Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1967 > August 1967 Decisions > G.R. No. L-20708 August 31, 1967 - IN RE: FELIMON TSE, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-20708. August 31, 1967.]

IN RE: PETITION TO CHANGE NAME. FELIMON TSE, AND ALICE TSE, thru their guardian ad litem ESMAELA DAWAT, petitioners and appellees, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor and Appellant.

Solicitor General A. A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General A. A. Torres and Atty. P.P. Cordero for Appellant.

Hernan B. de Leon for Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME; SECTION 2, RULE 103, RULES OF COURT, CONSTRUED. — Section 2 of Rule 103 of the Rules of Court provides that a petition for change of name shall be signed and verified "by the person desiring his name changed, or some other person on his behalf." No provision contained in said rule requires that a person desiring to change his name should be of age and that if he is a minor the verification made by him is of no legal effect.

2. ID.; PARENT OF MINOR CHILD MAY FILE PETITION FOR CHANGE OF NAME ON HIS BEHALF. — In accordance with Article 316, paragraph 1 of the new Civil Code, the father and the mother have, with respect to their unemancipated children, the duty to represent them in all actions which redound to their benefit. In the case at bar, the basic petition shows that the same was filed in the name of minor petitioners, assisted by their mother as their guardian ad litem. Whether the latter was or was not actually appointed by the lower court in that capacity seems to be of little consequence, considering that under the legal provision just cited, she may be deemed to have filed the petition jointly with her children or in their behalf.

3. COURTS; JURISDICTION OVER SUBJECT MATTER; DEPENDENT ON NATURE OF ACTION OR PROCEEDING. — The jurisdiction of courts over the subject matter depends upon the nature of the action or proceeding and not upon the capacity or incapacity to sue on the part of one of the parties; neither is it an absolute pre-requisite to jurisdiction over an action by a minor that he sue by guardian ad litem.

4. ID.; ID.; NON-APPOINTMENT OF GUARDIAN AD LITEM, NOT FATAL TO PETITION. — The proceeding for change of name is not deemed void because the petitioners are minors. In the case at bar, it is clear that the lower court was fully cognizant of the fact that their mother appeared jointly with them as their guardian ad litem. This being so, the absence of any positive proof that no order appointing her as such had ever been issued justifies the presumption either that she was actually so appointed or that the lower court inferentially sanctioned her appearance as such.

5. ID.; JUSTIFIABLE REASON FOR CHANGE OF NAME. — On the question of whether or not there is in the present case sufficient reason to justify the change of name, we are clearly of the view that there is. If it is true — as has been established by the evidence - that petitioners had been using the names of Florimon Sia and Alice Sia for school purposes and that their respective school records are under the names aforesaid, that, in our opinion, constitutes a valid ground upon which to authorize the change of their names.


D E C I S I O N


DIZON, J.:


Appeal taken by the Republic of the Philippines from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Leyte in Special Proceedings No. 548-0 allowing Felimon Tse and Alice Tse to change their names to Florimon Sia and Alice Sia, respectively.

On May 26, 1962 Felimon Tse and Alice Tse, thru their guardian ad litem, Ismaela Dawat, filed a petition with the above-named court for a change of their names to Florimon Sia and Alice Sia, respectively, alleging that they are brother and sister, 17 and 16 years old, respectively, that they had been bona fide residents of Ormoc City for more than three years prior to the date of the filing of their petition; that they had been using the names of Florimon Sia and Alice Sia, respectively, since birth and had used such names in school as well as in their social relations; that unless their names are changed to those appearing in their school records, they might encounter difficulties in their pursuit for higher education.

The City Attorney of Ormoc City, on behalf of the Solicitor General, opposed the petition on the ground that the principal reason relied upon in support thereof, namely. that they might encounter difficulties in pursuing higher education if their names are not changed, was not a sufficient cause for a change of name.

After proper publication of the petition and due hearing, the court rendered the appealed judgment.

