Remo vs. Secretary of Foreign Affairs

8/13/2019 Remo vs. Secretary of Foreign Affairs

1/7

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 169202 March 5, 2010

MARIA VIRGINIA V. REMO,Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE SECRETAR O! !OREIGN A!!AIRS,Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO, J.:

Th" Ca#"

efore the Court is a petition for revie!"of the #$ Ma% #&&' Decision#and # (u)ust #&&'

Resolution*of the Court of (ppeals in C(+.R. SP No. -$$"&. he Court of (ppeals affir/edthe decision of the Office of the President, !hich in turn affir/ed the decision of the Secretar% of

0orei)n (ffairs den%in) petitioner1s re2uest to revert to the use of her /aiden na/e in her

replace/ent passport.

Th" !ac$#

Petitioner Maria Vir)inia V. Re/o is a /arried 0ilipino citi3en !hose Philippine passport !as

then e4pirin) on #$ October #&&&. Petitioner bein) /arried to 0rancisco R. Rallon3a, thefollo!in) entries appear in her passport5 6Rallon3a6 as her surna/e, 6Maria Vir)inia6 as her

)iven na/e, and 6Re/o6 as her /iddle na/e. Prior to the e4pir% of the validit% of her passport,petitioner, !hose /arria)e still subsists, applied for the rene!al of her passport !ith the

Depart/ent of 0orei)n (ffairs 7D0(8 office in Chica)o, Illinois, 9.S.(., !ith a re2uest to revert

to her /aiden na/e and surna/e in the replace/ent passport.

Petitioner1s re2uest havin) been denied, (tt%. Manuel :oseph R. retana III, representin)petitioner, !rote then Secretar% of 0orei)n (ffairs Do/in)o Siason e4pressin) a si/ilar re2uest.

On #- (u)ust #&&&, the D0(, throu)h (ssistant Secretar% elen 0. (nota, denied the re2uest,

statin) thus5

his has reference to %our letter dated "$ (u)ust #&&& re)ardin) one Ms. Maria Vir)inia V.Re/o !ho is appl%in) for rene!al of her passport usin) her /aiden na/e.

his Office is co)ni3ant of the provision in the la! that it is not obli)ator% for a /arried !o/an

to use her husband1s na/e. 9se of /aiden na/e is allo!ed in passport application onl% if the

/arried na/e has not been used in previous application. he I/ple/entin) Rules and
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_169202_2010.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_169202_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_169202_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_169202_2010.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_169202_2010.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_169202_2010.html#fnt1


2/7

Re)ulations for Philippine Passport (ct of ";;< clearl% defines the conditions !hen a !o/an

applicant /a% revert to her /aiden na/e, that is, onl% in cases of annul/ent of /arria)e, divorce

and death of the husband. Ms. Re/o1s case does not /eet an% of these conditions.=7E/phasissupplied8

Petitioner1s /otion for reconsideration of the above+letter resolution !as denied in a letter dated"* October #&&&.'

On "' Nove/ber #&&&, petitioner filed an appeal !ith the Office of the President.

On #$ :ul% #&&=, the Office of the President dis/issed the appeal


3/7

husband1s surna/e in her old passport. Aence, accordin) to the Court of (ppeals, respondent

!as ustified in refusin) the re2uest of petitioner to revert to her /aiden na/e in the replace/ent

passport.

Th" I##%"

he sole issue in this case is !hether petitioner, !ho ori)inall% used her husband1s surna/e in

her e4pired passport, can revert to the use of her /aiden na/e in the replace/ent passport,

despite the subsistence of her /arria)e.

Th" R%(*+ o& $h" Co%r$

he petition lacs /erit.

itle III of the Civil Code )overns the use of surna/es. In the case of a /arried !o/an, (rticle

*$& of the Civil Code provides5

(R. *$&. ( /arried !o/an /a% use5

7"8 Aer /aiden first na/e and surna/e and add her husband1s surna/e, or

7#8 Aer /aiden first na/e and her husbandBs surna/e, or

7*8 Aer husband1s full na/e, but prefi4in) a !ord indicatin) that she is his !ife, such as

6Mrs.6

@e a)ree !ith petitioner that the use of the !ord 6/a%6 in the above provision indicates that the

use of the husband1s surna/e b% the !ife is per/issive rather than obli)ator%. his has beensettled in the case of Fasin v. Aonorable :ud)e Shari1a District Court.""

