Facts: Cynthia Vicencio was born to spouses Pablo and Fe Esperanza. After a marital spat, Pablo left the conjugal abode and never to return. It was then that Ernesto Yu came to the aid of Fe Esperanza. The marriage between Pablo and Fe was later dissolved and Fe married Ernesto. Cynthia grew up not knowing her real father, but treated Ernesto Yu as her father. Thus to avoid confusion arising from her different name, Cynthia filed a petition for change of surname from Vicencio to Yu. She averred that she consulted her step-father about the petition, and the latter consented to it. The Solicitor General opposed the petition. However, the trial court granted the petition. It ratiocinated by saying that since Ernesto cannot be compelled to adopt Cynthia to change her name from Vicencio to Yu, there is nor reason she cannot be allowed to change her name from Vicencio to Yu.
The appellate court affirmed the decision, which held that it is for the best interest of petitioner that her surname be changed. The appellate court took into account the testimonies of private respondent and her witnesses that allowing the change of surname would "give her an opportunity to improve her personality and welfare."
Issue: Whether Cynthia can have her surname changed from Vicencio to Yu.
Held: The touchstone for the grant of a change of name is that there be "proper and reasonable cause" for which the change is sought." The assailed decision as affirmed by the appellate court does not persuade us to depart from the applicability of the general rule on the use of surnames, specifically the law which requires that legitimate children shall principally use the surname of their father.
Private respondent Cynthia Vicencio is the legitimate offspring of Fe Leabres and Pablo Vicencio. As previously stated, a legitimate child generally bears the surname of his or her father. It must be stressed that a change of name is a privilege, not a matter of right, addressed to the sound discretion of the court, which has the duty to consider carefully the consequences of a change of name and to deny the same unless weighty reasons are shown.
Confusion indeed might arise with regard to private respondent's parentage because of her surname. But even, more confusion with grave legal consequences could arise if we allow private respondent to bear her step-father's surname, even if she is not legally adopted by him. While previous decisions have allowed children to bear the surname of their respective step-fathers even without the benefit of adoption, these instances should be distinguished from the present case. In Calderon vs. Republic, and Llaneta vs. Agrava, this Court allowed the concerned child to adopt the surname of the step-father, but unlike the situation in the present case where private respondent is a legitimate child, in those cases the children were not of legitimate parentage. In Moore vs. Republic, where the circumstances appears to be similar to the present case before us, the Court upheld the Republic's position:
We find tenable this observation of government's counsel. Indeed, if a child born out of a lawful wedlock be allowed to bear the surname of the second husband of the mother, should the first husband die or be separated by a decree of divorce, there may result a confusion as to his real paternity. In the long run the change may redound to the prejudice of the child in the community.Similarly in Padilla vs. Republic, the Court ruled that:
While the purpose which may have animated petitioner is plausible and may run along the feeling of cordiality and spiritual relationship that pervades among the members of the Moore family, our hand is deferred by a legal barrier which we cannot at present overlook or brush aside.
To allow said minors to adopt the surname of their mother's second husband, who is not their father, could result in confusion in their paternity. It could also create the suspicion that said minors, who were born during the coverture of their mother with her first husband, were in fact sired by Edward Padilla, thus bringing their legitimate status into discredit.
Private respondent might sincerely wish to be in a position similar to that of her step-father's legitimate children, a plausible reason the petition for change of name was filed in the first place. Moreover, it is laudable that Ernesto Yu has treated Cynthia as his very own daughter, providing for all her needs as a father would his own flesh and blood. However, legal constraints lead us to reject private respondent's desire to use her stepfather's surname. Further, there is no assurance the end result would not be even more detrimental to her person, for instead of bringing a stop to questions, the very change of name, if granted, could trigger much deeper inquiries regarding her parentage. (Republic vs. CA, G.R. No. 88202, December 14, 1998).
