ROTAQUIO - v - REPUBLIC
EN BANC, January 29, 1968 IN
THE MATTER OF THE CHANGE OF NAME OF ABUNDIO ROTAQUIO. ABUNDIO ROTAQUIO vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES. DIZON, J.:
Note: I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.
1.
Abundio Rotaquio filed a petition with CFI Davao for
a change of his surname to "Rota", alleging that he was married and a
bona fide resident of Davao City since 1945; that two of his four minor
children have been carrying the family name of "Rota" in their school
records; that his family name (Rotaquio) sounds like a Christian name and
sometimes creates confusion among his friends and acquaintances; that the use
of the family name "Rotaquio" by him and his two other children
sometimes evoke unfavorable comments causing him embarrassment; and finally,
that said family name has always been a handicap in his social, business and
official dealings.
2.
After due publication of the petition and after
hearing the same, as well as the opposition filed by the Provincial Fiscal of
Davao, in representation of appellant, the lower court rendered the appealed
judgment.
3.
Main contention of the Government in this appeal is
that there is no proper and reasonable cause for allowing petitioner to change
his family name.
Issue: WON the change of surname is
proper. Held: Yes.
Ruling:
-
It appears that petitioner is a married resident of
the city of Davao; that he has four children of school age, two of whom
(Antonio and Celestina), for one reason or another, were enrolled under, and
carry the family name Rota, while the other two (Victor and Editha) were
enrolled under, and carry the surname Rotaquio; that even when petitioner was
single, his surname was often taken for his Christian or given name, and on
many occasions his acquaintances addressed him as "Taquio", or "Tags"
or "Takoy" or as "Akoy".
-
the State has an interest in the name borne and used
by individuals for purposes of identification, and that the change of name is a
mere privilege and not a matter of right, but it is likewise true that the authority
may be granted by the courts if there is sufficient reason therefor: as when the change is necessary to avoid
confusion.
-
In the present case We believe that, as petitioner
contends, his true surname gives rise to confusion because people often take
it as his Christian name. The change
thereof, therefore, can not be considered as arbitrary or whimsical, especially
there being in this case no claim or pretense that petitioner seeks the change
to achieve some unlawful purpose.
Note: I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.