In Fasin,"#petitioner therein filed !ith the Shari1a District Court a 6Petition to resu/e the use of

/aiden na/e6 in vie! of the dissolution of her /arria)e b% divorce under the Code of Musli/

Personal Ga!s of the Philippines, and after /arria)e of her for/er husband to another !o/an. Inrulin) in favor of petitioner therein, the Court e4plained that5

@hen a !o/an /arries a /an, she need not appl% andHor see udicial authorit% to use her

husband1s na/e b% prefi4in) the !ord 6Mrs.6 before her husband1s full na/e or b% addin) her

husband1s surna/e to her /aiden first na/e. he la! )rants her such ri)ht 7(rt. *$&, Civil

Code8. Si/ilarl%, !hen the /arria)e ties or vinculu/ no lon)er e4ists as in the case of death ofthe husband or divorce as authori3ed b% the Musli/ Code, the !ido! or divorcee need not see

udicial confir/ation of the chan)e in her civil status in order to revert to her /aiden na/e as useof her for/er husband1s is optional and not obli)ator% for her 7olentino, Civil Code, p. $#',

";-* ed. (rt. *$*, Civil Code8. @hen petitioner /arried her husband, she did not chan)e her but

onl% her civil status. Neither !as she re2uired to secure udicial authorit% to use the surna/e ofher husband after the /arria)e as no la! re2uires it. 7E/phasis supplied8
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_169202_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_169202_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_169202_2010.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_169202_2010.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_169202_2010.html#fnt12


4/7

Clearl%, a /arried !o/an has an option, but not a dut%, to use the surna/e of the husband in an%

of the !a%s provided b% (rticle *$& of the Civil Code."*She is therefore allo!ed to use not onl%

an% of the three na/es provided in (rticle *$&, but also her /aiden na/e upon /arria)e. She isnot prohibited fro/ continuousl% usin) her /aiden na/e once she is /arried because !hen a

!o/an /arries, she does not chan)e her na/e but onl% her civil status. 0urther, this

interpretation is in consonance !ith the principle that surna/es indicate descent."=

In the present case, petitioner, !hose /arria)e is still subsistin) and !ho opted to use herhusband1s surna/e in her old passport, re2uested to resu/e her /aiden na/e in the replace/ent

passport ar)uin) that no la! prohibits her fro/ usin) her /aiden na/e. Petitioner cites Fasin as

the applicable precedent. Ao!ever, Fasin is not s2uarel% in point !ith this case. 9nlie in Fasin,!hich involved a Musli/ divorcee !hose for/er husband is alread% /arried to another !o/an,

petitioner1s /arria)e re/ains subsistin). (nother point, Fasin did not involve a re2uest to

resu/e one1s /aiden na/e in a replace/ent passport, but a petition to resu/e one1s /aidenna/e in vie! of the dissolution of one1s /arria)e.

he la! )overnin) passport issuance is R( -#*; and the applicable provision in this case isSection '7d8, !hich states5

Sec. '. Re2uire/ents for the Issuance of Passport. J No passport shall be issued to an applicant

unless the Secretar% or his dul% authori3ed representative is satisfied that the applicant is a0ilipino citi3en !ho has co/plied !ith the follo!in) re2uire/ents5 4 4 4

7d8 In case of a !o/an !ho is /arried, separated, divorced or !ido!ed or !hose /arria)e has

been annulled or declared b% court as void, a cop% of the certificate of /arria)e, court decree ofseparation, divorce or annul/ent or certificate of death of the deceased spouse dul% issued and

authenticated b% the Office of the Civil Re)istrar eneral5 Provided, hat in case of a divorce

decree, annul/ent or declaration of /arria)e as void, the !o/an applicant /a% revert to the useof her /aiden na/e5 Provided, further, hat such divorce is reco)ni3ed under e4istin) la!s ofthe Philippines 4 4 4 7E/phasis supplied8

he Office of the Solicitor eneral 7OS8, on behalf of the Secretar% of 0orei)n (ffairs, ar)ues

that the hi)hli)hted proviso in Section '7d8 of R( -#*; 6li/its the instances !hen a /arried

!o/an /a% be allo!ed to revert to the use of her /aiden na/e in her passport.6 hese instancesare death of husband, divorce decree, annul/ent or nullit% of /arria)e. Si)nificantl%, Section ",

