Grande vs. Antonio

G.R.No.206248. February18,2014.*

GRACE M. GRANDE, petitioner, vs. PATRICIO T.ANTONIO,respondent.

Civil Law; Illegitimate Children; Surnames; The general ruleis that an illegitimate child shall use the surname of his or hermother. The exception provided by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9255 is,in case his or her filiation is expressly recognized by the fatherthrough the record of birth appearing in the civil register or whenan admission in a public document or private handwritteninstrument is made by the father.—Itisclearthatthegeneralruleis that an illegitimate child shall use the surname of his or hermother. The exception provided byRA 9255 is, in case his or herfiliationisexpresslyrecognizedbythefatherthroughtherecordofbirth appearing in the civil register or when an admission in apublicdocumentorprivatehandwritteninstrumentismadebythefather. In such a situation, the illegitimate child may use thesurnameofthefather.

Same; Same; Parental Authority; Parental authority over minorchildren is lodged by Art. 176 on the mother. Since parentalauthority is given to the mother, then custody over the minorchildren also goes to the mother, unless she is shown to be unfit.—ParentalauthorityoverminorchildrenislodgedbyArt.176onthemother; hence, respondent’s prayer has no legal mooring. Sinceparental authority is given to the mother, then custody over theminor children also goes to themother, unless she is shown to beunfit.

Same; Same; Surnames; An acknowledged illegitimate child isunder no compulsion to use the surname of his illegitimate father.—Nowcomesthematterofthechangeofsurnameoftheillegitimatechildren. Is there a legal basis for the court a quo to order thechangeofthesurnametothatofrespondent?Clearly,thereisnone.Otherwise, the order or ruling will contravene the explicit andunequivocalprovisionofArt.176of theFamilyCode,asamendedbyRA9255.Art.176givesillegitimatechildrentherighttodecideiftheywant to use the surname of their father or not. It is not thefather(hereinrespondent)orthemother(hereinpetitioner)whoisgrantedbylaw

_______________

*ENBANC.

699

VOL.716,FEBRUARY18,2014 699

Grande vs. Antonio

the right to dictate the surname of their illegitimate children.Nothing ismore settled than that when the law is clear and free

fromambiguity,itmustbetakentomeanwhatitsaysanditmustbe given its literal meaning free from any interpretation.Respondent’spositionthatthecourtcanordertheminorstousehissurname, therefore, has no legal basis. On its face, Art. 176, asamended,isfreefromambiguity.Andwherethereisnoambiguity,one must abide by its words. The use of the word “may” in theprovision readily shows that an acknowledged illegitimatechild is under no compulsion to use the surname of hisillegitimate father.Theword“may”ispermissiveandoperatestoconferdiscretionupontheillegitimatechildren.

Same; Same; Same; On the matter of children’s surnames, theSupreme Court has, time and again, rebuffed the idea that the useof the father’s surname serves the best interest of the minor child.—It is best to emphasize once again that the yardstick by whichpoliciesaffectingchildrenaretobemeasured is theirbest interest.On the matter of children’s surnames, this Court has, time andagain,rebuffedtheideathattheuseofthefather’ssurnameservesthebestinterestoftheminorchild.InAlfon v. Republic,97SCRA858(1980),forinstance,thisCourtallowedevenalegitimatechildto continue using the surname of hermother rather than that ofher legitimate father as it servesher best interest and there is nolegalobstacletopreventherfromusingthesurnameofhermothertowhichsheisentitled.Infact, inCalderon v. Republic,19SCRA721 (1967), this Court, upholding the best interest of the childconcerned, even allowed the use of a surname different from thesurnamesofthechild’sfatherormother.Indeed,theruleregardingtheuseofachild’ssurnameissecondonlytotherulerequiringthatthe child be placed in the best possible situation considering hiscircumstances.

