CA 142

Section 1. Except as a pseudonym solely for literary, cinema, television, radio or other
entertainment purposes and in athletic events where the use of pseudonym is a normally
accepted practice, no person shall use any name different from the one with which he was
registered at birth in the office of the local civil registry or with which he was baptized
for the first time, or in case of an alien, with which he was registered in the bureau of
immigration upon entry; or such substitute name as may have been authorized by a
competent court: Provided, That persons whose births have not been registered in any
local civil registry and who have not been baptized, have one year from the approval of
this act within which to register their names in the civil registry of their residence. The
name shall comprise the patronymic name and one or two surnames.

Section 2. Any person desiring to use an alias shall apply for authority therefor in
proceedings like those legally provided to obtain judicial authority for a change of name
and no person shall be allowed to secure such judicial authority for more than one alias.
The petition for an alias shall set forth the person's baptismal and family name and the
name recorded in the civil registry, if different, his immigrant's name, if an alien, and his
pseudonym, if he has such names other than his original or real name, specifying the
reason or reasons for the desired alias. The judicial authority for the use of alias, the
Christian name and the alien immigrant's name shall be recorded in the proper local civil
registry, and no person shall use any name or names other than his original or real name
unless the same is or are duly recorded in the proper local civil registry.

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-10912 October 31, 1958

In the matter of the petition of ANSELMO LIM HOK ALBANO, etc., to be

admitted a citizen of the Philippines. ANSELMO LIM HOK ALBANO, etc.,
petitioner-appellant,
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellee.

Digest

After information for plunder was filed against former President Joseph Estrada, separate
information for illegal use of alias was filed against him. The information alleged that
respondent being then President of the Philippines represented himself as Jose Velarde in
several transactions without authority. The Republic presented its evidence during trial
before Sandiganbayan and thereafter rested its case. Respondent former President
Estrada filed a demurrer to evidence with leave of court. The Sandiganbayan dismissed
criminal case against former President Estrada for illegal use of alias. Hence, the
Republic filed petition for Review on Certiorari.
Issue

1. Whether or not former President Estrada’s use of Jose Velarde in the presence of 2
Bank officers and 2 other witnesses constituted public use of alias

Rule in Libel law that mere communication to third person is publicity-does not apply to
violations of CA No. 142. Our close reading of Ursua – particularly, the requirement that
there be intention by the user to be culpable and the historical reasons we cited above –
tells us that the required publicity in the use of alias is more than mere communication to
a third person; the use of the alias, to be considered public, must be made openly, or in an
open manner or place, or to cause it to become generally known. In order to be held liable
for a violation of CA No. 142, the user of the alias must have held himself out as a person
who shall publicly be known under that other name. In other words, the intent to publicly
use the alias must be manifest.

To our mind, the presence of Lacquian and Chua when Estrada signed as Jose Velarde
and opened Trust Account No. C-163 does not necessarily indicate his intention to be
publicly known henceforth as Jose Velarde. In relation to Estrada, Lacquian and Chua
were not part of the public who had no access to Estrada’s privacy and to the confidential
matters that transpired in Malacañan where he sat as President; Lacquian was the Chief of
Staff with whom he shared matters of the highest and strictest confidence, while Chua
was a lawyer-friend bound by his oath of office and ties of friendship to keep and
maintain the privacy and secrecy of his affairs. Thus, Estrada could not be said to have
intended his signing as Jose Velarde to be for public consumption by the fact alone that
Lacquian and Chua were also inside the room at that time. The same holds true for
Estrada’s alleged representations with Ortaliza and Dichavez, assuming the evidence for
these representations to be admissible. All of Estrada’s representations to these people
were made in privacy and in secrecy, with no iota of intention of publicity

2. Whether or not respondent’s use of Jose Velarde in opening trust account is covered
by R.A. 1405 (Bank Secrecy Law) thus, done in secrecy

R.A. 1405 (Bank Secrecy Law) covers opening of trust account

The nature, too, of the transaction on which the indictment rests, affords Estrada a
reasonable expectation of privacy, as the alleged criminal act related to the opening of a
trust account – a transaction that R.A. No. 1405 considers absolutely confidential in
nature.We previously rejected, in Ejercito v. Sandiganbayan, the People’s nitpicking
argument on the alleged dichotomy between bank deposits and trust transactions, when
we said:

The contention that trust accounts are not covered by the term "deposits," as used in R.A.
1405, by the mere fact that they do not entail a creditor-debtor relationship between the
trustor and the bank, does not lie. An examination of the law shows that the term
"deposits" used therein is to be understood broadly and not limited only to accounts
which give rise to a creditor-debtor relationship between the depositor and the bank.

G.R. No. 153883 January 13, 2004

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,

vs.
CHULE Y. LIM, respondent.

Respondent Chule Y. Lim filed petition for correction of entries before RTC Lanao del
Norte. In her petition, respondent claimed her records of birth have four erroneous
entries, and prays that they be corrected. Respondent testified that her surname Yu was
misspelled as Yo and she has been using "Yu" in all her school records and in her
marriage certificate. RTC granted her petition and ordered that her citizenship be
corrected from Chinese to Filipino, from legitimate to illegitimate, and lastly that her
surname be changed to YU. The Republic of the Philippines appealed the decision to the
Court of Appeals which affirmed the trial court’s decision.

Issue

Whether or not respondent allowed to use her father’s surname despite being illegitimate

Ruling

The Court of Appeals did not allow respondent to use her father’s surname. What it did
allow was the correction of her father’s misspelled surname which she has been using
ever since she can remember. In this regard, respondent does not need a court
pronouncement for her to use her father’s surname.

Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 142, which regulates the use of aliases, allows a
person to use a name "by which he has been known since childhood. While judicial
authority is required for a change of name or surname,18 there is no such requirement for
the continued use of a surname which a person has already been using since childhood.19

The doctrine that disallows such change of name as would give the false impression of
family relationship remains valid but only to the extent that the proposed change of name
would in great probability cause prejudice or future mischief to the family whose
surname it is that is involved or to the community in general.20 In this case, the Republic
has not shown that the Yu family in China would probably be prejudiced or be the object
of future mischief. In respondent’s case, the change in the surname that she has been
using for 40 years would even avoid confusion to her community in general.