(rticle "# of the I/ple/entin) Rules and Re)ulations of R( -#*; provides5

he passport can be a/ended onl% in the follo!in) cases5

a8 (/end/ent of !o/an1s na/e due to /arria)e

b8 (/end/ent of !o/an1s na/e due to death of spouse, annul/ent of /arria)e ordivorce initiated b% a forei)n spouse or

c8 Chan)e of surna/e of a child !ho is le)iti/ated b% virtue of a subse2uent /arria)e of

his parents.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_169202_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_169202_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_169202_2010.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_169202_2010.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_169202_2010.html#fnt14


5/7

Since petitioner1s /arria)e to her husband subsists, placin) her case outside of the purvie! of

Section '7d8 of R( -#*; 7as to the instances !hen a /arried !o/an /a% revert to the use of her

/aiden na/e8, she /a% not resu/e her /aiden na/e in the replace/ent passport."'hisprohibition, accordin) to petitioner, conflicts !ith and, thus, operates as an i/plied repeal of

(rticle *$& of the Civil Code.

Petitioner is /istaen. he conflict bet!een (rticle *$& of the Civil Code and Section '7d8 of

R( -#*; is /ore i/a)ined than real. R( -#*;, includin) its i/ple/entin) rules and re)ulations,does not prohibit a /arried !o/an fro/ usin) her /aiden na/e in her passport. In fact, in

reco)nition of this ri)ht, the D0( allo!s a /arried !o/an !ho applies for a passport for the

first ti/e to use her /aiden na/e. Such an applicant is not re2uired to adopt her husbandBssurna/e."


6/7

re2uest, definitel% nothin) prevents her in the future fro/ re2uestin) to revert to the use of her

husband1s surna/e. Such unustified chan)es in oneBs na/e and identit% in a passport, !hich is

considered superior to all other official docu/ents,##cannot be countenanced. Other!ise, undueconfusion and inconsistenc% in the records of passport holders !ill arise. hus, for passport

issuance purposes, a /arried !o/an, such as petitioner, !hose /arria)e subsists, /a% not

chan)e her fa/il% na/e at !ill.

he ac2uisition of a Philippine passport is a privile)e. he la! reco)ni3es the passportapplicant1s constitutional ri)ht to travel. Ao!ever, the State is also /andated to protect and

/aintain the inte)rit% and credibilit% of the passport and travel docu/ents proceedin) fro/ it#*as

a Ph*(*''*+" 'a##'or$ r"-a*+# a$ a(( $*-"# $h" 'ro'"r$ o& $h" Go/"r+-"+$. he holder is/erel% a possessor of the passport as lon) as it is valid and the sa/e /a% not be surrendered to

an% person or entit% other than the )overn/ent or its representative.#=

(s the OS correctl% pointed out5

>?he issuance of passports is i/pressed !ith public interest. ( passport is an official docu/entof identit% and nationalit% issued to a person intendin) to travel or soourn in forei)n countries. It

is issued b% the Philippine )overn/ent to its citi3ens re2uestin) other )overn/ents to allo! its

holder to pass safel% and freel%, and in case of need, to )ive hi/Hher aid and protection. 4 4 4

Vie!ed in the li)ht of the fore)oin), it is !ithin respondent1s co/petence to re)ulate an%a/end/ents intended to be /ade therein, includin) the denial of unreasonable and !hi/sical

re2uests for a/end/ents such as in the instant case.#'

@AERE0ORE, !e DENF the petition. @e (00IRM the #$ Ma% #&&' Decision and # (u)ust

#&&' Resolution of the Court of (ppeals in C(+.R. SP No. -$$"&.

SO ORDERED.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

(ssociate :ustice

@E CONC9R5

ARTURO . BRION

(ssociate :ustice

MARIANO C. EL CASTILLO(ssociate :ustice ROBERTO A. ABA(ssociate :ustice

OSE PORTUGAL PERE

(ssociate :ustice

( E S ( I O N
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_169202_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_169202_2010.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_169202_2010.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_169202_2010.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_169202_2010.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_169202_2010.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_169202_2010.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_169202_2010.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/mar2010/gr_169202_2010.html#fnt25


7/7

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the

case !as assi)ned to the !riter of the opinion of the Court1s Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

(ssociate :ustice

Chairperson

C E R I 0 I C ( I O N

Pursuant to Section "*, (rticle VIII of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson1s

(ttestation, I certif% that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultationbefore the case !as assi)ned to the !riter of the opinion of the Court1s Division.

RENATO S. PUNO

Chief :ustice

Documents

Remo vs. Secretary of Foreign Affairs