Case Digest (G.R. No. L-41427)
Facts:
Constancia C. Tolentino v. Court of Appeals and Consuelo David, G.R. No. L-41427, June 10, 1988, Supreme Court Third Division, Gutierrez, Jr., J., writing for the Court. The petition is a petition for review on certiorari challenging the Court of Appeals' reversal of a trial court injunction prohibiting Consuelo David from using the surname "Tolentino."
Petitioner Constancia C. Tolentino filed a complaint in the then Court of First Instance (trial court) in Quezon City against Consuelo David, seeking to enjoin David from using the surname Tolentino; petitioner waived claimed damages. An application for a writ of preliminary injunction was heard; on January 18, 1972 the trial court granted the application and the writ was issued January 20, 1972. Respondent admitted she had been and continued to use the surname Tolentino.
Respondent filed a motion for leave to file a third-party complaint against her former husband, Arturo Tolentino; leave was granted and Arturo Tolentino answered as third-party defendant, admitting that respondent's use of the Tolentino name was with his and his family's consent. After trial, the trial court rendered judgment confirming and making the preliminary injunction permanent, enjoining respondent from using the surname Tolentino and dismissing the third-party complaint.
The private respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals, which on June 25, 1975 reversed the trial court and dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals found the action prescribed (whether the prescriptive period be four or five years) and held there was no monopolistic proprietary right over a surname; petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied on August 29, 1975. Petitioner then filed the present petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.
The uncontroverted background facts: Arturo Tolentino first married Consuelo David on February 8, 1931; that marriage produced children and was dissolved by an absolute divorce decree on September 15, 1943 (Divorce Case No. R-619) granted to Arturo on the ground of desertion. Arturo later married others and ultimately married petiti...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did petitioner’s cause of action prescribe?
- May a divorced woman be enjoined from using the surname of her former husband; i.e., can petitioner enjoin respondent from using the surname "...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)