December 1963 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1963 > December 1963 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-18047 December 26, 1963 - IN RE: TRINIDAD R. ASENSI v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. :
EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-18047. December 26, 1963.]
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHANGE OF NAME OF TRINIDAD R. ASENSI. TRINIDAD R. ASENSI, represented by her father, GRACIANO ASENSI, Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor.
Nathaniel R. Quiñones for Petitioner-Appellee.
Solicitor General for Oppositor-Appellant.
SYLLABUS
1. CHANGE OF NAME; LEGITIMATED CHILD MAY ADOPT HER PARENTS’ SURNAMES. — A natural child whose parents are later legally married and who was taken into the fold of the family, may adopt her parents’ surnames.
2. ID.; ID.; JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF LEGAL RIGHT. — A petition for change of name of a legitimated child to adopt her parents’ surnames was properly granted by the lower court, and an appeal by the Government on the ground that judicial approval is not necessary is too technical and a waste of time and effort, because there is no legal prohibition against obtaining judicial confirmation of a legal right.
2. ID.; ID.; JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF LEGAL RIGHT. — A petition for change of name of a legitimated child to adopt her parents’ surnames was properly granted by the lower court, and an appeal by the Government on the ground that judicial approval is not necessary is too technical and a waste of time and effort, because there is no legal prohibition against obtaining judicial confirmation of a legal right.
D E C I S I O N
BARRERA, J.:
This is an appeal taken by the Solicitor General in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines against the decision or order of the Court of First Instance of Cebu granting the petition to change the name of petitioner from Trinidad Rodriguez to Trinidad Asensi.
After proper notice and hearing as provided by the Rules of Court in matters of change of name, the trial court found as undisputed that Trinidad Rodriguez is the natural child of Luisa Rodriguez and Graciano Asensi, both of whom at the time of her conception and birth, were single. Later, the two parents were legally married and, according to the father himself who testified at the hearing, took the child Trinidad in the fold of their family. There is no question, therefore, that the minor Trinidad has been duly legitimated.
Because of this legal consequence, the Government’s counsel opposed the petition and now appeals the decision on the sole contention that the judicial change of name is not necessary as the legitimated child can, without judicial approval, adopt her parents’ surnames. (Arts. 272 in relation to Art. 264 of the Civil Code.)
We find the objection of the Republic to be too technical. There is no legal prohibition against obtaining a judicial confirmation of a legal right. It may be a superfluity, but it is not against law, customs, or morals. It does no harm to anybody. No one is prejudiced thereby. We deem this appeal a waste of time and effort.
WHEREFORE, judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed. So ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
After proper notice and hearing as provided by the Rules of Court in matters of change of name, the trial court found as undisputed that Trinidad Rodriguez is the natural child of Luisa Rodriguez and Graciano Asensi, both of whom at the time of her conception and birth, were single. Later, the two parents were legally married and, according to the father himself who testified at the hearing, took the child Trinidad in the fold of their family. There is no question, therefore, that the minor Trinidad has been duly legitimated.
Because of this legal consequence, the Government’s counsel opposed the petition and now appeals the decision on the sole contention that the judicial change of name is not necessary as the legitimated child can, without judicial approval, adopt her parents’ surnames. (Arts. 272 in relation to Art. 264 of the Civil Code.)
We find the objection of the Republic to be too technical. There is no legal prohibition against obtaining a judicial confirmation of a legal right. It may be a superfluity, but it is not against law, customs, or morals. It does no harm to anybody. No one is prejudiced thereby. We deem this appeal a waste of time and effort.
WHEREFORE, judgment of the lower court is hereby affirmed. So ordered.
Bengzon, C.J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.
