Case Name Santos v Republic, G.r. No.
250520, May 5, 2021
GR No. | Date [G.R. No. 250520. May 5, 2021.]
Topic Entries in the Civil Register
Doctrine The surname identifies the family to which a person belongs. While the first name may be
freely selected by the parents for the child, the surname to which the child is entitled is fixed
by law.
Parties involved FRANCIS LUIGI G. SANTOS, petitioner, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE OFFICE OF THE
LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF QUEZON CITY, THE CIVIL REGISTRAR GENERAL, AND ALL
INTERESTED PERSONS, respondents.
Ponente CAGUIOA, J
General Summary Santos, illegitimate son of Bong Revilla, filed a petition for change of name under Rule 103 or
the ROC. He has been acknowledged by Revilla as his son. But in 1999 when his mother
Lovely married Patrick Santos, the latter adopted him and thus his name was changed from
Francis Guzman to Francis G. Santos. He filed the instant petition to avoid confusion, and to
show his desire to associate himself to the Revillas, and to ensure the records show his true
identity as Bong Revilla’s son. RTC Denied the petition and held that a change of name was
not a matter of right and could be granted only for compelling reasons. Petitioner failed to
show that there was any valid or justifiable ground for change of name. CA affirmed this
decision.
SC agreed with the CA and the RTC that petitioner failed to prove that there is any compelling
reason to justify a change of surname from "Santos" to "Revilla."
Facts:
• Santos (petitioner) filed a petition for change of name under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court seeking to change his
surname from "Santos" to "Revilla" in his Certificate of Live Birth (CLOB).
• His parents are Lovely Guzman and Ramon Bong Revilla, who had a subsisting marriage with Lani Mercado. Thus,
petitioner’s CLOB did not bear the Revilla surname and his father was unknown.
• Apr 24 1996 – Revilla executed an Affidavit of Acknowledgment recognizing petitioner as his son.
• 1999 - Lovely Guzman married Patrick Joseph P. Santos (Patrick Santos), who, in turn, legally adopted petitioner.
Thus, petitioner's name was changed from "Francis Luigi Guzman" to "Francis Luigi G. Santos."
• Santos grew up close to Bong Revilla, even using Luigi Revilla as his show business name. Thus, he filed the
instant petition to avoid confusion, and to show his desire to associate himself to the Revillas, and to ensure the
records show his true identity as Bong Revilla’s son.
• On June 19, 2017, the RTC issued an Order finding the petition to be sufficient in form and substance to which
OSG filed its opposition and sought the dismissal of the petition claiming that there was no compelling reason to
justify the change sought.
• RTC: Denied the petition and held that a change of name was not a matter of right and could be granted only for
compelling reasons. Petitioner failed to show that there was any valid or justifiable ground for change of name.
• CA affirmed the decision of the RTC and held that allowing a change of name would create more confusion as to
petitioner's status and filiation given that he had already been legally adopted by Patrick Santos. It was of no
moment therefore that he is the biological son of Bong Revilla as the Family Code and Republic Act No. (R.A.)
UP Law - 1 BGC Eve 2 (2027) / LAW 100
8552 or the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998 provide that an adopted child shall bear the surname of the
adopting parents.
Issue/s:
1. W/N CA erred in holding that Rule 108 rather than Rule 103 applies
2. W/N CA erred in denying the petition to change petitioner's surname from "Santos" to "Revilla."
Ruling:
1. YES. Contrary to the position of the CA, petitioner correctly availed of a Rule 103 proceeding to effect the
desired change.
2. NO. However, the Court agrees with the CA, as well as the RTC, that petitioner failed to prove that there was any
compelling reason to justify the change sought.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is DENIED. The petition for change of name in Spec. Proc. No. R-QZN-17-
04454 is DISMISSED.
Reasoning:
Petitioner correctly availed of a Rule 103 petition for change of name
• Rule 103 petitions for change of name based on the foregoing jurisprudential grounds is a separate and distinct
remedy from that provided under Rule 108, which involves cancellations and corrections of entries in the civil
registry.
• Court holds that petitioner correctly availed himself of the remedy under Rule 103 in order to change his
surname from "Santos" to "Revilla." Contrary to the findings of the CA, Rule 108 is inapplicable as petitioner
does not allege or identify any erroneous entry that requires substantial rectification or cancellation.
• In the instant case, it is apparent that petitioner does not seek to correct any clerical or substantial error in his
birth certificate or to effect any changes in his status as an adopted child of Patrick Santos. As such, neither Rule
108 nor R.A. 9048 as amended applies. Rather, the petition is unequivocal that petitioner merely desires to
change and replace his surname "Santos" with the surname "Revilla" in accordance with Hernandez in order to
"avoid confusion," etc. These allegations show that petitioner ultimately seeks to "alter the 'designation by
which he is known and called in the community in which he lives and is best known'" and not to effect any
clerical or substantial corrections. Thus, he properly availed himself of the procedure prescribed under Rule 103.
• Allowing petitioner to change his surname from Santos to Revilla will not constitute a change in his status from
legitimate to illegitimate:
o While a change in status may legally result in a change of name, such as in marriages, annulments,
legitimations, or adoptions, et al., the reverse is not equally true.
o As explained, "[a] change of one's name under Rule 103 can be granted, only on grounds provided by
law. In order to justify a request for change of name, there must be a proper and compelling reason for
the change and proof that the person requesting will be prejudiced by the use of his official name. To
assess the sufficiency of the grounds invoked therefor, there must be adversarial proceedings." It is an
action in rem which requires publication of the order issued by the court to afford the State, through the
OSG, and all other interested parties to oppose the petition.
There is no compelling reason to grant the change of surname
• "the State has an interest in the names borne by individuals and entities for purposes of identification and that a
change of name is a privilege and not a matter of right
UP Law - 1 BGC Eve 2 (2027) / LAW 100
• the surname identifies the family to which a person belongs. While the first name may be freely selected by the
parents for the child, the surname to which the child is entitled is fixed by law.
• R.A. 8552 likewise states that upon adoption, "[a]n amended certificate of birth shall be issued by the Civil
Registry, as required by the Rules of Court, attesting to the fact that the adoptee is the child of the adopter(s) by
being registered with his/her surname." As held therefore inRepublic v. Court of Appeals, it may be inferred
from the very wording of the law "that the use of the surname of the adopter by the adopted child is both an
obligation and a right. "
• Santos has shown no compelling reason for the change in his surname:
o The Court agrees with the RTC that the use of the surname "Revilla" would create further confusion
rather than avoid it, given that: (1) petitioner has never legally used the name "Revilla" despite having
been acknowledged in 1996; (2) he was legally adopted by Patrick Santos in 2001; (3) he has used the
name "Santos'' for all documentary purposes since his adoption; (4) although he is publicly known to be
the son of Bong Revilla, he is known by his peers as "Luigi Santos"; (5) even after a change of surname,
Patrick Santos shall continue to be the father named in his birth certificate; and (5) he only began using
the surname "Revilla" when he entered show business.
o While petitioner may factually identify and associate with his biological father and his family, he remains
to be the legitimate son of Patrick Santos by virtue of the adoption. The latter and not the former is thus
his true legal identity.
o it bears emphasis that a change of name is a privilege and not a matter of right. It is addressed to the
sound discretion of the court.
Separate Opinion/s:
UP Law - 1 BGC Eve 2 (2027) / LAW 100
