02 REPUBLIC v.

TRINIDAD adversarial in nature as required, the CA affirmed the RTC

G.R. No. 157043 February 2, 2007 decision ordering the change of name.
7. CA: affirmed RTC decision
Topic: Change of Name 8. Petitioner appealed
a. CA should not have granted the petition because they failed
Doctrine: to include indispensible parties is the petition.
A petition for change of name must be heard in an adversarial proceeding; it b. The purported parents and all other persons who may be
cannot be decided through a summary proceeding adversely affected by the child’s change of name should
have been made respondents to make the proceeding
The fact that no one opposed the petition did not deprive the court of its adversarial
jurisdiction to hear the same nor does it make the proceeding less
adversarial in nature. Issue: W/N petition for change of name should have been granted

Facts: Held: YES

1. Trinidad R. A. Capote (guardian ad litem) filed a petition for change 1. The law and facts obtaining here favor Giovannis petition. Giovanni
of name of her ward from Giovanni Nadores Gallamaso to Giovanni availed of the proper remedy, a petition for change of name under
Nadores. Rule 103 of the Rules of Court, and complied with all the procedural
2. Giovanni Nadores Gallamaso is the illegitimate child Corazon P. requirements. After hearing, the trial court found (and the appellate
Nadores and Diosdado Gallamaso. court affirmed) that the evidence presented during the hearing of
3. He was born prior to the effectivity of the NFC so his mother made Giovannis petition sufficiently established that, under Art. 176 of the
him take the surname of his father- though they were never married. Civil Code, Giovanni is entitled to change his name as he was never
4. from the time Giovanni was born and up to the present, his father recognized by his father while his mother has always recognized him
failed to take up his responsibilities [to him] on matters of financial, as her child. A change of name will erase the impression that he was
physical, emotional and spiritual concerns; ever recognized by his father. It is also to his best interest as it will
a. His mother wants to petition for him to come to the US facilitate his mothers intended petition to have him join her in the
(where she is living) and his continued use of the surname United States. This Court will not stand in the way of the reunification
Gallamaso may complicate his status as natural child; of mother and son.
b. and the change of name will be for the benefit of the minor. 2. Though, the OSG is correct in saying that the proceedings for
5. The TRIAL COURT gave due course to the petition. change of name should be adversarial, the OSG cannot void the
a. Since there was no opposition to the petition, respondent proceedings in the trial court on account of its own failure to
moved for leave of court to present her evidence ex parte participate therein. FURTHERMORE, Capote complied with the
before a court-appointed commissioner- GRANTED because requirement for an adversarial proceeding by posting in a newspaper
the OSG did not object to the motion. of general circulation notice of the filing of the petition. The lower
b. After the reception of evidence, the trial court rendered a court also furnished the OSG a copy thereof. Despite the notice, no
decision ordering the change of name from Giovanni N. one came forward to oppose the petition including the OSG. The fact
Gallamaso to Giovanni Nadores. that no one opposed the petition did not deprive the court of its
6. Petitioner Republic of the Philippines, through the OSG, filed an jurisdiction to hear the same nor does it make the proceeding less
appeal agruing that: adversarial in nature.
a. The court a quo erred in granting the petition in a summary 3. A proceeding is adversarial where the party seeking relief has given
proceeding. Ruling that the proceedings were sufficiently legal warning to the other party and afforded the latter an opportunity
 to contest it.[24] Respondent gave notice of the petition through
publication as required by the rules.[25] With this, all interested
parties were deemed notified and the whole world considered bound
by the judgment therein. In addition, the trial court gave due notice to
the OSG by serving a copy of the petition on it. Thus, all the
requirements to make a proceeding adversarial were satisfied when
all interested parties, including petitioner as represented by the OSG,
were afforded the opportunity to contest the petition.

Dispositive Portion: WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED and the

January 13, 2003 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 66128
AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.