These  proceedings were  instituted for the  purpose of making changes, allege to be  corrections, in the  birth certificate of the applicant, Register No. 3873 of Manila. The petition alleges that petitioner is  the son of Celerina Arellano Chomi and Sotera Tan, both deceased; that he was baptized and given the  name of  Alberto and since then had been known by the following name Alberto T. Chomi or  Alberto  Chomi; that his birth certificate in the civil register of Manila  gives his name as Apolinario Arellano and his  father's name  as  Celerino Arellano,  instead  of Alberto Arellano  Chomi and Celerino  Arellano  Chomi,. respectively, the latter names being their  corresponding names.

Opposition was filed against the petition by the Solicitor General, who claims that the changes sought to be made will involved a change in  the name of  the petitioner  as well as that of his father, which changes are substantial in nature and that since only mistakes clerical  in  nature are authorized to be made under Article 412 of the new Civil Code,  if the  petitioner desires to change  his name the appropriate remedy should be by a petition under Act No. 1386 in relation with Rule 103 of the Rules of Court The Court of  First Instance before  which the petition was tried sustained the opposition of the Solicitor General, and denied the  petition.  Upon denial  of petitioner's motion for reconsideration he  has come to us on appeal.

The evidence  submitted by the petitioner fully sustains his claim that he was born on June 1, 1916 and such birth was duly registered in the  civil registry of  Manila under Register No. 3873.   The name of his father, according to the  register, is Celerino .Arellano and that his mother, Sotera Tan.   The data contained ki  the register are supposed to have been furnished by Dr.  Rebecca  Parish of the  Mary Johnston Hospital (Exhibit "D").   By the testimony of Pedro Batungbakal, it  was also shown that petitioner is the son of  Celerino Arellano Chomi and Sotera Tan; that when petitioner was baptized at the  Tondo Catholic  Church, the witness  acted as godfather  and that petitioner was given the name of Alberto; and that since then petitioner had been known by and had actually used the name of Alberto T. Chomi.   No evidence contradicting the above evidence has been submitted.

It is  claimed on behalf  of the  petitioner that the real surname of the petitioner's father and of himself is Arellano Chomi and  that there was a mistake in putting the correct  name of  the petitioner committed by the officials of the civil register of Manila.  The contention appears at first glance to be well founded, but upon careful analysis it would seem to us, not that there  was error in petitioner's name in the register, but that his name was not complete because the real  surname of his father "Chomi" was not added.  As to the claim that his  name should have been Alberto we also find that its appearance in the civil register could not have been a mistake.   It was occasioned by the fact that upon baptism he was given a different name and this baptismal name has  since then been  given  to the petitioner and used by him.

We, therefore,  find that  there was no mistake or error in the record of petitioner's entry of birth which justifies a change in said entry.   If error there can be, it is on the part of  the parents of the petitioner in giving him a name different from that which they registered  or ordered to be registered.  The  omission of "Chomi" is  not an error or mistake; the name may  be incomplete, not incorrect, but such incompleteness is  deemed insufficient to  authorize these proceedings, especially because the  petition for correction was filed almost 40 years after the entry was made and the change desired  to  be introduced is not of form merely,  but one of substance which may  affect the status of the person, subject of the entry.

That the reasons for our  conclusion may be better understood, we  deem  it opportune to  express certain  fundamentals regarding the establishment of the civil registry. Act No. 3753 entitled "An Act to Establish a Civil Registry," aims at  the establishment of a registry "for recording the civil status of persons."  The facts or matters required to be contained therein are similar to those required in  Article 326 of the Spanish Civil Code.  While the  law does not expressly state that the name of  the child is to be stated in every entry it is to be understood that the registry should contain such name.  One of  the things that are  required to be placed  in the registry is the  name  that has  been given or  is to be given to  the child.   (Article  20, Law  on Civil  Registry  of 1870.) While this express provision is not contained in the law it is nevertheless  required for  the purposes  of  the civil registry.

For the purposes  of the  law, the official name of petitioner is Alberto Arellano. That is his name in  the eyes of the law.  The mere fact that he was baptized by  an other name under which he has since then been known and which he has used did not per se have the effect of changing  his name.  The only way by which the name  of a person can be changed, legally, is by the appropriate proceedings established by the law  and  the Rules of Court. These  principles  are presumed from the official establishment by the government of the Civil Register.   And this principle is confirmed by the procedure that Act No. 1386 has  established in case persons for one  reason or another change their  names.  These principles are necessary in the  interest  of conserving the means  of  identifying of citizens and individuals to prevent the confusion that may ensue  from indiscriminate  use and  adoption of names. While  the  practice in this  Catholic  country is for individuals to adopt the names given them at baptism, baptismal names  have never been recognized in  the law  and this practice has not been sanctioned by the law. To adopt this practice would violate the  rule and policy established in the law and in Act No. 1386. We find it our solemn duty to overlook this religious practice and enforce the provision  of law and the policy laid down by it, and in accordance herewith we declare that the real name of petitioner is that given him in the civil register,  not the name  by which he was baptised in his church or by which he has been known in  the community, or  which he has  adopted, and that the only remedy left to him in case he desires to change his name in the register, which is his official name, is for him to file the special  proceedings outlined in Act No. 1386 and now embodied in Rule 103 of the Rules of Court.

In view of the foregoing, the order denying the petition is hereby affirmed without prejudice to the petitioner instituting the proper action to change his name as herein before indicated.  Without costs.

Paras, C. J., Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Endencia, and Felix, JJ., concur.