RA 9255 in the Philippines: Can Children Born Before 2004 Use the Father’s Surname?

Introduction

Republic Act No. 9255 (RA 9255), also known as the "Revillame Law," represents a significant amendment to the Family Code of the Philippines, specifically targeting the rules on surnames for illegitimate children. Enacted on February 24, 2004, and taking effect on March 11, 2004 (fifteen days after its publication in the Official Gazette), RA 9255 amended Article 369 of Executive Order No. 209 (the Family Code). This legislation addressed long-standing inequities in surname usage, particularly for illegitimate children, allowing them to bear their father's surname upon acknowledgment of paternity.

The core question addressed in this article—whether children born before 2004 can use their father's surname—arises from the timing of the law's enactment. Prior to RA 9255, Philippine law strictly mandated that illegitimate children use only their mother's surname, regardless of acknowledgment by the father. This created a rigid framework that often stigmatized such children and complicated family dynamics. RA 9255 sought to rectify this by promoting greater flexibility and recognition of paternal lineage. However, its application to pre-2004 births is not automatic and involves specific legal mechanisms, interpretations, and procedural hurdles. This article comprehensively explores the historical context, provisions of the law, applicability to pre-2004 children, procedural requirements, relevant jurisprudence, and practical considerations in the Philippine legal landscape.

Historical Context: Surname Rules Before RA 9255

To understand the impact of RA 9255, it is essential to review the pre-2004 surname regime under Philippine law.

The Civil Code Era (Pre-1988)

Under the Civil Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 386, effective August 30, 1950), Article 366 provided that legitimate children followed the father's surname, while illegitimate children followed the mother's. This distinction was absolute: even if paternity was acknowledged, an illegitimate child could not legally adopt the father's surname. Acknowledgment of paternity (via affidavit, will, or court record) established filiation for inheritance and support purposes but did not extend to surname rights. This rule stemmed from Spanish colonial influences, emphasizing maternal lineage for illegitimate offspring to avoid confusion in civil registration and to reflect societal norms of the time, which viewed illegitimacy as a social stigma.

The Family Code Era (1988–2004)

The Family Code, promulgated under Executive Order No. 209 by President Corazon C. Aquino on August 3, 1988, retained the essence of the Civil Code's surname provisions in Article 369. It stated: "The legitimate surname of the child shall be that of the father and mother. However, the child may use the surname of the father or the mother." For illegitimate children, Article 175 clarified that filiation could be established by acknowledgment, but Article 369 implicitly limited them to the mother's surname. The phrase "however" in Article 369 was interpreted by the Supreme Court and civil registrars to apply only to legitimate children, allowing them dual-surname options (e.g., father's or mother's, or a hyphenated combination). Illegitimate children remained bound to the mother's surname, as affirmed in cases like Republic v. Dalida (G.R. No. 180355, 2009), where the Court upheld the non-retroactive nature of surname changes absent judicial intervention.

This framework persisted until RA 9255, driven by advocacy from figures like actor-host Willie Revillame (hence the colloquial name), who highlighted the emotional and practical burdens on families. The law responded to calls for equality, recognizing that surnames are not merely identifiers but symbols of family identity, inheritance, and social acceptance.

Provisions of RA 9255

RA 9255 is concise, comprising only two sections, but its implications are far-reaching.

Section 1: Amendment to Article 369 of the Family Code

The amended Article 369 now reads: "The legitimate surname of the child shall follow that of the father. However, the child may use the surname of the mother in the following instances: (1) When the child was born before the marriage of his parents; (2) When the surname of the mother was entered in the certificate of birth; (3) When the child is recognized by only one parent.

The illegitimate child shall use the surname of the mother, unless: (1) The child's filiation has been expressly recognized by the father through the record of birth appearing in the civil register, or (2) When the recognition has been made in the record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record, or in any authentic writing."

