SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. L-32779 May 25, 1979

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. HON. FLORENDO P. AQUINO, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija and JOHN LI KAN WA Respondents.chanrobles virtual law library

DE CASTRO, J.:

This is a petition for review of the decision dated September 9, 1970 of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, Cabanatuan City, granting the petition of John Li Kan Wa for change of name.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Records disclose that John Li Kan Wa filed a petition for change of his name to John Sotto, alleging (a) change of his status from Chinese to Filipino as a result of his election of Filipino Citizenship; and (b) the previous confusion resulting from being registered as John Li Kan Wa and using a different name since childhood which is John Sotto. Finding the petition sufficient in substance, the court issued an order giving notice to all interested parties to appear before the court and state their objections, and directed that the order be published in the Monday Post, a newspaper of general circulation in the province of Nueva Ecija and Cabanatuan City. The Republic filed an opposition to the petition.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

After due hearing, the court granted the petition for change of name; hence, the instant petition for review, filed by the Republic, thru the Solicitor General, presenting the following for resolution:

(a) Whether or not respondent judge had acquired jurisdiction to hear the petition filed by John Li Kan Wa.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

(b) Whether or not respondent Li Kan Wa has presented a proper and reasonable cause for the change of name.

We find merit in the petition. Under Section 2, Rule 103 of the New Rules of Court, the petition for change shall set forth inter alia, the name asked for. The requirement is mandatory and compliance therewith is essential, for it is by such means that the court acquires jurisdiction. It was held in Republic vs. Reyes, ¹ that failure to include the name sought to be adopted in the title of the petition, and consequently in the notices published in newspapers is a substantial jurisdictional infirmity. As enunciated in Go Chill Beng vs. Republic, ² for publication to be effective, it must give a correct information. To inform, the publication should recite, among others, the following facts: (a) the name or names of applicant; (b) the cause for which the change of name is sought; and (c) the new name asked for.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

In Ng Yao Siong vs. Republic, ³the rationale of the requirement to include in the title of the petition the name sought to be adopted was expressly made clear, thus:

... Notices in the newspaper, like the one under consideration, usually appears in the back pages. The reader as is to be expected, merely glances at the title of the petition. It is only after he has satisfied himself that the title interests him that he proceeds to read down further. The probability that the portion heretofore quoted will escape the reader's notice. The purpose of which the publication is made, that is, to inform, may thus be served.

It appears from respondent's exhibits 3-A and 3-B that only the name Li Kan Wa was given in the title, and the name John Sotto was not mentioned. Omission in the title of the petition of the name asked for is fatal, and the court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case. Non-compliance with the rules did not vest the court with authority to act on the petition and therefore, the questioned decision is null and void.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

In view of the conclusion reached, there is no further need to pass upon the other issue as to whether or not respondent presented a reasonable or compelling cause for change of name.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

WHEREFORE, the decision dated September 9, 1970 is hereby annulled and set aside and without prejudice to the amendment of the petition, and further proper proceedings thereafter as prescribed by law.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

No costs.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

SO ORDERED.

Endnotes:

1 L-29850, June 30, l972, 45SCRA570.chanrobles virtual law library

2 L-29574, August 18, 1972, 46 SCRA 617.chanrobles virtual law library

3 L-20306 March 31, 1966, 16 SCRA 483.