Administrative Law; The hornbook rule is that anadministrative issuance cannot amend a legislative act.—Thehornbook rule is that an administrative issuance cannot amend alegislative act. In MCC Industrial Sales Corp. v. SsangyongCorporation,536SCRA408(2007),Weheld:Afterall,thepowerofadministrativeofficialstopromulgaterulesintheimplementationofa statute is necessarily limited to what is found in the legislativeenactment itself.The implementing rulesand regulations of a lawcannot extend the law or expand its coverage, as the power toamendorrepealastatuteis

700

700 SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED

Grande vs. Antonio

vestedintheLegislature.Thus,ifadiscrepancyoccursbetweenthebasic lawandan implementing rule or regulation, it is the formerthat prevails, because the law cannot be broadened by a mereadministrative issuance — an administrative agency certainlycannot amend an act of Congress. Thus, We can disregardcontemporaneous constructionwhere there is no ambiguity in lawand/or the construction is clearly erroneous. What is more, thisCourt has the constitutional prerogative and authority to strikedown and declare as void the rules of procedure of special courtsand quasijudicial bodies when found contrary to statutes and/ortheConstitution.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision andresolutionoftheCourtofAppeals.ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.Nancy Villanueva Teylanforpetitioner.Romeo N. Bartolomeforrespondent.

VELASCO,JR., J.:

BeforethisCourt isaPetition forReviewonCertiorariunderRule 45, assailing the July 24, 2012Decision1 andMarch5,2013Resolution2oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.CVNo.96406.

Asculledfromtherecords,thefactsofthiscaseare:Petitioner Grace Grande (Grande) and respondent

PatricioAntonio(Antonio)foraperiodoftimelivedtogetheras husband and wife, although Antonio was at that timealready married to someone else.3 Out of this illicitrelationship,twosonswereborn:AndreLewis(onFebruary8, 1998) and Jerard Patrick (on October 13, 1999).4 Thechildrenwerenot

_______________

1Rollo,pp. 2341. Penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon

and concurred in by Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and

MarleneGonzalesSison.

2Id.,atpp.4243.

3Id.,atp.25.

4Id.,atpp.10,25,4446,50.

701


Grande vs. Antonio

expresslyrecognizedbyrespondentashisownintheRecordofBirthsofthechildrenintheCivilRegistry.Theparties’relationship,however,eventuallyturnedsour,andGrandeleftfortheUnitedStateswithhertwochildreninMay2007.This prompted respondent Antonio to file a Petition forJudicial Approval of Recognition with Prayer to takeParental Authority, Parental Physical Custody,Correction/Change of Surname of Minors and for theIssuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction before theRegionalTrialCourt,Branch8ofAparri,Cagayan(RTC),appending a notarized Deed of Voluntary Recognition ofPaternityofthechildren.5

OnSeptember28,2010,theRTCrenderedaDecisioninfavor of herein respondent Antonio, ruling that “[t]heevidenceathandisoverwhelmingthatthebestinterestofthe children can be promoted if they are under the soleparental authority and physical custody of [respondentAntonio].”6Thus,thecourta quodecreedthefollowing:

WHEREFORE, foregoingpremises considered, theCourtherebygrants[Antonio’s]prayerforrecognitionandthesameishereby judiciallyapproved.xxxConsequently, theCourtforthwithissuesthefollowingOrdergrantingtheotherreliefssoughtinthePetition,towit:

a.OrderingtheOfficeoftheCityRegistraroftheCityofMakatito cause theentryof thenameof [Antonio]as the father ofthe aforementioned minors in their respective Certificate ofLive Birth and causing the correction/change and/orannotation of the surnames of said minors in theirCertificate of Live Birth from Grande to Antonio;

b. Granting [Antonio] the right to jointly exercise ParentalAuthority with [Grande] over the persons of their minorchildren,AndreLewisGrandeandJerardPatrickGrande;

_______________

5Id.,atp.79.

6Id.,atp.30.

702


Grande vs. Antonio

c.Granting[Antonio]primaryrightandimmediatecustodyovertheparties’minorchildrenAndreLewisGrandreandJerardPatrickGrandewho shall staywith [Antonio’s] residence inthe Philippines from Monday until Friday evening and to[Grande’s]custodyfromSaturdaytoSundayevening;

d.Ordering[Grande]toimmediatelysurrenderthepersonsandcustody of minors Andre Lewis Grande and Jerard PatrickGrandeunto[Antonio]forthedayscoveredbytheOrder;

e. Ordering parties to cease and desist from bringing theaforenamed minors outside of the country, without thewrittenconsentoftheotherandpermissionfromthecourt.

f. Ordering parties to give and share the support of theminorchildrenAndreLewisGrandeandJerardPatrickGrande inthe amount of P30,000 per month at the rate of 70% for[Antonio]and30%for[Grande].7(Emphasissupplied.)