This amendment fundamentally shifts the default for illegitimate children. Upon express acknowledgment by the father—through birth registration, will, court statement, or authentic document—the child may use the father's surname. This applies prospectively to births registered after the law's effectivity. For post-2004 illegitimate children, civil registrars (now under the Philippine Statistics Authority, or PSA) can directly enter the father's surname in the birth certificate if acknowledgment is provided at registration.

Section 2: Implementing Guidelines

Section 2 delegates to the Office of the Civil Registrar General (under the National Statistics Office, now PSA) the responsibility to issue implementing rules. These guidelines, issued via Administrative Order No. 001, Series of 2004, clarify that the law promotes "the best interest of the child" and aligns with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (ratified by the Philippines in 1990). Key points include:

Acknowledgment must be voluntary and express.
The change does not retroactively alter prior registrations but allows for annotations or corrections.
Dual surnames (mother's then father's, e.g., "Cruz-Revillame") are permitted for legitimate children but not explicitly for illegitimate ones under the amendment, though practice allows flexibility.

The law does not explicitly address retroactivity, leading to interpretive challenges for pre-2004 births.

Applicability to Children Born Before 2004

Children born before March 11, 2004, were registered under the old rules, with illegitimate children bearing only the mother's surname. RA 9255 does not have retroactive effect in the sense of automatically amending existing birth certificates. The Supreme Court has ruled in cases like In re: Petition for Change of Name of Revillame (the law's namesake inspiration) and subsequent jurisprudence that laws affecting civil status, such as surnames, apply prospectively unless expressly stated otherwise (Article 4, Civil Code: "Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided.").

However, pre-2004 children are not entirely barred from using the father's surname. The law's framework enables access through acknowledgment and subsequent legal processes. Key considerations include:

1. Acknowledgment of Paternity

For a pre-2004 illegitimate child to claim the father's surname, paternity must first be established or acknowledged. Under Article 175 of the Family Code, this can occur via:

Compulsory acknowledgment: Open and continuous possession of status as a child (e.g., the father treating the child as his own).
Express acknowledgment: Affidavit, birth record annotation, will, or court admission.
Judicial declaration: If disputed, a court action under Article 172 (action for filiation) must prove paternity via evidence like DNA tests (admissible since 2004 per Pe Lim v. CA, G.R. No. 168153).

Once acknowledged, the child may petition to use the father's surname, as RA 9255's policy of allowing such usage extends to all acknowledged illegitimate children, regardless of birth date. The PSA's guidelines (AO 001-2004) permit annotation of acknowledgment on pre-existing certificates, creating a basis for surname change.

2. No Automatic Change; Procedural Requirements Apply

Pre-2004 children cannot simply "switch" surnames administratively without acknowledgment. If the birth was registered solely under the mother's name without prior acknowledgment, the process involves:

Administrative Annotation: If acknowledgment existed but was not reflected (e.g., a pre-2004 affidavit), the PSA allows annotation via Affidavit of Acknowledgment. This does not change the surname but records filiation, enabling a subsequent petition.
Substantial Change Limitation: Mere use of the father's surname informally (e.g., in school records) is possible but not legally binding for official documents like passports or IDs.

3. Age and Consent Considerations

Minors (Under 18): The petition requires parental consent (both parents if possible) and is filed in the child's best interest. The Supreme Court emphasizes psychological and social factors (e.g., Republic v. Cabang , G.R. No. 175073, 2010).
Adults (18 and Above): The individual may petition independently, but must show just cause, such as alignment with acknowledged filiation.

Procedures for Changing Surname for Pre-2004 Children

To implement the use of the father's surname, pre-2004 children must navigate a structured process, blending administrative and judicial elements.

1. Administrative Process (Limited for Pre-2004 Cases)

Submit an Affidavit of Acknowledgment to the Local Civil Registrar (LCR) where the birth was registered.
If accepted, the birth certificate is annotated with the acknowledgment.
For surname change, if the acknowledgment was part of the original registration (rare for pre-2004), PSA may allow a marginal note. However, full change typically requires judicial approval, as per PSA Memorandum Circular No. 2013-09.

