IN THE MATTER OF THE CHANGE OF NAME OF ANTONINA B. OSHITA. ANTONINA B. OSHITA v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. L-21180. March 31, 1967
On February 15, 1962, Antonina B. Oshita filed a petition to have her name changed from "Antonina B. Oshita" to "Antonina Bartolome." The petition was signed by the petitioner herself and was "subscribed and sworn to" by her before the Deputy Clerk of Court. She is the legitimate daughter of Kishimatsu Oshita, a Japanese citizen, now deceased, and Buena Bartolome, a Filipina; that upon reaching the age of majority, appellee elected Philippine citizenship and took her oath of allegiance; that being already a Filipino citizen she desired to have her family name changed from "Oshita" to "Bartolome", the latter being the family name of her mother, and because she felt embarrassed when introduced as one bearing a Japanese surname; that her older brother and sister, who had earlier elected Philippine citizenship, have been using the surname "Bartolome" ; and that she has no criminal record nor a pending tax liability.
Whether or not the lower court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case because (1) the petition was not verified as required by Section 2 of Rule 103 of the Rules of Court and (2) that no sufficient reason had been shown to justify the change of the surname of the appellee
(1) The court has jurisdiction.
While it is true that under Section 2, Rule 103, it is required that the petition for change of name be verified, nevertheless, no provision exists in the rules which declares that such a requirement regarding verification is jurisdictional. The absence of verification is a mere formal, not jurisdictional, defect, the absence of which does not of itself justify a court in refusing to allow and act in the case. Verification is not a jurisdictional, but a formal, requisite.
(2) If there is sufficient reason, the change of a child’s surname from that of the father, to that of the mother, may be authorized by the court.
Although Article 364 of the Civil Code legitimate children shall principally use the surname of the father. This provision, however, is not absolute because under Article 264 of the same Code, it is provided that legitimate children have the right to bear the surname of the father and of the mother.
Moreover, the matter of whether to grant or deny a petition for a change of name is left to the sound discretion of the court. In granting or denying petitions for change of name, the question of ‘proper and reasonable cause’ is left to the sound discretion of the court. The evidence presented need only be satisfactory to the Court and not all the best evidence available.
No comments:
Post a Comment