REPUBLIC VS BOLANTE

GR NO.160597 SECOND DIVISION GARCIA, J. Date: JULY 20, 2006

Bolante wishes to change her given name, as to avoid confusion in applying for her passport and for
retirement purposes, which she carried and use Maria Eloisa on all of her records.
Whether or not it is proper for the desired change for the first name be granted?
Facts
 Filipina of legal age, Filipino parents, married to Jorge Marbella, Jr.
 Presently residing at Bliss Angad, Bangued Abra since 1995 but before she resided in Zone 4
Bangued Abra since birth.
 She uses the name Maria Eloisa Bringas Bolante while in her birth certificate her registered
name was Roselie Eloisa Bringas Bolante in which she didn’t use in all of her records in
school and other documents which she presented as evidences.
 Trial court ordered to comply with the jurisdictional requirements of notice and publication
and set the hearing on Feb 20, 2001.
 Feb 20 2001 trial court issued order giving Bolante 5 days to file written formal offer of
evidence to establish jurisdictional facts at present it on March 26, 2001.
 In the afternoon of feb 20, she file her “Offer of Evidence for marking and identification
purpose to prove jurisdictional facts.”
 After resetting for two times the hearing was scheduled sept 25 2001, after trial the court
has declared its acquisition and jurisdiction over the case.

Petitioner Respondent
Republic of the Philippines Maria Eloisa Bringas Bolante
 Bolante’s substantial compliance with  Presented evidences like birth
Sec. 3 Rule 103 of the rules of court certificate, school records, PRC
 The trial court did not acquire License, marriage license
jurisdiction over the case for want or  Not been accused of any crime under
defective publication. either her registered name or her
 The date set for the hearing shall not be present name.
within 4 months after the last
publication of the notice.
 Bare testimony of bolante is insufficient
because it is not supported by another
evidence which could prove that the
change of name is not for illegal purpose
Ruling
 RTC ruled in favor of Bolante to change name in her record of birth and record the decision
in the civil registry
 CA in favor of Bolante affirming the decision of the RTC
 Supreme court denied the petition of OSG, ruled in favor of Bolante.

Decision
Respondent submission for a change of name is with proper and reasonable reason.
Jurisprudence has recognized certain justifying grounds to warrant a change of name
a. When the name is ridiculous, dishonorable, or extremely difficult to write or pronounce
b. When the change of name will avoid confusion
c. When one has been continuously used and been known since childhood by a Filipino name
d. When the surname causes embarrassment
e. There is no showing that the desired change of name was for a fraudulent purpose of that the
change of name will prejudice public interest.
The evidence presented need only be satisfactory to the court it need not to be the best evidence available.
The imperatives of avoiding confusion dictate that the instant petition is granted. Simple justice dictates that
every person shall be allowed to avail himself of any opportunity to improve his social standing, provided he
does so without causing prejudice or injury to the interest of the State or of other people.
There is yet no jurisprudence requiring a petitioner in a petition for change of name to present NBI and police
clearance to prove that the said petition is not resorted to for purpose of fraud.