Use by married woman of her maiden name in her replacement passport

Posted on April 7, 2010 by Hector M. de Leon Jr Can a married woman, who ori inally !sed her h!sband"s s!rname in her e#pired passport, re$ert to the !se o% her maiden name in the replacement passport, despite the s!bsistence o% her marria e& 'n Ma. Virginia V. Remo vs. The Honorable Secretary of Foreign Affairs, G.R. No. 1 !"#", March $, "#1#, petitioner Maria (ir inia (. )emo is a married *ilipino citi+en whose Philippine passport was then e#pirin on 27 ,ctober 2000. Petitioner is married to *rancisco ). )allon+a and the %ollowin entries appear in her passport- .)allon+a/ as her s!rname, .Maria (ir inia/ as her i$en name, and .)emo/ as her middle name. Prior to the e#piry o% the $alidity o% her passport, petitioner, whose marria e still s!bsists, applied %or the renewal o% her passport with the 0epartment o% *orei n A%%airs 10*A2 o%%ice in Chica o, 'llinois, 3.4.A., with a re5!est to re$ert to her maiden name and s!rname in the replacement passport. 6he 0*A denied the re5!est. Accordin to the 0*A3se o% maiden name is allowed in passport application only i% the married name has not been !sed in pre$io!s application. 6he 'mplementin )!les and )e !lations %or Philippine Passport Act o% 1778 clearly de%ines the conditions when a woman applicant may re$ert to her maiden name, that is, only in cases o% ann!lment o% marria e, di$orce and death o% the h!sband. Ms. )emo"s case does not meet any o% these conditions. Petitioner"s motion %or reconsideration was denied by the 0*A and this prompted petitioner to appeal the matter to the ,%%ice o% the President, which similarly denied the re5!est as well as a s!bse5!ent motion %or reconsideration. Petitioner then %iled a petition %or re$iew with the Co!rt o% Appeals, which also denied the petition. 6he Co!rt o% Appeals %o!nd no con%lict between Article 970 o% the Ci$il Code and 4ection :1d2 o% )A ;297. 6he Co!rt o% Appeals held that %or passport application and iss!ance p!rposes, )A ;297 limits the instances when a married woman applicant may e#ercise the option to re$ert to the !se o% her maiden name s!ch as in a case o% a di$orce decree, ann!lment or declaration o% n!llity o% marria e. 4ince there was no showin that petitioner"s marria e to *rancisco )allon+a has been ann!lled, declared $oid or a di$orce decree has been ranted to them, petitioner cannot simply re$ert to her maiden name in the replacement passport a%ter she had adopted her h!sband"s s!rname in her old passport. Hence, accordin to the Co!rt o% Appeals, the 0*A was <!sti%ied in re%!sin the re5!est o% petitioner to re$ert to her maiden name in the replacement passport. 6he 4!preme Co!rt also denied the petition %or lac= o% merit.

