyler Ty,” the Court of Appeals merely cited Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended, without any discussion on how the cited provision applied to Brandon.

The Court of Appeals seemed to have ignored the second sentence of Article 176, which permits nonmarital children to use the surname of their father provided that the father expressly recognized their filiation through the record of birth appearing in the civil register, or through an admission in a public document or private handwritten instrument made by the father. There was no mention that petitioner did not recognize his filiation with Brandon for the Court of Appeals to grant the prayer for change of name.

Respondent herself stated in her appeal before the Court of Appeals that Brandon was a nonmarital child, being born before she got married to petitioner.⁵³ As a nonmarital child at the time he was born, Brandon should have used the surname of his mother pursuant to Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended. However, the fact that Brandon was able to use the surname of his father means that petitioner expressly recognized his filiation with Brandon.

That petitioner recognized his filiation with Brandon is strengthened by the fact that petitioner vehemently opposed respondent’s petition for adoption with an application for Brandon’s change of name. Respondent also never alleged that petitioner did not recognize his filiation with Brandon. The records reveal that Brandon was aware that petitioner was his father.⁵⁴ Petitioner also provided financial support for Brandon and was allowed to visit and spend time with his child.⁵⁵

Considering that Article 176 of the Family Code allows nonmarital children to use the surname of their father, provided that the father made an express recognition of their filiation, then there would have been no reason for the Court of Appeals to have granted respondent’s prayer for her minor child’s change of name.

Respondent’s contention regarding the absence of an affidavit to use the surname of the father as required by the Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9255⁵⁶ is misplaced. The Rules⁵⁷ apply to nonmarital children whose births were unregistered or previously registered under the surname of the mother. Here, the child’s birth certificate is already registered under the surname of the father, and it is the mother who now wants to change the surname of her child after her marriage with the father was nullified.

Likewise, Barcelote v. Republic⁵⁸ invoked by respondent is not squarely on point with this case. There, the Court upheld the cancellation of the birth certificates of the two nonmarital children because they were registered by the biological father, without the participation or consent of the mother, in violation of Act No. 3753 requiring the signature of the mother in her children’s birth certificates. No such fact appears in this case.

ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is GRANTED. The September 13, 2023 Decision and the May 17, 2024 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 117879 are PARTLY REVERSED and SET ASIDE, insofar as they granted the change of name from “Brandon Tyler Ty Viña” to “Brandon Tyler Ty.”

SO ORDERED.