February 2, 2007
Ponente: Corona, J.
FACTS
Trinidad Capote is the legal guardian of Giovanni N. Gallamaso. In 1998, she filed a petition for the change of name under Rule 103 of her then 16-year-old ward to Giovanni Nadores. Note that Giovanni is an illegitimate child born in 1982 to his mother Corazon Nadores, and father Diosdado Gallamaso, who never recognized nor supported him. The petition to change Giovanni's name to adopt the surname of his mother is to facilitate the processing of his visa to US where his mother was residing.
RTC granted the petition. OSG appealed the case to CA, arguing that the proceedings at the RTC were never adversarial as they should have been, considering the non-joinder of indispensable parties. CA affirmed the ruling of RTC.
Hence, the instant petition.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the CA ruling.
Even prior to the enactment of the Family Code in 1988, the Civil Code in effect at the time of Giovanni's birth in 1982 provides that "a natural child shall employ the surname of the recognizing parent."
Because there was no indication that Giovanni was even acknowledged by his father, the SC noted that he should have had the surname of his mother as his own surname.
The SC held that an illegitimate child whose filiation is not recognized by the father bears only a given name and his mother’s surname, and does not have a middle name. The name of the unrecognized illegitimate child therefore identifies him as such.
On OSG's contention that the proceedings at the RTC were not adversarial as prescribed by Rule 103, the SC held the contrary. In fact, the SC said that the proceedings at the RTC were adversarial because Capote complied with the requirement to publish the petition in a newspaper of general circulation, sufficiently informing the public about her petition. Most importantly, OSG was given the opportunity to object to the ex parte presentation of evidence by Capote, but OSG chose not to.
The SC underscored that a proceeding is adversarial where the party seeking relief has given legal warning to the other party and afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it.