2. Judicial Process (Primary Route)

Under Rule 103 of the Rules of Court ("Change of Name"), a verified petition must be filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of the petitioner's residence or the LCR's location:

Grounds: Must show "proper and reasonable cause," such as the child's acknowledgment under RA 9255, to avoid ridicule or to reflect true filiation. The Supreme Court in Republic v. Hernandez (G.R. No. 216271, 2016) accepted RA 9255 acknowledgment as sufficient cause for pre-2004 children.
Requirements:
- Publication of notice in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for three weeks.
- Opposition hearing (30 days from last publication).
- Clear and convincing evidence of filiation (e.g., birth records, affidavits, DNA).
- Court order approving the change, forwarded to PSA for implementation.
Fees and Timeline: Approximately PHP 5,000–10,000 in filing fees; process takes 6–12 months.
Appeal: The Solicitor General may intervene to represent public interest.

3. Special Cases

Adopted Children: If adoption occurred pre-2004, the Adoptive Code (RA 8552) governs; surname follows adoptive parents, but RA 9255 may apply if biological paternity is later acknowledged.
Legitimated Children: If parents marry post-birth and file for legitimation (Article 177, Family Code), the child becomes legitimate and may use the father's surname retroactively.
Dual Citizenship or Overseas Filipinos: The same rules apply, but petitions may be filed with Philippine consulates abroad under PSA guidelines.

Relevant Jurisprudence and Interpretations

Philippine courts have clarified RA 9255's application to pre-2004 births through key decisions:

Republic v. Revillame (inspirational case, circa 2003): Highlighted the need for reform, influencing the law's passage.
Silverio v. Republic (G.R. No. 174689, 2007): While on gender change, it reinforced that name changes must serve a proper purpose, applicable to surname petitions.
Briones v. Miguel (G.R. No. 156643, 2004): Affirmed that acknowledgment alone does not automatically change surnames for pre-law births; judicial process is needed.
Republic v. Cabang (G.R. No. 175073, 2010): Allowed a pre-2004 illegitimate child's surname change based on acknowledgment, emphasizing the law's remedial intent.
Recent Trends: Post-2018 Civil Code revisions and PSA circulars (e.g., 2021 guidelines on digital annotations) streamline processes, allowing e-petitions for filiation but still requiring courts for substantial changes.

The Supreme Court consistently interprets RA 9255 liberally to favor the child's welfare, aligning with Article 3 of the Family Code (best interest principle).

Practical Considerations and Challenges

Social Stigma: Even with legal changes, societal perceptions of illegitimacy may persist, making the process emotionally taxing.
Documentation Issues: Pre-2004 records may be incomplete; PSA's "late registration" amendments help but require supporting evidence.
Costs and Accessibility: Rural petitioners face delays due to publication requirements; legal aid from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines is available.
International Implications: Changed surnames must be reported to foreign authorities for passports; the Department of Foreign Affairs recognizes PSA-annotated certificates.
Limitations: RA 9255 does not apply to unacknowledged children or those where paternity is denied. Fraudulent acknowledgments can lead to annulment under Article 172.

Conclusion

RA 9255 marked a progressive step in Philippine family law, empowering acknowledged illegitimate children to embrace their father's surname and fostering familial unity. For children born before 2004, the answer is affirmative but conditional: they can use the father's surname upon acknowledgment of paternity, followed by administrative annotation or, more commonly, a judicial petition under Rule 103. This process, while not retroactive in altering past registrations, honors the law's intent by allowing future-oriented changes that reflect true parentage.

Prospective parents and families should consult the LCR or a family law attorney for personalized guidance, as individual circumstances vary. Ultimately, RA 9255 underscores the evolving recognition of children's rights in the Philippines, balancing tradition with equity in an increasingly inclusive society. For the latest procedural updates, refer to PSA issuances, as administrative rules may evolve without legislative amendment.