Case Digest (G.R. No. 169202) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Maria Virginia V. Remo vs. Secretary of Foreign Affairs, petitioner Maria Virginia V. Remo, a married Filipino citizen married to Francisco R. Rallonza, held a Philippine passport expiring on October 27, 2000, which listed “Rallonza” as her surname, “Maria Virginia” as her given name, and “Remo” as her middle name. Before its expiry, she applied at the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) office in Chicago, Illinois, for a replacement passport and sought to revert to her maiden surname, arguing that no law prohibited the continuous use of her birth name. On August 28, 2000, Assistant Secretary Belen F. Anota denied this request, citing Section 5(d) of Republic Act No. 8239 (“Philippine Passport Act of 1996”) and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, which allow reversion to the maiden name only upon annulment, divorce, or death of the husband. A motion for reconsideration was denied on October 13, 2000. Petitioner appealed to the Office of the President on November 15, 2000;... Case Digest (G.R. No. 169202) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Background of Petitioner
- Maria Virginia V. Remo is a married Filipino citizen whose passport expired on 27 October 2000.
- In her expired passport, she used “Rallonza” (husband’s surname) as surname, “Maria Virginia” as given names, and “Remo” (maiden surname) as middle name.
- Request for Reversion to Maiden Name
- Before passport expiry, petitioner applied at the DFA Chicago office for renewal and asked to revert to her maiden name and surname.
- The DFA, through Assistant Secretary Belen F. Anota on 28 August 2000, denied the request, citing the Implementing Rules of RA 8239 permitting reversion only upon annulment, divorce, or death of husband.
- Administrative Appeals
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration (13 October 2000) before DFA was denied.
- On 15 November 2000, she appealed to the Office of the President.
- On 27 July 2004, the appeal was dismissed, reaffirming Section 5(d) of RA 8239 limits reversion to cases of divorce, annulment, or death.
- On 28 October 2004, the motion for reconsideration was denied.
- Judicial Proceedings
- Petitioner filed a petition for review under Rule 43 with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 87710).
- On 27 May 2005, the Court of Appeals denied the petition, affirming the Office of the President.
- The CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on 2 August 2005.
- Petitioner elevated the case to the Supreme Court under Rule 45.
Issues:
- Whether a married woman who had previously adopted her husband’s surname in her passport may revert to her maiden name in a replacement passport while her marriage subsists.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)