MARIA VIRGINIA V. REMO v. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

MARIA VIRGINIA V. REMO v. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY

OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

(G.R. No. 169202, March 5, 2010)

History: Petition for review

Facts:

         

          Petitioner Maria Virginia V. Remo is a married Filipino citizen whose Philippine passport was then expiring on 27 October 2000. Petitioner being married to Francisco R. Rallonza, the following entries appear in her passport: Rallonza as her surname, Maria Virginia as her given name, and Remo as her middle name. Prior to the expiry of the validity of her passport, petitioner, whose marriage still subsists, applied for the renewal of her passport with the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) office in Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A., with a request to revert to her maiden name and surname in the replacement passport.

          Petitioner’s request having been denied.

          Petitioner’s counsel wrote then Secretary of Foreign Affairs Domingo Siason expressing a similar request.

The DFA, through Assistant Secretary Belen F. Anota, denied the request, stating thus:

         

          This Office is cognizant of the provision in the law that it is not obligatory for a married woman to use her husband’s name. Use of maiden name is allowed in passport application only if the married name has not been used in previous application. The Implementing Rules and Regulations for Philippine Passport Act of 1996 clearly defines the conditions when a woman applicant may revert to her maiden name, that is, only in cases of annulment of marriage, divorce and death of the husband. Ms. Remo’s case does not meet any of these conditions.

         

          Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied.

         

          Petitioner filed an appeal with the Office of the President.

          The Office of the President dismissed the appeal and ruled that Section 5(d) of Republic Act No. 8239 (RA 8239) or the Philippine Passport Act of 1996offers no leeway for any other interpretation than that only in case of divorce, annulment, or declaration [of nullity] of marriage may a married woman revert to her maiden name for passport purposes.

The Office of the President further held that in case of conflict between a general and special law, the latter will control the former regardless of the respective dates of passage. Since the Civil Code is a general law, it should yield to RA 8239.

          The Office of the President denied the motion for reconsideration.

          Petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for review under Rule 43 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

         

          The Court of Appeals denied the petition and affirmed the ruling of the Office of the President.

         

          Petitioner moved for reconsideration which the Court of Appeals denied in its Resolution.

         

          The Court of Appeals found no conflict between Article 370 of the Civil Code^[9] and Section 5(d) of RA 8239.^[10] The Court of Appeals held that for passport application and issuance purposes, RA 8239 limits the instances when a married woman applicant may exercise the option to revert to the use of her maiden name such as in a case of a divorce decree, annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage. Since there was no showing that petitioner's marriage to Francisco Rallonza has been annulled, declared void or a divorce decree has been granted to them, petitioner cannot simply revert to her maiden name in the replacement passport after she had adopted her husband’s surname in her old passport.Hence, according to the Court of Appeals, respondent was justified in refusing the request of petitioner to revert to her maiden name in the replacement passport.

Issue:

Whether or not petitioner who originally used her husband’s surname in her expired passport, can revert to the use of her maiden name in the replacement passport, despite the subsistence of her marriage.

Held:

          No. The Court held that the petition lacks merit.The Court cited Title XIII of the Civil Code governs the use of surnames. In the case of a married woman, Article 370 of the Civil Code provides:

          ART. 370. A married woman may use:

(1) HER MAIDEN FIRST NAME AND SURNAME AND ADD HER HUSBANDS SURNAME, OR

(2) HER MAIDEN FIRST NAME AND HER HUSBAND'S SURNAME, OR

(3)   HER HUSBANDS FULL NAME, BUT PREFIXING A WORD INDICATING THAT SHE IS HIS WIFE, SUCH AS MRS.

The Court agreed with the petitioner that the use of the word may in the provision indicates that the use of the husbands surname by the wife is permissive rather than obligatory. This has been settled in the case of Yasin v. Honorable Judge Sharia District Court.

In Yasin,petitioner therein filed with the Sharia District Court a Petition to resume the use of maiden name in view of the dissolution of her marriage by divorce under the Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines, and after marriage of her former husband to another woman. In ruling in favor of petitioner therein, the Court explained that:

 Clearly, a married woman has an option, but not a duty, to use the surname of the husband in any of the ways provided by Article 370 of the Civil Code.^[13] She is therefore allowed to use not only any of the three names provided in Article 370, but also her maiden name upon marriage. She is not prohibited from continuously using her maiden name once she is married because when a woman marries, she does not change her name but only her civil status. Further, this interpretation is in consonance with the principle that surnames indicate descent.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), on behalf of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, argues that the highlighted proviso in Section 5(d) of RA 8239 limits the instances when a married woman may be allowed to revert to the use of her maiden name in her passport. These instances are death of husband, divorce decree, annulment or nullity of marriage. Significantly, Section 1, Article 12 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 8239 provides:

 The passport can be amended only in the following cases:

 A) AMENDMENT OF WOMANS NAME DUE TO MARRIAGE;

B) AMENDMENT OF WOMANS NAME DUE TO DEATH OF SPOUSE, ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE OR DIVORCE INITIATED BY A FOREIGN SPOUSE; OR

C) CHANGE OF SURNAME OF A CHILD WHO IS LEGITIMATED BY VIRTUE OF A SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE OF HIS PARENTS.

 Since petitioners marriage to her husband subsists, placing her case outside of the purview of Section 5(d) of RA 8239 (as to the instances when a married woman may revert to the use of her maiden name), she may not resume her maiden name in the replacement passport.

In the case of renewal of passport, a married woman may either adopt her husband’s surname or continuously use her maiden name. If she chooses to adopt her husband’s surname in her new passport, the DFA additionally requires the submission of an authenticated copy of the marriage certificate. Otherwise, if she prefers to continue using her maiden name, she may still do so. The DFA will not prohibit her from continuously using her maiden name.

The Court notes that petitioner would not have encountered any problems in the replacement passport had she opted to continuously and consistently use her maiden name from the moment she was married and from the time she first applied for a Philippine passport. However, petitioner consciously chose to use her husband’s surname before, in her previous passport application, and now desires to resume her maiden name. If we allow petitioners present request, definitely nothing prevents her in the future from requesting to revert to the use of her husband’s surname. Such unjustified changes in one's name and identity in a passport, which is considered superior to all other official documents, cannot be countenanced. Otherwise, undue confusion and inconsistency in the records of passport holders will arise. Thus, for passport issuance purposes, a married woman, such as petitioner, whose marriage subsists, may not change her family name at will.

THE ACQUISITION OF A PHILIPPINE PASSPORT IS A PRIVILEGE.

THE LAW RECOGNIZES THE PASSPORT APPLICANTS CONSTITUTIONAL

WHEREFORE, the Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.

Case Doctrines: 

● A married woman has an option, but not an obligation, to use her husband’s surname upon marriage. She is not prohibited from continuously using her maiden name because when a woman marries, she does not change her name but only her civil status.
● Once a married woman opted to adopt her husband’s surname in her passport, she may not revert to the use of her maiden name, except in cases of: (1) death of husband, (2) divorce, (3) annulment, or (4) nullity of marriage.

● The acquisition of a Philippine passport is a privilege. The law recognizes the passport applicant’s constitutional right to travel. However, the State is also mandated to protect and maintain the integrity and credibility of the passport and travel documents proceeding from it as a Philippine passport remains at all times the property of the Government. The holder is merely a possessor of the passport as long as it is valid.