Republic vs. Bolante Digest

FACTS: Respondent filed a petition for change of name before the RTC. She alleged that her registered name (birth certificate) is Roselie Eloisa Bringas Bolante which she did not use; but instead the name Maria Eloisa Bringas Bolante appears in all her school as well as in her other public and private records.

The RTC upon finding that the petition is sufficient in form and substance ordered respondent to comply with the jurisdictional requirements of notice and publication, and set the hearing on Feb. 20, 2001. At the scheduled Feb. 20 initial hearing the RTC ordered the respondent to file a written formal offer of evidence.

The Clerk of Court acting on court’s express directive for a resetting issued another notice for a hearing and a second resetting was made after notice was given scheduled on September 25, 2001 and actually held.

On the Sept. 25 hearing, respondent presented several documents without any objection on the part of petitioner, represented by the OSG. She also took the witness to state the purpose of her petition which was to have her registered name changed to that which she had actually been using thru the years. She testified that she wanted to secure a passport issued with her correct name and to avoid any complication on her records upon her retirement.

The RTC granted the petition and the appellate court affirmed the same, hence; the current case. Petitioner argued that the jurisdictional facts were not complied with as prescribed by Rule 103 Section 3 in which “xxx the date set for hearing shall not be within 30 days prior to an election nor within 4 months after the last publication of the notice.” Petitioner argued that the notices were published on these dates: Nov. 23, 30 and December 7 and the hearing was set on Feb. 20 which is within the prohibited period of 4 months. Petitioner also argued that the reasons given by respondent is not sufficient to grant the request for change of name.

ISSUE: (1) WON the...