Case Summary (G.R. No. 106251)
Key Dates
- Marriage of Arturo Tolentino and Consuelo David: February 8, 1931.
- Divorce decree dissolving that marriage: September 15, 1943 (Court of First Instance of Manila, Divorce Case No. R-619).
- Marriage of Arturo Tolentino to petitioner Constancia: April 21, 1945.
- Petitioner's complaint filed in trial court: November 23, 1971; preliminary injunction hearings and orders in January 1972; third-party pleadings and trial proceedings through 1972.
- Court of Appeals decision reversing trial court: June 25, 1975; motion for reconsideration denied August 29, 1975.
Applicable Law and Authorities Cited
- Civil Code provisions cited in the decision: Articles 1149 and 1150 (prescription), Article 370 (surname use) and Article 371 (annulment referenced).
- Authorities and prior cases referenced: Soriano v. Sternberg; Espanol v. Philippine Veterans Administration; Silva et al. v. Peralta.
- Doctrinal commentary: Senator Tolentino’s commentary on Article 370 of the Civil Code (as relied upon by the Court).
Factual Background
Consuelo David continued to use the surname “Tolentino” after the 1943 divorce and up to the filing of petitioner’s complaint. The third-party defendant (Arturo Tolentino) acknowledged that respondent’s use of the surname was with his and his family’s consent. Respondent used the surname in contracts, property acquisitions, and other legal relations; she styled herself as “Mrs. Consuelo David-Tolentino” and did not represent herself as the current wife of Arturo Tolentino. The petitioner sought injunctive relief to prevent respondent from using the surname and initially claimed damages (later waived).
Procedural History
The trial court granted a writ of preliminary injunction (order dated January 18, 1972; writ issued January 20, 1972) and, after trial, rendered a judgment confirming and making the injunction permanent, enjoining respondent from using the surname “Tolentino.” The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment and dismissed the complaint. The petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals was denied, prompting appeal to the Supreme Court.
Issues Presented
- Whether petitioner’s cause of action had prescribed.
- Whether petitioner could, by injunction, exclude a divorced former wife from using the surname of her former husband.
Prescription Analysis (Statute of Limitations)
The Court rejected petitioner’s contention that her cause of action was imprescriptible. It explained that actions are presumptively subject to prescription unless the law expressly renders them imprescriptible; where no special provision exists, prescription is governed by Civil Code Articles 1149 and 1150. The Court observed that petitioner’s own argument—that every use of the surname constituted a continuing actionable wrong—was inconsistent with customary prescription principles because the accrual of the right of action occurs when the breach first occurs or when the injured party could have brought suit. The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that, whether the prescriptive period is five years (per Art. 1149) or four years (if treated as quasi-delict), the action had long prescribed given the relevant dates (including petitioner’s marriage in 1945 and her knowledge of respondent’s continued use by 1951), yet suit was not filed until 1971. The Supreme Court endorsed the principle that failure to bring suit within the prescriptive period causes the plaintiff’s cause of action to lapse.
Substantive Right to a Surname and Injunctive Relief
The Supreme Court found that Philippine law contains no specific provision determining the rights of a divorced woman to continue using her former husband’s surname because Philippine law generally did not provide for divorce in the same manner as annulment (the Court distinguished annulment under Article 371). Relying on doctrine (including Senator Tolentino’s commentary on Article 370), the Court held that a wife does not have an exclusive proprietary right to her husband’s surname such that she can prevent others (including a divorced former wife) from using it. The Court identified the elements of usurpation of name as (1) actual unauthorized use of another’s name, (2) lack of authorization, and (3) use to designate or ide
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 106251)
Citation and Panel
- Reported at 245 Phil. 40, Third Division, G.R. No. L-41427, decided June 10, 1988.
- Decision authored by Justice Gutierrez, Jr.
- Justices Fernan (Chairman), Feliciano, Bidin, and Cortes concurred.
Procedural History
- Petitioner Constancia C. Tolentino filed a complaint in the then Court of First Instance of Quezon City to stop and enjoin respondent Consuelo David from using the surname "Tolentino"; a claim for damages was included but later waived by petitioner.
- Petitioner applied for a writ of preliminary injunction; respondent filed an answer on January 13, 1972 admitting use of the surname.
- Hearings were held; on January 18, 1972 the trial court issued an order granting the preliminary injunction, and the actual writ was issued on January 20, 1972. The trial court's order enjoined respondent "from using, employing and/or applying, in any manner, form or means whatsoever, the surname TOLENTINO."
- On February 2, 1972 respondent filed a motion for leave to file a third-party complaint against her former husband Arturo Tolentino; the motion was granted March 18, 1972. Third-party defendant Arturo Tolentino filed his answer on April 19, 1972.
- After hearings, the trial court rendered judgment confirming and making permanent the preliminary injunction, enjoining defendant and those acting under her from using the surname "TOLENTINO"; the third-party complaint was dismissed.
- Respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals, which on June 25, 1975 reversed the trial court and dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals sustained "Error 1" and ordered dismissal "with costs." A motion for reconsideration by petitioner was denied in a resolution dated August 29, 1975.
- Petitioner instituted the present petition for review on certiorari; the Supreme Court issued its decision on June 10, 1988.
Undisputed Facts
- Petitioner Constancia C. Tolentino is the present legal wife of Arturo Tolentino, married April 21, 1945 in Manila; their union produced three children.
- Respondent Consuelo David was legally married to Arturo Tolentino on February 8, 1931; that marriage produced children.
- The marriage of Arturo Tolentino and Consuelo David was dissolved by a decree of absolute divorce on September 15, 1943 by the Court of First Instance of Manila in Divorce Case No. R-619 ("Arturo Tolentino v. Consuelo David") on the ground of desertion and abandonment by the wife, the trial court finding that Arturo Tolentino was abandoned by Consuelo David for at least three continuous years.
- After the divorce, Arturo Tolentino married Pilar Adorable (who died soon after), then married Constancia on April 21, 1945.
- Respondent Consuelo David continued to use the surname "Tolentino" after the divorce and up to the time the complaint was filed.
- Third-party defendant Arturo Tolentino admitted in his answer that the use of the surname "Tolentino" by respondent Consuelo David was with his and his family's (brothers and sisters) consent.
Issues Presented
- Whether the petitioner's cause of action had already prescribed.
- Whether the petitioner could obtain injunctive relief excluding respondent Consuelo David from using the surname of her former husband from whom she had been divorced.
Trial Court Disposition (as quoted)
- The trial court granted the preliminary injunction and later rendered judgment "confirming the preliminary injunction and making the same permanent and perpetual restraining and enjoining defendant, her agents and/or representatives and/or persons acting under her control, direction, instruction and/or supervision, from using, employing and/or applying, in any manner, form or means whatsoever, the surname 'TOLENTINO.'"
- No pronouncement as to costs, the same having been waived by the plaintiff.
- Third-party complaint dismissed without pronouncement as to costs.
Court of Appeals Disposition (as quoted)
- On June 25, 1975 the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and dismissed the complaint, stating in part: "IN VIEW WHEREOF, sustaining Error 1, this Court is constrained to reverse, as it now reverses, judgment appealed from, complaint is dismissed, with costs."
Supreme Court Disposition
- The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
- The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.
- The writs of preliminary and mandatory injunction issued by the trial court were set aside.
- Final words in the decision: "WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. The writs of preliminary and mandatory injunction issued