The facts alleged in the petition have been clearly established by petitioners’ evidence. In fact, raising no factual question at all, the brief submitted by the Solicitor General urges Us to reverse the appealed decision only upon the following grounds: that the lower court erred in entertaining the petition inspite of the fact that it was verified by petitioners themselves who were still minors at the time, and in holding that there is sufficient reason for changing their names.

In connection with the first ground, We find that Section 2 of Rule 103 of the Rules of Court provides that a petition for change of name shall be signed and verified "by the person desiring his name changed, or some other person on his behalf." No provision contained in said rule requires that a person desiring to change his name should be of age and that if he is a minor the verification made by him is of no legal effect.

Moreover, in accordance with Article 316, paragraph 1 of the New Civil Code, the father and the mother have, with respect to their unemancipated children, the duty to represent them in all actions which redound to their benefit. In the present case, the basic petition shows that the same was filed in the name of the minor petitioners assisted by their mother as their guardian ad litem. Whether the latter was or was not actually appointed by the lower court in that capacity seems to be of little consequence considering that under the legal provision just cited she may be deemed to have filed the petition jointly with her children or in their behalf.

Lastly, it may not be amiss to remember that the jurisdiction of courts over the subject matter depends upon the nature of the action or proceeding and not upon the capacity or incapacity to sue on the part of one of the parties; neither is it an absolute pre-requisite to jurisdiction over an action by a minor that he sue by guardian ad litem. The action is not deemed void on such ground alone because if the lack or absence of a guardian ad litem constitutes any defect at all, the same is amendable. In the present case, it is clear that the lower court was fully cognizant of the fact that the mother of the petitioners appeared as their guardian ad litem. This being so, the lack of any positive proof that no order appointing her as such has ever been issued justifies the presumption either that she was actually so appointed or that the lower court inferentially authorized her appearance as such.

On the question of whether or not there is sufficient reason to justify the change of name. We are clearly of the view that there is such reasonable necessity. If it is true — as has been established by the evidence — that petitioners had been using the names of Florimon Sia and Alice Sia for school purposes and that their respective school records are under the names aforesaid, that, in our opinion, constitutes by itself a valid ground upon which to authorize the change of their names. In this connection it must be taken into account that, according to the evidence, the chinese surname Tse is really the same as or equivalent to Sia.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from being in accordance with law and the evidence, the same is hereby affirmed, without costs.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J .B.L., Makalintal, Bengzon, J .P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com



ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. : www.chanroblesprofessionalreview.com
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online : www.chanroblescpareviewonline.com
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man : www.chanroblesbar.com/memoryman





August-1967 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-20218 August 8, 1967 - FORTUNATO HALILI v. MARIA LLORET, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22254 August 8, 1967 - QUIRICO DEL MAR v. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. L-22966 August 10, 1967 - FAUSTO MIPALAR v. JOSE M. SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21542 August 10, 1967 - IN RE: JOSEPH C. GO YANKO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23558 August 10, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELO CONSTANTINO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24103 August 10, 1967 - BEATRIZ G. VDA. DE DIOS v. LEANDRO BALAGOT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23281 August 10, 1967 - BILLY MILLARES v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19531 August 10, 1967 - CLOROX COMPANY v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21311 August 10, 1967 - PELAGIA PUGUID v. CIRILO REYES

  • G.R. No. L-21902 August 10, 1967 - MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24109 August 10, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIA P. DE OCAMPO

  • G.R. No. L-18805 August 14, 1967 - THE BOARD OF LIQUIDATORS v. MAXIMO M. KALAW, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 407 August 15, 1967 - IN RE:JOSE AVANCEÑA

  • G.R. No. L-22029 August 15, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO JARAVATA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22821 August 15, 1967 - ASUNCION CONUI-OMEGA v. CESAR SAMSON

  • G.R. No. L-27017 August 15, 1967 - PACIFICO M. BRAGANZA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22380 August 15, 1967 - FERMIN SARE v. TIMOTEO Y. ASERON

