Gender equality in name change
Yes, whatever rights men have, women nowadays have, too. That is why precisely, if a child wishes to use his mother’s surname alone, for a valid reason, he must be allowed to do so
Under our Civil Code, “(l)egitimate... children shall principally use the surname of the father (Article 364).” A person who wants to change his name can petition the court under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court.
Now what if a legitimate child wants to use merely his mother’s surname? Can he petition the court for such change? Will he not be violating the mandate of Article 364 aforecited?
Such is the issue posed by Anacleto Ballaho Alanis III. He is the child who wanted to have his surname changed to that of his mother’s. In his petition, he alleged that his record of birth registered his name as Anacleto Ballaho Alanis III. However, all his life, he has been known to everyone as Abdulhamid Ballaho. Moreover, he has used such name in all his records, both private and public, like school records and driver’s license. He testified in court that his parents separated when he was young. His mother testified that she alone reared the petitioner. Given these circumstances, he asked the court to change his name as prayed for to avoid confusion. The trial court, however, did not favor him. It ratiocinated that granting his change of name will all the more create confusion. It said that his remedy was to rectify all his other records, public and private, to conform to his birth certificate.
Not content with the trial court’s ruling, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals. Said court, however, denied his petition based on a technicality.
Contrary to the State policy, the trial court treated the surnames of petitioner’s mother and father unequally.
Bent on having his name changed, petitioner sought refuge in the Supreme Court. The Highest Court, after deliberating on his arguments, overturned the lower court. It ruled, as quoted from the decision, that “(t)he fundamental equality of women and men before the law shall be ensured by the State. This is guaranteed by no less than the Constitution, a statute, and an international convention to which the Philippines is a party .... In 1980, the Philippines became a signatory to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and is thus now part of the Philippine legal system .... Accordingly, Article II, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution reiterated the State’s commitment to ensure gender equality... In keeping with the Convention, Article II, Section 14 of the Constitution requires that the State be active in ensuring gender equality. This provision is even more noticeably proactive than the more widely-invoked equal protection and due process clauses under the Bill of Rights .... Thus, the Regional Trial court gravely erred when it held that legitimate children cannot use their mothers’ surnames. Contrary to the State policy, the trial court treated the surnames of petitioner’s mother and father unequally... The Regional Trial Court’s application of Article 364 of the Civil Code is incorrect. Indeed, the provision states that legitimate children shall ‘principally’ use the surname of the father, but ‘principally’ does not mean ‘exclusively.’ 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 .... Given these irrefutable premises, the Regional Trial Court patently erred in denying petitioner’s prayer to use his mother’s surname, based solely on the word ‘principally’ in Article 364 of the Civil Code…. The trial court’s reasoning further encoded patriarchy into our system. 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 turn, entrenches the patriarchy and with it, antiquated gender roles: the father, as dominant, in public; and the mother, as a supporter, in private (Anacleto Ballaho Alanis III vs Court of Appeals et. al., GR 216425, 11 November 2020.”
I like the way the decision tackles the matter in the light of gender equality. It highlights the equality of women in our society. I agree. Times have indeed changed. The role of women has dynamically evolved. Gone are those days when their only supposed role was to take care of children. Today, we see women performing once perceived manly roles. Yes, whatever rights men have, women nowadays have, too. That is why precisely, if a child wishes to use his mother’s surname alone, for a valid reason, he must be allowed to do so.
Just to complete the story, how about his first name? Was Anacleto allowed to change his name to Abdulhamid? Yes. The Supreme Court in this respect opined that, citing jurisprudence, disallowing the change as requested will only cause confusion.