6he 4!preme Co!rt noted that a married woman has the option, b!t not the d!ty, to !se the s!rname o% the h!sband6itle >''' o% the Ci$il Code o$erns the !se o% s!rnames. 'n the case o% a married woman, Article 970 o% the Ci$il Code pro$idesA)6. 970. A married woman may !se112 H?) MA'0?@ *')46 @AM? A@0 43)@AM? A@0 A00 H?) H34AA@0"4 43)@AM?, ,) 122 H?) MA'0?@ *')46 @AM? A@0 H?) H34AA@0"4 43)@AM?, ,) 192 H?) H34AA@0"4 *3LL @AM?, A36 P)?*'>'@B A C,)0 '@0'CA6'@B 6HA6 4H? '4 H'4 C'*?, 43CH A4 .M)4./ Ce a ree with petitioner that the !se o% the word .may/ in the abo$e pro$ision indicates that the !se o% the h!sband"s s!rname by the wi%e is permissi$e rather than obli atory. . . Clearly, a married woman has an option, b!t not a d!ty, to !se the s!rname o% the h!sband in any o% the ways pro$ided by Article 970 o% the Ci$il Code. 4he is there%ore allowed to !se not only any o% the three names pro$ided in Article 970, b!t also her maiden name !pon marria e. 4he is not prohibited %rom contin!o!sly !sin her maiden name once she is married beca!se when a woman marries, she does not chan e her name b!t only her ci$il stat!s. *!rther, this interpretation is in consonance with the principle that s!rnames indicate descent. Howe$er, the 4!preme Co!rt di%%erentiated petitioner"s case %rom that in %asin, which petitioner was citin as precedent'n Dasin, petitioner therein %iled with the 4hari"a 0istrict Co!rt a .Petition to res!me the !se o% maiden name/ in $iew o% the dissol!tion o% her marria e by di$orce !nder the Code o% M!slim Personal Laws o% the Philippines, and a%ter marria e o% her %ormer h!sband to another woman. . . 'n the present case, petitioner, whose marria e is still s!bsistin and who opted to !se her h!sband"s s!rname in her old passport, re5!ested to res!me her maiden name in the replacement passport ar !in that no law prohibits her %rom !sin her maiden name. Petitioner cites Dasin as the applicable precedent. Howe$er,Dasin is not s5!arely in point with this case. 3nli=e in Dasin, which in$ol$ed a M!slim di$orcee whose %ormer h!sband is already married to another woman, petitioner"s marria e remains s!bsistin . Another point, Dasin did not in$ol$e a re5!est to res!me one"s maiden name in a replacement passport, b!t a petition to res!me one"s maiden name in $iew o% the dissol!tion o% one"s marria e. 6he 4!preme Co!rt a reed with the 0*A that petitioner can no lon er !se her maiden name in her renewal passport.

6he ,%%ice o% the 4olicitor Beneral 1,4B2, on behal% o% the 4ecretary o% *orei n A%%airs, ar !es that the hi hli hted pro$iso in 4ection :1d2 o% )A ;297 .limits the instances when a married woman may be allowed to re$ert to the !se o% her maiden name in her passport./ 6hese instances are death o% h!sband, di$orce decree, ann!lment or n!llity o% marria e. . . 4ince petitioner"s marria e to her h!sband s!bsists, placin her case o!tside o% the p!r$iew o% 4ection :1d2 o% )A ;297 1as to the instances when a married woman may re$ert to the !se o% her maiden name2, she may not res!me her maiden name in the replacement passport. 6his prohibition, accordin to petitioner, con%licts with and, th!s, operates as an implied repeal o% Article 970 o% the Ci$il Code. Petitioner is mista=en. 6he con%lict between Article 970 o% the Ci$il Code and 4ection :102 o% )A ;927 is more ima ined than real. )A ;927, incl!din its implementin r!les and re !lations, does not prohibit a married woman %rom !sin her maiden name in her passport. 'n %act, in reco nition o% this ri ht, the 0*A allows a married woman who applies %or a passport %or the %irst time to !se her maiden name. 4!ch an applicant is not re5!ired to adopt her h!sband"s s!rname. 'n the case o% renewal o% passport, a married woman may either adopt her h!sband"s s!rname or contin!o!sly !se her maiden name. '% she chooses to adopt her h!sband"s s!rname in her new passport, the 0*A additionally re5!ires the s!bmission o% an a!thenticated copy o% the marria e certi%icate. ,therwise, i% she pre%ers to contin!e !sin her maiden name, she may still do so. 6he 0*A will not prohibit her %rom contin!o!sly !sin her maiden name. Howe$er, once a married woman opted to adopt her h!sband"s s!rname in her passport, she may not re$ert to the !se o% her maiden name, e#cept in the cases en!merated in 4ection :102 o% )A ;927. 6hese instances are- 112 death o% h!sband, 122 di$orce, 192 ann!lment, or 1E2 n!llity o% marria e. 4ince petitioner"s marria e to her h!sband s!bsists, she may not res!me her maiden name in the replacement passport. ,therwise stated, a married woman"s re$ersion to the !se o% her maiden name m!st be based only on the se$erance o% the marria e. ?$en ass!min )A ;927 con%licts with the Ci$il Code, the pro$isions o% )A ;927 which is a special law dealin with passport iss!ance m!st pre$ail o$er the pro$isions o% 6ittle >''' o% the Ci$il Code which is the eneral law on the !se o% s!rnames.