Around GMA

Article Inside Page

If for some reason you want to officially use your mother's last name instead of your father's but not sure if it's lawful, then this news is for you.

A 15-page decision on a case, penned by Supreme Court (SC) Associate Justice, Marvic Leonen, has ruled that individuals deemed legitimate children of their parents and seeking a name change can do so under the law.

The case involved a certain Anacleto Ballaho Alanis III, whose petition to have his first name changed to "Abdulhamid" and last name to “Ballaho” - his mother's maiden surname - was denied by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Zamboanga City, Branch 12, and the Court of Appeals, in 2008 and 2014, respectively.

The court documents showed that the petitioner testified that his parents have separated when he was five years old.

His mother told the court that she raised him and his siblings all by herself.

The petitioner has been using his mother's surname since childhood, he explained.

“In its April 9, 2008 Order, the Regional Trial Court denied the Petition, holding that petitioner failed to prove any of the grounds to warrant a change of name,” the court document stated.

“It noted that the mere fact that petitioner has been using a different name and has become known by it is not a valid ground for a change of name.

“It also held that to allow him to drop his last name was to disregard the surname of his natural and legitimate father, in violation of the Family Code and Civil Code, which provides that legitimate children shall principally use their fathers' surnames.”

It further added, “Thus, the trial court concluded that, instead of seeking to change his name in his birth certificate, the petitioner should have had the other private and public records corrected to conform to his true and correct name.”

Reversal of decision

The SC, however, contested the earlier decision citing that the RTC “gravely erred when it held that legitimate children cannot use their mothers' surnames.”

The RTC cited the provisions on Article 174 of the Family Code and Article 364 of the Civil Code as the basis for the decision, a matter that was challenged by the Supreme Court.

Article 174 stated that legitimate children shall have the right to “bear the surnames of the father and the mother, in conformity with the provisions of the Civil Code on Surnames.”

Article 364 of the Civil Code, on the other hand, stipulated that “legitimate and legitimated children shall principally use the surname of the father.”

The SC said that the RTC is “incorrect” in its interpretation of Article 364 of the Civil Code.

“Indeed, the provision states that legitimate children shall 'principally' use the surname of the father, but 'principally' does not mean 'exclusively,'” said the SC.

“This gives ample room to incorporate into Article 364 the State policy of ensuring the fundamental equality of women and men before the law, and no discernible reason to ignore it.”

The SC continued, “This Court fails to see how the change of name would create more confusion. Whether people inquire deeper into petitioner's parentage or paternity because of a name is inconsequential here, and seems to be more a matter of intrigue and gossip than an issue for courts to consider.

“Regardless of which name petitioner uses, his father's identity still appears in his birth certificate, where it will always be written, and which can be referred to in cases where paternity is relevant.”

The SC said patriarchy “becomes encoded in our culture when it is normalized,” something that could “infect” present and future generations.

“The trial court's reasoning further encoded patriarchy into our system,” wrote the SC.

If a surname is significant for identifying a person's ancestry, interpreting the laws to mean that a marital child's surname must identify only the paternal line renders the mother and her family invisible.

“This, in tum, entrenches the patriarchy and with it, antiquated gender roles: the father, as dominant, in public; and the mother, as a supporter, in private.”

In the end, the SC “reversed and set aside” the earlier decisions to grant the petitioner his request for a name change.

It, therefore, requested the civil registrar of Cebu City to make the corresponding corrections to the petitioner's name.