TL;DR

The Supreme Court ruled that an adopted child can use their biological mother’s surname as their middle name, even when adopted by their natural father. This decision recognizes the Filipino custom of incorporating the mother’s surname and aims to maintain the child’s maternal lineage, ensuring they can assert hereditary rights from their biological mother in the future. The ruling emphasizes that adoption laws should be liberally construed to benefit the child, allowing them to embrace their full identity and heritage while eliminating any stigma associated with illegitimacy.

Family Ties That Bind: Can Adoption Rewrite a Child’s Name?

Honorato B. Catindig sought to adopt his illegitimate daughter, Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia, wishing to change her surname to his while also allowing her to retain her mother’s surname as her middle name. The trial court granted the adoption but denied the request to use her mother’s surname as her middle name. This case brings to the forefront the question of whether an adopted child can, in fact, use their biological mother’s surname as their middle name, blending their past and present family connections. The Supreme Court ultimately addressed this by examining existing laws, Filipino customs, and the best interests of the child.

At the heart of this case lies the interplay between established legal principles and evolving social norms. Legally, a person’s name consists of two parts: the given name and the surname. While parents have broad discretion in choosing a given name, the surname is generally fixed by law, reflecting familial lineage. Articles 364 to 380 of the Civil Code outlines these rules, specifying surname usage for legitimate, illegitimate, and adopted children, as well as married and formerly married women. For instance, Article 365 clearly states that an adopted child shall bear the surname of the adopter. However, the law remains conspicuously silent on the use of middle names, creating a legal gray area that the Court needed to clarify.

Building on this legal framework, the Court noted the absence of explicit laws regulating middle names. Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended, addresses illegitimate children’s surnames but does not touch upon middle names. Furthermore, Article 375(1) of the Civil Code only mentions the mother’s surname in cases of identical names between ascendants and descendants. Similarly, Article 189 of the Family Code, detailing the legal effects of adoption, specifies the right of the adopted child to use the adopter’s surname but remains silent on middle names. Despite this silence, the Court underscored the importance of considering Filipino customs and the underlying intent of adoption laws. The Civil Code and Family Law Committees acknowledged the common Filipino practice of using the mother’s surname as a middle name.

This approach contrasts with a strictly legalistic interpretation, emphasizing the intent to favor the adopted child’s well-being. Adoption is defined as granting a child the rights of a legitimate child, thus endowing them with a legitimate status. The Philippines, as a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, acknowledges adoption as a process with social and moral responsibilities, primarily benefiting the child. Republic Act No. 8552, the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998, further reinforces these rights. Given the legislative intent to equate adopted children with legitimate children, the Court inferred that adopted children should have the same rights, including the right to use both their father’s and mother’s surnames. The Court gave weight to the practice that it is a Filipino custom that the initial or surname of the mother should immediately precede the surname of the father.

Moreover, the Court underscored the importance of maintaining the adoptee’s maternal lineage. Article 189(3) of the Family Code and Section 18, Article V of RA 8552, affirm that the adoptee remains an intestate heir of their biological parents. Permitting Stephanie to use her mother’s surname ensures her ability to claim hereditary rights in the future, if necessary. This decision aligns with a liberal construction of adoption statutes, aimed at promoting the child’s welfare. The Court also noted that allowing Stephanie to use her mother’s surname would sustain her loving relationship with her mother and eliminate the stigma of illegitimacy. Applying Article 10 of the New Civil Code, the Court presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail, even when the law is doubtful or obscure.

FAQs

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case reflects a progressive interpretation of adoption laws, prioritizing the well-being and identity of the adopted child. By allowing Stephanie to use her mother’s surname as her middle name, the Court affirmed the importance of preserving familial connections and cultural traditions within the legal framework of adoption.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF STEPHANIE NATHY ASTORGA GARCIA HONORATO B. CATINDIG, G.R. NO. 148311, March 31, 2005