Aggrieved,petitionerGrandemovedforreconsideration.However, her motion was denied by the trial court in itsResolutiondatedNovember 22, 20108 for beingpro formaandforlackofmerit.

Petitioner Grande then filed an appeal with the CAattributinggraveerroronthepartoftheRTCforallegedlyrulingcontrarytothelawandjurisprudencerespectingthegrant of sole custody to the mother over her illegitimatechildren.9 In resolving the appeal, the appellate courtmodified in part theDecision of the RTC. The dispositiveportionoftheCADecisionreads:

_______________

7 Id.,atpp.2425.

8Id.,atp.30.

9Id.,atp.31.

703


Grande vs. Antonio

WHEREFORE, the appeal is partly GRANTED.

Accordingly, the appealed Decision of the Regional TrialCourt Branch 8, Aparri Cagayan in SP Proc. Case No. 114492 isMODIFIED in part and shall hereinafter read asfollows:

a. The Offices of the Civil Registrar General and the CityCivil Registrar of Makati City are DIRECTED to enterthe surname Antonio as the surname of Jerard Patrickand Andre Lewis, in their respective certificates of livebirth, and record the same in the Register of Births;

b. [Antonio] isORDERED to deliver theminor children JerardPatrickandAndreLewistothecustodyoftheirmotherhereinappellant, Grace Grande who by virtue hereof is herebyawardedthefullorsolecustodyoftheseminorchildren;

c.[Antonio]shallhavevisitorialrightsatleasttwiceaweek,andmay only take the children out upon thewritten consent of[Grande];and

d. The parties areDIRECTED to give and share in support ofthe minor children Jerard Patrick and Andre Lewis in theamount of P30,000.00 per month at the rate of 70% for[Antonio]and30%for[Grande].(Emphasissupplied.)

In ruling thus, the appellate court ratiocinated thatnotwithstandingthefather’srecognitionofhischildren,themothercannotbedeprivedofhersoleparentalcustodyoverthem absent the most compelling of reasons.10 SincerespondentAntonio failed to prove that petitionerGrandecommittedanyactthatadverselyaffectedthewelfareofthechildren

_______________

10Id.,atpp.3638.

704


Grande vs. Antonio

orrenderedherunsuitabletoraisetheminors,shecannotbedeprivedofhersoleparentalcustodyovertheirchildren.

Theappellatecourt,however,maintainedthatthe legalconsequence of the recognition made by respondentAntonio that he is the father of the minors, taken inconjunction with the universally protected “bestinterestofthechild” clause, compels the use by thechildren of the surname “ANTONIO.”11

Astotheissueofsupport,theCAheldthatthegrantislegally in order considering that not only did Antonioexpress his willingness to give support, it is also aconsequence of his acknowledging the paternity of theminor children.12 Lastly, the CA ruled that there is noreasontodepriverespondentAntonioofhisvisitorialrightespecially in view of the constitutionally inherent andnaturalrightofparentsovertheirchildren.13

Not satisfiedwith theCA’sDecision, petitionerGrandeinterposedapartialmotionforreconsideration,particularlyassailing the order of the CA insofar as it decreed thechange of the minors’ surname to “Antonio.” When her

motion was denied, petitioner came to this Court via thepresent petition. In it, she posits that Article 176 of theFamilyCode—asamendedbyRepublicActNo.(RA)9255,couched as it is in permissive language — may not beinvoked by a father to compel the use by his illegitimatechildrenofhissurnamewithouttheconsentoftheirmother.

Wefindthepresentpetitionimpressedwithmerit.Thesoleissueathandistherightofafathertocompel

theuseofhissurnamebyhisillegitimatechildrenuponhisrecognitionoftheirfiliation.Centraltothecoreissueistheap

11Id.,atp.38.

12Id.,atp.39.

13Id.

705


Grande vs. Antonio

plicationofArt.176oftheFamilyCode,originallyphrasedasfollows:

Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall beunder the parental authority of their mother, and shall beentitledtosupportinconformitywiththisCode.Thelegitimeof each illegitimate child shall consist of onehalf of thelegitimeofalegitimatechild.Exceptforthismodification,allother provisions in the Civil Code governing successionalrightsshallremaininforce.

