MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) Second Division, in a Decision promulgated on August 18, 2025, partially reversed the Court of Appeals (CA) and denied the attempt to change a nonmarital child’s surname as an “incidental relief” to a failed adoption petition.
The Court, in a decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, ruled that once a petition for adoption is denied, the application for change of surname, which is merely a necessary consequence of adoption, must also fail. The proper remedy for seeking a name change is a separate judicial proceeding under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court.
Background: Failed Adoption and Contested Surname
The case originated from a petition filed by Stephanie Oteyza Ty (mother) seeking to adopt her son, Brandon Tyler Ty Viña, whose biological father is Denise Ellison M. Viña. Although the parents married shortly after the child’s birth in 2013, their marriage was later declared null and void, rendering Brandon a nonmarital child.
Stephanie initiated the adoption to grant Brandon the rights of a legitimate child. However, the father, Denise, filed an opposition, repudiating his previously signed Affidavit of Consent, claiming he was misled into believing the document was for the child’s legitimation. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the adoption due to the father’s lack of consent, a necessary requisite.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the denial of adoption but surprisingly granted the mother’s prayer for change of name, ordering the child’s surname be changed from “Ty Viña” to “Ty,” citing that nonmarital children generally use the mother’s surname under Article 176 of the Family Code. Denise then elevated the issue to the Supreme Court.
Contingency of Incidental Relief
The Supreme Court found the CA’s grant of the name change to be both procedurally flawed and lacking legal basis. The core doctrine established is that an application for a change of name in adoption cases is an incidental relief contingent upon the main action.
The Court held that since the petition for adoption failed, the right of the adopted child to use the adopter’s surname—a “natural and necessary consequence” of adoption under the Family Code—could not materialize. The Court stressed that “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.”
The SC clarified that if the mother truly desired the change of surname, her proper remedy was to file a distinct special proceeding for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, where the court can properly assess whether there are “proper and compelling reasons” to justify such a change.
Ruling on Filiation and Surname Use
Furthermore, the Court found the CA erred in applying Article 176 of the Family Code. The SC noted that the child was already using the father’s surname (“Viña”), which implies that the father had previously made the required express recognition of filiation. Since Article 176 allows a nonmarital child to use the father’s surname upon such recognition, there was no legal error in the existing surname that warranted a correction. The Court noted that the father vehemently opposed the change and continued to provide financial support, further confirming his intent to acknowledge his relationship with the child.
Ultimately, the SC PARTIALLY REVERSED and SET ASIDE the CA’s decision, specifically voiding the order that granted the change of the child’s surname.
