A long-used surname can replace the one on a birth act

The Court of Magistrates (Gozo), Superior Jurisdiction, General Section, Magistrate Natalino Caruana De Brincat, decided M.D. vs Direttur tar-Reġistru Pubbliku (Għawdex) on 7 August 2026. It found that the applicant is in fact known by a double-barrelled surname rather than the single surname on his birth act, ordered the act annotated accordingly under article 253 of the Civil Code, and extended the correction to his other civil status acts, but only those held by the Director.

The facts

The applicant was born in Gozo; his birth act records a single surname. He said he had long used a double-barrelled form of it, is publicly known by that form, and has always signed his artistic work with it, exhibiting ten documents to show it. He was about to marry and wanted the marriage certificate to carry the surname he uses so that his wife could take it too.

He asked for a declaration that the birth act is incorrect, an order that the Director correct it, and an order under article 253(3) that the correction be reflected in every civil status act and, specifically, in his passport, driving licence and identity card.

The Director did not oppose and left the matter to the court. He said he had no knowledge of the facts; that his competence is limited to the civil status registers, so that any change to documents held by other authorities was for those authorities under their own law; and that, since the action arose from no act or omission of his, he should not bear the costs.

Publication was made as the law requires. The case was appointed on 20 July 2026, heard on 29 July 2026, and decided nine days later.

What the court held

The court read the documents annexed to the application and four affidavits filed on 24 July 2026: from the applicant's parents, from a relative who carries the double surname, and from a lawyer. From these “jirriżulta illi r-rikorrent effettivament huwa magħruf bil-kunjom [...] u għaldaqstant it-talbiet tiegħu huma ġustifikati” [it results that the applicant is in fact known by the surname [...] and therefore his requests are justified]. That finding of fact was the whole of the reasoning.

It rejected the Director's reply so far as incompatible with the decision, and made three orders. It upheld the first request, declaring the act incorrect in the sense explained. It upheld the second and ordered the Director to enter a general annotation on the birth act that the registered surname is cancelled and the double-barrelled surname entered in its place.

It upheld the third, ordering the change reflected in all the applicant's civil status acts, but limited it to acts in the Director's power, so the passport, licence and identity card were not reached by the order. It ordered the Director notified with a copy of the judgment under article 256 of the Civil Code.

Costs went against the applicant himself, in the circumstances. The court also cut the period for appeal to four days.

Why it matters

Where a client's real-world surname has drifted from the registered one, the article 253 application is short and the Director will usually not contest it; the evidence that carries it is affidavits from people who know the client by the name, and documents in which the name is used.

Two things to tell the client in advance. The order stops at the civil status acts, so the identity card, passport and licence need separate applications to their own authorities once the annotated act issues. And the applicant pays the costs, because the Registry did nothing wrong.

Where a date presses, the court can shorten the appeal period, as it did here.

Where it sits

The case sits in the correction provisions of the Civil Code: article 253 on the court's power to order correction of an act of civil status for valid reasons, article 253(3) on carrying the correction into the person's other acts, and article 256 on notification of the judgment to the Director. The judgment names no earlier decision; the court decided on the articles alone.

Source

Court of Magistrates (Gozo), Superior Jurisdiction, General Section, 78/2026, 7 August 2026: 78/2026.