ThisprovisionwaslateramendedonMarch19,2004byRA925514whichnowreads:

Art. 176. Illegitimate children shall use the surnameandshallbeundertheparentalauthorityoftheirmother,and shall be entitled to support in conformity with thisCode. However, illegitimate children may use thesurname of their father if their filiation has beenexpressly recognized by their father through therecordof birthappearing in the civil register, orwhenanadmission in a public document or private handwritteninstrumentismadebythefather.Provided,thefatherhastherighttoinstituteanactionbeforetheregularcourtstoprovenonfiliationduringhislifetime.Thelegitimeofeachillegitimatechildshallconsistofonehalfofthelegitimeofalegitimatechild.(Emphasissupplied.)

Fromtheforegoingprovisions,itisclearthatthegeneralruleisthatanillegitimatechildshallusethesurnameofhisorhermother.TheexceptionprovidedbyRA9255is,incasehisorherfiliationisexpresslyrecognizedbythefather

_______________

14 An Act Allowing Illegitimate Children to Use the Surname of

TheirFatherAmendingforthePurposeArticle176ofExecutiveOrder

No. 209, Otherwise Known as the “Family Code of the Philippines,”

signedintolawonFebruary24,2004andtookeffectonMarch19,2004

fifteen (15) days after its publication onMalaya and theManila Times

onMarch4,2004.

706


Grande vs. Antonio

throughtherecordofbirthappearinginthecivilregisterorwhen an admission in a public document or privatehandwritten instrument ismade by the father. In such asituation,theillegitimatechildmayusethesurnameofthefather.

Inthecaseatbar,respondentfiledapetitionforjudicialapproval of recognition of the filiation of the two childrenwiththeprayerforthecorrectionorchangeofthesurnameof the minors from Grande to Antonio when a publicdocumentacknowledgedbeforeanotarypublicunderSec.19,Rule132oftheRulesofCourt15 isenoughtoestablishthepaternityofhischildren.Buthewantedmore:ajudicialconfermentofparentalauthority,parentalcustody,andanofficialdeclarationofhischildren’ssurnameasAntonio.

ParentalauthorityoverminorchildrenislodgedbyArt.176onthemother;hence,respondent’sprayerhasnolegalmooring. Since parental authority is given to themother,then custody over the minor children also goes to themother,unlesssheisshowntobeunfit.

Nowcomes thematterof the changeof surnameof theillegitimate children. Is therea legalbasis for the courtaquo to order the change of the surname to that ofrespondent?

_______________

15 Rule 132, Sec. 19. Classes of Documents.—For the purpose of

theirpresentationinevidence,documentsareeitherpublicorprivate.

Publicdocumentsare:

(a)Thewrittenofficialacts,orrecordsoftheofficialactsofthe

sovereign authority, official bodies and tribunals, and public

officers,whetherofthePhilippines,oraforeigncountry;

(b)Documentsacknowledgedbeforeanotarypublicexceptlast

willandtestaments;and

(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private

documentsrequiredbylawtobeenteredtherein.

Allotherwritingsareprivate.

707


Grande vs. Antonio

Clearly,thereisnone.Otherwise,theorderorrulingwillcontravene the explicit and unequivocal provision of Art.176oftheFamilyCode,asamendedbyRA9255.

Art.176givesillegitimatechildrentherighttodecideiftheywanttousethesurnameoftheirfatherornot.Itisnotthe father (herein respondent) or the mother (herein

petitioner) who is granted by law the right to dictate thesurnameoftheirillegitimatechildren.

Nothingismoresettledthanthatwhenthelawisclearandfreefromambiguity,itmustbetakentomeanwhatitsaysanditmustbegivenitsliteralmeaningfreefromanyinterpretation.16 Respondent’s position that the court canordertheminorstousehissurname,therefore,hasnolegalbasis.

Onitsface,Art.176,asamended,isfreefromambiguity.And where there is no ambiguity, one must abide by itswords.Theuseof theword “may” in theprovision readilyshowsthatanacknowledged illegitimatechild isundernocompulsion to use the surname of his illegitimate father.The word “may” is permissive and operates to conferdiscretion17upontheillegitimatechildren.

