Title
Tolentino vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-41427
Decision Date
Jun 10, 1988
Constancia Tolentino sought to stop Consuelo David, Arturo's ex-wife, from using "Tolentino" surname post-divorce. Court ruled action prescribed; Consuelo allowed to retain surname.
divorced woman
cause of action
prescribed

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-41427)

Factual Background

Petitioner Constancia C. Tolentino proved that she married Arturo Tolentino on April 21, 1945 and that the marriage produced three children. Respondent Consuelo David had previously married Arturo Tolentino on February 8, 1931 and that marriage was dissolved by a decree of absolute divorce dated September 15, 1943, granted on the ground of desertion and abandonment. After the divorce, Consuelo David continued to use the surname Tolentino. The third-party defendant, Arturo Tolentino, admitted in his pleadings that the use of the surname Tolentino by Consuelo David had been with his and his family’s consent. The record contained evidence that Consuelo David used the surname in contracts, property transactions, and other legal relations, and that she had not remarried.

Trial Court Proceedings

Petitioner filed a complaint praying for an injunction to restrain Consuelo David from using the surname Tolentino and initially claimed damages which she later waived. The trial court heard evidence from both parties. On January 18, 1972 the trial court ordered that Consuelo David, her agents and persons acting under her be enjoined from using the surname Tolentino, and the actual writ of preliminary injunction issued January 20, 1972. Consuelo David moved for leave to file a third-party complaint against Arturo Tolentino; leave was granted March 18, 1972, and Arturo Tolentino filed an answer April 19, 1972. After trial, the Court of First Instance rendered judgment confirming the preliminary injunction and making it permanent and perpetual, thereby permanently restraining Consuelo David and related persons from using the surname “Tolentino.”

Court of Appeals Proceedings

Consuelo David appealed to the Court of Appeals, raising several issues including prescription of the plaintiff’s cause of action and the absence of any monopolistic proprietary right in a surname. On June 25, 1975 the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals sustained the defense of prescription and rejected the asserted exclusive right to the surname. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by resolution dated August 29, 1975.

Issues Presented

The Supreme Court identified the principal issues as: (1) whether the petitioner’s cause of action had prescribed; and (2) whether the petitioner could, by injunction, exclude Consuelo David from using the surname of her former husband from whom she had been divorced.

Parties’ Contentions

Petitioner Constancia C. Tolentino contended that her cause of action was imprescriptible and that each use by Consuelo David of the surname Tolentino constituted a continuing actionable wrong. Petitioner further maintained a proprietary interest in the surname and relied on an asserted right to exclude. Respondent Consuelo David and third-party defendant Arturo Tolentino answered that the action was barred by prescription, that the petitioner possessed no exclusive proprietary right to the surname, and that the respondent’s continued use of the surname had been with Arturo Tolentino’s consent and had produced no legal injury to petitioner.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for review and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the petitioner’s cause of action had prescribed and that the petitioner had not shown a legal injury warranting injunctive relief. The Supreme Court set aside the writs of preliminary and mandatory injunction previously issued by the trial court and disposed of the petition for lack of merit.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court rejected petitioner’s assertion of imprescriptibility as contrary to law and to petitioner’s own argument that each usage constituted a new actionable wrong. The Court observed that the use of a surname by a divorced wife for a noncriminal purpose was not a crime and that civil actions were generally subject to prescription under Art. 1150 and Art. 1149 of the Civil Code. The Court explained that prescription begins to run from the day the action may be brought and that the legal possibility of bringing suit determines the starting point for computation of prescription, citing Soriano v. Sternberg and Espanol v. Phil. Veterans Administration. Whether the prescriptive period was four years as characterized by the Court of Appeals or five years under general rules, the Court found that the action was long barred whether accrual was dated to the petitioner’s marriage on April 21, 1945, to the effective date of the Civil Code on August 30, 1950, or to the time petitioner learned of the continued use in 1951; nevertheless petitioner waited until November 23, 1971 to file suit.

On the substantive question, the Court observed that Philippine law contained no provision governing the use of surnames by divorced wives because divorce is not generally recognized in the law applicable to the parties in this case. The Court rejected the petitioner’s contention that permitting respondent to continue using the surname Tolentino would contravene Art. 370 and Art. 371, noting that Art. 371 governs annulment, not an absolute divorce. The Court cited Senator Tolentino’s commentary on Art. 370, noting that a wife could not claim an exclusive right to the husband’s surname and that neither party could be prevented from using it.

The Court applied the elements of usurpation of name, explaining that usurpation requires (1) actual use of another’s name by the defendant, (2) unauthorized use, and (3) use to designate personality or identity producing confusion or injury. The Court found none of these elements proved. Consuelo David did not represent herself as petitioner or impersonate petitioner; she styled herself Mrs. Consuelo David-Tolentino and had legitimate children

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms