View full case

GRACE M. GRANDE v. PATRICIO T. ANTONIO

FACTS:

Grace Grande and Patricio Antonio were in a relationship, even if Antonio was already married to someone else. They had two sons, but Antonio did not recognize them in the Record of Births. Grande eventually left for the United States with their children. Antonio filed a petition for recognition, parental authority, custody, and a change of surname for the children. The Regional Trial Court granted the petition, ordering the correction of the birth certificates, joint parental authority, and physical custody in favor of Antonio. Grande's motion for reconsideration was denied. She appealed to the Court of Appeals, which granted the appeal in part, changing the surname to Antonio and awarding sole custody to Grande. Grande's motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting her to file a petition for review with the Supreme Court. She argued that Article 176 of the Family Code cannot be used by a father to compel the use of his surname by illegitimate children without the mother's consent.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the court has the authority to order a change of surname of illegitimate children.

  2. Whether the best interest of the child favors the use of the father's surname.

  3. Whether the use of the father's surname by illegitimate children is mandatory or discretionary.

  4. Whether the provisions of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9255 are valid.

  5. Whether Rule 7 and Rule 8 of the Office of the Civil Registrar General Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2004 are valid.

  6. Whether the said rules can be implemented in registration of children's surnames.

RULING:

  1. The court does not have the authority to order a change of surname of illegitimate children. The law explicitly states that an illegitimate child shall use the surname of his or her mother, except when the father's filiation is expressly recognized through a public document or admission in a private instrument. In this case, the court cannot order the change of surname to that of the father as it would contravene the explicit provision of the law.

  2. The best interest of the child is the paramount consideration. The court has consistently upheld that the use of the father's surname does not necessarily serve the best interest of the child. The child has the right to decide whether to use the surname of the father or not, and this decision should be made in the child's best interest. The court should consider the circumstances and factors that will provide the child with the best possible situation.

  3. The use of the father's surname by illegitimate children is discretionary. While the IRR of RA 9255 mandates the use of the father's surname upon recognition of paternity, the Supreme Court ruled that the law itself, specifically Article 176 of the Family Code, provides that illegitimate children are given the choice on the surnames by which they will be known.

  4. The provisions of the IRR of RA 9255, which mandate the use of the father's surname by illegitimate children, are declared void. The Supreme Court held that an administrative issuance cannot amend a legislative act and that the IRR cannot extend or expand the coverage of the law. The Court also exercised its power to strike down rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies when found contrary to statutes and/or the Constitution.

  5. Rule 7 and Rule 8 of the Office of the Civil Registrar General Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2004 are declared NULL and VOID.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The general rule is that an illegitimate child shall use the surname of the mother.

  • An illegitimate child may use the surname of the father if his or her filiation is expressly recognized by the father through a public document or admission in a private instrument.

  • Parental authority over minor children is initially granted to the mother.

  • The best interest of the child is the paramount consideration in matters concerning the child's surname.

  • The court does not have the authority to order a change of surname to that of the father if it contravenes the explicit provision of the law.

  • An administrative issuance cannot amend a legislative act.

  • When there is no ambiguity in the law and/or the construction is clearly erroneous, contemporaneous construction can be disregarded.

  • The Supreme Court has the constitutional prerogative and authority to strike down and declare as void the rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies when found contrary to statutes and/or the Constitution.

  • Illegitimate children are given the choice on the surnames by which they will be known.

  • The Court has the power to declare laws or rules null and void if they are found to be unconstitutional or in violation of existing laws.

  • Administrative orders or regulations must adhere to the constitution and existing laws to be considered valid and enforceable.