The Supreme Court ruled that Kimric Casayuran Tan, who had used the name Kimric Florendo Casayuran since childhood, could legally change his name to reflect his long-standing identity. This decision underscores that when a name has been consistently used for most of a person’s life, and using the birth certificate name would cause confusion, a change of name should be granted. The ruling emphasizes the importance of aligning legal identity with a person’s established social and personal identity, especially when official documents already reflect the desired name.

From ‘Tan’ to ‘Casayuran’: When Identity Trumps Official Records

The case of Kimric Casayuran Tan v. The Local Civil Registrar of Makati City revolves around Kimric, a former natural-born Filipino now a British citizen, who sought to change his surname from “Tan,” the name on his birth certificate, to “Casayuran,” the surname he had used for most of his life. He argued that he had been known as Kimric Florendo Casayuran since childhood and that using “Tan” would cause confusion. The central legal question was whether Kimric had sufficiently established a proper and reasonable ground to legally change his name, considering the discrepancies between his birth certificate and other official documents.

Kimric’s journey to legally changing his name was filled with bureaucratic obstacles. Although his birth certificate identified his surname as “Tan,” he had never used it. Instead, he was known as “Kimric Florendo Casayuran,” using his mother’s maiden name, Florendo, and her surname, Casayuran. This name appeared on his school records, marriage certificate, and other official documents. He only discovered the discrepancy in his birth certificate when processing his wife’s and daughter’s papers at an embassy in 2009. The RTC and CA initially denied his petition, stating that Kimric failed to prove that he has been using Kimric Casayuran for most of his life, or that he is well known in the community by that name.

The Supreme Court, however, took a different view. It recognized that Kimric had indeed presented sufficient evidence to support his claim. The Court emphasized that a name is a word or combination of words by which a person is known and identified and distinguished from others, for the convenience of the world at large in addressing them, or in speaking of or dealing with them. The Court referenced Republic v. Hernandez, outlining grounds sufficient to warrant a change of name, including when the change will avoid confusion.

The Court, in Republic v. Hernandez, recognized the following grounds as sufficient to warrant a change of name: “(a) when the name is ridiculous, dishonorable, or extremely difficult to write or pronounce; (b) when the change results as a legal consequence of legitimation or adoption; (c) when the change will avoid confusion; (d) when one has continuously used and been known since childhood by a Filipino name and was unaware of alien parentage; (e) when the change is based on a sincere desire to adopt a Filipino name to erase signs of former alienage, all in good faith and without prejudice to anybody; and (f) when the surname causes embarrassment and there is no showing that the desired change of name was for a fraudulent purpose or that the change of name would prejudice public interest.”

The Court reviewed the evidence presented by Kimric, including passports, school records, and a marriage certificate, all bearing the name Kimric Florendo Casayuran. The Court gave weight to the fact that Kimric had used the name for most of his life. His passport issued on 06 October 1989 by the Philippine Embassy in London, England, bears the name Kimric F. Casayuran. He submitted letters proving that he used the name Kimric Casayuran while studying at Depford Park Primary School in London, where he attended starting February 1988, and Coopers Lane Primary School, where he was a student from 04 January 1989 to end of July 1989. His permanent record from Woodridge College shows that he enrolled there under the name Kimric F. Casayuran in 1992.

Addressing the discrepancy regarding Kimric’s place of birth, the Court accepted the explanation provided by Kimric’s mother, who attributed the error to inadvertence during the passport application process. The Court found that this error did not undermine Kimric’s overall credibility. It lends credence to his claim that he did not see a copy of his birth certificate until he was already an adult. Thus, the inconsistencies did not detract from the fact that Kimric had been using the name Kimric Florendo Casayuran since at least 1988, or when he was only 10 years old. He is now 43. This means that he has been using the name for at least 33 years, or over ¾ of his life. To refuse his plea for change of name would mean forcing him to use a name that, according to him, he has never used in his life, or at least not since he was a young child.

Building on the precedent set in Chua v. Republic, the Court emphasized that compelling Kimric to use the name “Kimric Tan” would inevitably lead to confusion, necessitating alterations to all his official documents, save for his certificate of live birth. Moreover, petitioner’s wife and daughter, too, will correspondingly be compelled to have their records changed. The Court also noted that the State had not demonstrated that the petition was filed for any reason other than to avoid confusion and that there was no evidence of fraudulent intent. The name Kimric Casayuran also appears in petitioner’s certificate of marriage to Edelyn. The birth certificate of Kimric’s daughter, Chloe, also states her father’s name as Kimric Florendo Casayuran. Additionally, taking the surname Tan would give Kimric and his family the additional burden of changing or correcting all their legal documents in the Philippines and United Kingdom — a cumbersome and costly endeavor.

Further, from a practical standpoint, while the Republic has an interest in a person’s name, the same interest will not be injured by the grant of Kimric’s petition. It must be emphasized that petitioner’s official documents, issued by the Philippine and United Kingdom governments, are already in the name of Kimric Florendo Casayuran or Kimric Casayuran. Thus, there will be no need to change or update his documents to reflect a new name. We may even go so far as to say that denying the petition will result in greater prejudice to the State given that all Kimric’s documents, as well as that of his wife and daughter who similarly use the surname Casayuran, will have to be corrected — an additional burden to the bureaucracy that can well be avoided.

The Court also addressed concerns about the change of name leading to misunderstandings about paternity or legitimacy. Quoting from Alanis III v. Court of Appeals, the Court stated that the change of name would not create more confusion, as Kimric’s father’s identity would still be recorded on his birth certificate, where it would always be written and could be referred to in cases where paternity is relevant. In Kimric’s birth certificate, Carlos Tan is not only named as the father, but he also signed the same as informant. Thus, even if his name is changed, 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. That should lay to rest any question as to his parentage and legitimacy. Moreover, in Republic v. Court of Appeals, We said that “[a] change of name does not define or effect a change in one’s existing family relations or in the rights and duties flowing therefrom. It does not alter one’s legal capacity, civil status[,] or citizenship: What is altered is only the name.”

The ruling underscores the importance of aligning a person’s legal name with their lived identity, especially when the name has been consistently used for a significant portion of their life. By allowing Kimric to change his name to Kimric Florendo Casayuran, the Supreme Court affirmed the principle that legal identities should reflect reality, preventing confusion and recognizing the importance of personal identity. The case highlights how the legal system can adapt to accommodate individual circumstances, balancing the state’s interest in regulating names with the individual’s right to self-identification. The Supreme Court 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.

FAQs

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Kimric Casayuran Tan v. The Local Civil Registrar of Makati City reflects a balanced approach, acknowledging both the state’s interest in regulating names and the individual’s right to self-identification. This case serves as an important precedent for future change of name petitions, particularly where long-standing use and potential confusion are central factors.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.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: KIMRIC CASAYURAN TAN, VS. THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF MAKATI CITY, THE NATIONAL STATISTICS OFFICE, AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 222857, November 10, 2021