Case Summary (G.R. No. 169202)
Facts
- Petitioner’s passport, issued in her married name (“Maria Virginia Rallonza”), expired on October 27, 2000.
- She applied for passport renewal in Chicago and sought to revert to her maiden surname “Remo” despite her marriage remaining subsistent.
- DFA’s Assistant Secretary denied the request (August 28, 2000), citing RA 8239’s requirement that reversion to a woman’s maiden name is permissible only upon annulment, divorce or death of the spouse.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the DFA (October 13, 2000) and her appeal to the Office of the President (dismissed July 27, 2004; reconsideration denied October 28, 2004) were likewise denied.
Procedural History
• Petition for review under Rule 43 filed with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 87710).
• Court of Appeals Decision (May 27, 2005) and Resolution (August 2, 2005) denied relief and affirmed the Office of the President’s rulings.
• Petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 brought before the Supreme Court.
Issue
Whether a married woman who previously adopted her husband’s surname in her expired Philippine passport may revert to her maiden name in her replacement passport while her marriage remains subsisting.
Applicable Law
– Article 370, Civil Code: a married woman “may” use (1) her maiden names plus husband’s surname, (2) her maiden first name plus husband’s surname, or (3) her husband’s full name with “Mrs.” prefix.
– RA 8239 Section 5(d): allows reversion to maiden name in passport issuance only upon death of husband, divorce decree, annulment or declaration of nullity of marriage (recognized by Philippine law).
– Implementing Rules, IRA 12(1): passport amendments for married women permitted only due to marriage, spouse’s death, annulment, divorce initiated by foreign spouse, or child legitimation.
Ruling of the Court
The petition is denied. The Supreme Court held that:
- Article 370 merely grants optional surname usage but does not govern passport amendment procedures.
- RA 8239 is the special law regulating passport issuance; its proviso limiting maiden-name reversion to cases of husband’s death, divorce, annulment or nullity must prevail over the Civil Code (general law) under the principle that special statutes control in case of necessary repugnancy.
- No implied repeal of Article 370 occurred; statutes must be harmonized where possible. RA 8239 does not bar initial use of a maiden name, but once a married woman opts for her husband’s surname in her passport, she