  • G.R. No. L-24114 August 16, 1967 - PEOPLE’S HOMESITE AND HOUSING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. EULOGIO MENCIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22042 August 17, 1967 - DIONISIA GUINGON, ET AL. v. ILLUMINADO DEL MONTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21013 August 17, 1967 - UNIVERSAL CORN PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL. v. RICE AND CORN BOARD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19707 August 17, 1967 - PHILIPPINE ACETYLENE CO., INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22516 August 17, 1967 - LITTON & CO., INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-21806 August 17, 1967 - IN RE: DOMINGO DY OLIVA, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23167 August 17, 1967 - IN RE: GEORGE QUE LIONG SIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-24614 August 17, 1967 - JULIA DE LA MERCED, ET AL. v. ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF MANILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25171 August 17, 1967 - NATIONAL BREWERY & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LABOR UNION (PAFLU) v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21128 August 19, 1967 - IN RE: AO SAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21835 August 19, 1967 - CHIEF OF STAFF, AFP v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24031 August 19, 1967 - AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY v. MACONDRAY & CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22348 August 23, 1967 - GREGORIO RAMOS, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23617 August 26, 1967 - ANGELO KING v. PABLO JOE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24383 August 26, 1967 - EQUITABLE INSURANCE & CASUALTY CO., INC. v. SMITH, BELL & CO., (PHIL.) INC.

  • G.R. No. L-27206 August 26, 1967 - IN RE: ANDRES M. CULANAG v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

  • G.R. No. L-23561 August 28, 1967 - ALFONSO DARAN v. DOMINADOR ANGCO

  • G.R. No. L-20991 August 30, 1967 - RUFINO CIELOS, ET AL. v. BACOLOD MURCIA MILLING CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-21011 August 30, 1967 - ISABEL OCAMPO v. IGNACIO DOMALANTA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21448 August 30, 1967 - POBLETE CONSTRUCTION CO. v. JUDITH ASIAIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22072 August 30, 1967 - ALFONSO BUN RAMOS, ET AL. v. EMILIANO CONDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22260 August 30, 1967 - TEODORICO C. QUIOCHO v. BERNARDO P. ABRERA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26532 August 30, 1967 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • A.C. No. 516 August 30, 1967 - TRANQUILINO O. CALO, JR. v. ESTEBAN DEGAMO

  • G.R. No. L-22301 August 30, 1967 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO M. MAPA

  • G.R. No. L-21501 August 30, 1967 - MANILA CLUB EMPLOYEES UNION v. MANILA CLUB, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21963 August 30, 1967 - NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. ROBERTA RONGAVILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22108 August 30, 1967 - GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL. v. MARCELINO TIZON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24066 August 30, 1967 - DOMESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MANILA RAILROAD COMPANY

  • G.R. No. L-21467 August 30, 1967 - RIO Y COMPANIA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18877 August 31, 1967 - JUAN P. ENRIQUEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22047 August 31, 1967 - MUNICIPALITY OF SAN JUAN v. NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY

  • G.R. No. L-22618 August 31, 1967 - MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23406 August 31, 1967 - IN RE: O KU PHUAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-18778 & L-18779 August 31, 1967 - UNITED SEAMEN’S UNION OF THE PHIL. v. DAVAO SHIPOWNERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24139 August 31, 1967 - COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22536 August 31, 1967 - DOMINGO V. AUSTRIA v. ANTONIO C. MASAQUEL

  • G.R. No. L-20708 August 31, 1967 - IN RE: FELIMON TSE, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20527 August 31, 1967 - VICENTE Y. REALIZA v. GASPAR DUARTE

  • G.R. No. L-22684 August 31, 1967 - PHILIPPINE PHOENIX SURETY & INSURANCE, INC. v. WOODWORKS, INC.

  • G.R. No. L-22810 August 31, 1967 - FIREMEN’S INSURANCE COMPANY v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.