Itisbesttoemphasizeonceagainthattheyardstickbywhichpoliciesaffectingchildrenaretobemeasuredistheirbest interest. On the matter of children’s surnames, thisCourthas,timeandagain,rebuffedtheideathattheuseofthefather’ssurnameservesthebestinterestoftheminor

_______________

16Republic v. Lacap,G.R.No.158253,March2,2007,517SCRA255;

Chartered Bank Employees Association v. Ople,No.L44717,August28,

1985, 138 SCRA 273;Quijano v. Development Bank of the Philippines,

G.R.No.26419,October19,1970,35SCRA270;Luzon Surety Co., Inc.

v. De Garcia,No.L25659,October31,1969,30SCRA111.

17 Agpalo, Ruben, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION 460 (6th ed., 2009);

citationsomitted.

708


Grande vs. Antonio

child.InAlfon v. Republic,18forinstance,thisCourtallowedevenalegitimatechildtocontinueusingthesurnameofhermotherratherthanthatofherlegitimatefatherasitservesher best interest and there isno legal obstacle to preventherfromusingthesurnameofhermothertowhichsheisentitled. In fact, in Calderon v. Republic,19 this Court,upholding the best interest of the child concerned, evenallowedtheuseofasurnamedifferentfromthesurnamesofthechild’sfatherormother.Indeed,theruleregardingtheuseofachild’ssurnameissecondonlytotherulerequiringthat the child be placed in the best possible situationconsideringhiscircumstances.

InRepublic of the Philippines v. Capote,20Wegaveduedeference to the choiceofan illegitimateminor touse thesurnameofhismotheras itwouldbest servehis interest,thus:

The foregoing discussion establishes the significantconnection of a person’s name to his identity, his status inrelation to his parents and his successional rights as alegitimateorillegitimatechild.Forsure,thesemattersshouldnotbetakenlightlyastodeprivethosewhomay,inanyway,be affected by the right to present evidence in favor of or

againstsuchchange.ThelawandfactsobtainingherefavorGiovanni’spetition.

Giovanniavailedoftheproperremedy,apetitionforchangeofnameunderRule103oftheRulesofCourt,andcompliedwithalltheproceduralrequirements.Afterhearing,thetrialcourt found (and the appellate court affirmed) that theevidencepresentedduringthehearingofGiovanni’s petitionsufficientlyestablishedthat,underArt.176oftheCivilCode,Giovanni is entitled to change his name as he was neverrecognized by his father while his mother has alwaysrecognizedhimasherchild.Achangeofnamewillerasetheimpression

_______________

18No.L51201,May29,1980,97SCRA858.

19126Phil.1;19SCRA721(1967).

20G.R.No.157043,February2,2007,514SCRA76,8384.

709


Grande vs. Antonio

thathewaseverrecognizedbyhis father.It is also to hisbest interest as it will facilitate his mother’s intendedpetition to have him join her in the United States. ThisCourt will not stand in the way of the reunification ofmother and son.(Emphasissupplied.)

Anargument,however,maybeadvancedadvocatingthemandatoryuseofthefather’ssurnameuponhisrecognitionofhis illegitimatechildren,citingtheImplementingRulesandRegulations(IRR)ofRA9255,21whichstates:

Rule 7. Requirements for the Child to Use the Surname ofthe Father7.1 ForBirthsNotYetRegistered7.1.1 The illegitimate child shall use the surname of thefatherifapublicdocumentisexecutedbythefather,eitheratthe back of the Certificate of Live Birth or in a separatedocument.7.1.2 If admission of paternity is made through a privateinstrument, the child shall use the surname of the father,provided the registration is supported by the followingdocuments:xxxx7.2. ForBirthsPreviouslyRegisteredundertheSurnameoftheMother7.2.1 If filiation has been expressly recognized by thefather,thechildshallusethesurnameofthefatheruponthesubmissionoftheaccomplishedAUSF[AffidavitofUseoftheSurnameoftheFather].

_______________

21OfficeofCivilRegistrarGeneral(OCRG)AdministrativeOrderNo.1,

Series of 2004, issued by the National Statistics OfficeOffice of the

CivilRegistrarGeneral.ApprovedonMay14,2004,publishedonMay

18,2004ontheManilaTimes,andtookeffectonJune2,2004.

710


Grande vs. Antonio

7.2.2 If filiation has not been expressly recognized by thefather, the child shall use the surname of the father uponsubmission of a public document or a private handwritteninstrumentsupportedbythedocumentslistedinRule7.1.2.7.3 ExceptinItem7.2.1,theconsentoftheillegitimatechildis required if he/she has reached the age of majority. Theconsent may be contained in a separate instrument dulynotarized.xxxxRule 8. Effects of Recognition8.1 ForBirthsNotYetRegistered8.1.1 Thesurnameofthefathershallbeenteredasthelastname of the child in the Certificate of Live Birth. TheCertificate of LiveBirth shall be recorded in theRegister ofBirths.xxxx8.2 ForBirthsPreviouslyRegisteredundertheSurnameoftheMother8.2.1 Ifadmissionofpaternitywasmadeeitheratthebackof the Certificate of Live Birth or in a separate publicdocument or in a private handwritten document, the publicdocument orAUSF shall be recorded in theRegister ofLiveBirthandtheRegisterofBirthsasfollows:

“The surname of the child is hereby changed from(original surname) to (new surname) pursuant to RA 9255.”TheoriginalsurnameofthechildappearingintheCertificateofLiveBirthandRegister ofBirths shallnotbe changedordeleted.8.2.2 Iffiliationwasnotexpresslyrecognizedatthetimeofregistration, thepublic document orAUSF shall be recordedintheRegisterofLegalInstruments.Properannotationshallbemade in theCertificate of LiveBirth and theRegister ofBirthsasfollows:

711


Grande vs. Antonio

“Acknowledged by (name of father) on (date). The surnameof the child is hereby changed from (original surname) on(date) pursuant to RA 9255.”(Emphasissupplied.)

Nonetheless,thehornbookruleisthatanadministrative

issuancecannotamendalegislativeact.InMCC IndustrialSales Corp. v. Ssangyong Corporation,22Weheld:

After all, the power of administrative officials topromulgate rules in the implementation of a statute isnecessarily limited to what is found in the legislativeenactmentitself.Theimplementingrulesandregulationsofa

law cannot extend the law or expand its coverage, as thepower to amend or repeal a statute is vested in theLegislature. Thus, if a discrepancy occurs between the basiclawandan implementingruleorregulation, it is the formerthatprevails,becausethelawcannotbebroadenedbyamereadministrativeissuance—anadministrativeagencycertainlycannotamendanactofCongress.

Thus, We can disregard contemporaneous constructionwherethereisnoambiguityinlawand/ortheconstructionis clearly erroneous.23 What is more, this Court has theconstitutionalprerogativeandauthoritytostrikedownanddeclareasvoidtherulesofprocedureofspecialcourtsandquasijudicial bodies24 when found contrary to statutesand/or the Constitution.25 Section 5(5), Art. VIII of theConstitutionprovides:

_______________

22G.R.No.170633,October17,2007,536SCRA408,453.

23Regalado v. Yulo,61Phil.173(1935);Molina v. Rafferty,37Phil.

545(1918).

24TheOffice of theCivil RegistrarGeneral exercises quasijudicial

powers under Rule 13, Title 1, of NSO Administrative Order 193,

December 18, 1993, Implementing Rules and Regulations of Act No.

3753 and Other Laws on Civil Registration:

RULE 13. Posting of the Pending Application.—(1)Anoticetothe

publiconthependingapplicationfordelayedregistrationshallbeposted

inthebulletinboardofthecity/municipalityforaperiodofnotlessthan

ten(10)days.

712


Grande vs. Antonio

Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:xxxx(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection andenforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice andprocedure in all courts, the admission to thepractice of law,the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to theunderprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified andinexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases,shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shallnotdiminish,increase,ormodifysubstantiverights.Rules ofprocedure of special courts and quasijudicial bodiesshall remain effective unless disapproved by theSupreme Court.(Emphasissupplied.)

Thus,Weexercisethispowerinvoidingtheabovequoted

provisionsoftheIRRofRA9255insofarasitprovidesthe

_______________

(2) If after ten (10) days,no one opposes the registration, the civil

registrar shall evaluate the veracity of the statements made in the

requireddocumentssubmitted.

(3) If after proper evaluation of all documents presented and

investigationof the allegations contained therein, the civil registrar is

convincedthat the event really occurredwithin the jurisdiction of the

civilregistryoffice,and findingout thatsaideventwasnot registered,

heshallregisterthedelayedreportthereof.

(4) Thecivil registrar, inall casesofdelayedregistrationofbirth,

death and marriage, shall conduct an investigation whenever an

opposition is filed against its registration by taking the testimonies of

the parties concerned and witnesses in the form of questions and

answers. After investigation, the civil registrar shall forward his

findings and recommendations to the Office of the Civil Registrar

Generalforappropriateaction.

(5) The Civil RegistrarGeneral may, after review and proper

evaluation,denyorauthorizetheregistration.

25Tan v. COMELEC,G.R.Nos.16614347&166891,November20,

2006,507SCRA352,370371.

713


Grande vs. Antonio

mandatory use by illegitimate children of their father’ssurnameuponthelatter’srecognitionofhispaternity.

Toconclude,theuseoftheword“shall”intheIRRofRA9255 is of no moment. The clear, unambiguous, andunequivocaluseof“may”inArt.176renderingtheuseofanillegitimate father’s surname discretionary controls, andillegitimate children are given the choice on thesurnames by which they will be known.

Atthisjuncture,Wetakenoteoftheletterssubmittedbythechildren,nowagedthirteen (13)and fifteen (15)yearsold, to this Court declaring their opposition to have theirnameschangedto“Antonio.”26However,sincetheseletterswere not offered before and evaluated by the trial court,they do not provide any evidentiary weight to sway thisCourt to rule for or against petitioner.27 A proper inquiryinto,andevaluationoftheevidenceof,thechildren’schoiceofsurnamebythetrialcourtisnecessary.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is PARTIALLYGRANTED. The July 24, 2012 Decision of the Court ofAppeals in CAG.R. CV No. 96406 is MODIFIED, thedispositiveportionofwhichshallread:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is partlyGRANTED. Accordingly,theappealedDecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourtBranch8,AparriCagayaninSPProc.CaseNo.114492isMODIFIED inpartandshallhereinafterreadasfollows:

a. [Antonio] isORDERED to deliver theminor children JerardPatrickandAndreLewistothecustodyoftheirmotherhereinappellant,GraceGrandewhobyvirtuehereofishereby

_______________

26Rollo,pp.4546.

27 Rule 132, Sec. 34. Offer of evidence.—The court shall consider no

evidence which has not been formally offered. The purpose for which the

evidenceisofferedmustbespecified.

714


Grande vs. Antonio

awardedthefullorsolecustodyoftheseminorchildren;b. [Antonio]shallhavevisitationrights28at leasttwiceaweek,

andmayonlytakethechildrenoutuponthewrittenconsentof[Grande];

c.ThepartiesareDIRECTEDtogiveandshareinsupportoftheminorchildrenJerardPatrickandAndreLewisintheamountofP30,000.00permonthattherateof70%for[Antonio]and30%for[Grande];and

d. The case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court,Branch 8 of Aparri, Cagayan for the sole purpose ofdetermining the surname to be chosen by the childrenJerard Patrick and Andre Lewis.

Rule 7 and Rule 8 of the Office of the Civil RegistrarGeneral Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2004 areDISAPPROVEDandherebydeclaredNULLandVOID.

SO ORDERED.

Sereno (CJ.), Carpio, LeonardoDe Castro, Peralta,Bersamin, Del Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Reyes,PerlasBernabe and Leonen, JJ.,concur.

Brion, J.,OnLeave.Mendoza, J.,Nopart.

Petition partially granted, judgment modified.

Notes.—Itisasettledrulethatonlylegitimatechildrenfollowthecitizenshipofthefatherandthatillegitimatechil

_______________

28 In family law, the right granted by a court to a parent or other

relativewhoisdeprivedcustodyofachildtovisitthechildonaregular

basis.SeeDICTIONARYOFLEGALTERMS529(3rded.).

715


Grande vs. Antonio

dren are under the parental authority of themother andfollow her nationality. (Go, Sr. vs. Ramos, 598 SCRA 266[2009])

Thefilingofarecordonappealisnotnecessarywherenoothermatter remains to be heard and determined by thetrial court after it issued the appealed order granting thepetition for cancellation of birth record and change ofsurname in the civil registry. (Republic vs. Nishina, 634SCRA716[2010])

——o0o——

© Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.