Case Summary (G.R. No. 94986)
Key Dates and Procedural History
May 5, 1990 — Petitioner filed a “Petition to resume the use of maiden name” in Sharia District Court (Sp. Proc. No. 06-3).
July 4, 1990 — Respondent court ordered amendment of the petition to comply with Rule 103 formalities on change of name.
August 10, 1990 — Motion for reconsideration denied by respondent court; ground: petition substantially for change of name and must comply with Rule 103.
Petition for review filed with the Supreme Court challenging application of Rule 103 to petitions to resume maiden name after divorce under Muslim personal law.
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
Primary statutes and rules relied upon in the decision:
- Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines (P.D. No. 1086) — provisions defining divorce (talaq, faskh) and effects when irrevocable (Arts. 45, 54, 56, 57[b]).
- P.D. No. 1083 — cited for suppletory application of the Civil Code, Rules of Court, and other existing laws (Article 187 as referenced in the opinion).
- New Civil Code provisions on names and marital name usage (Arts. 364–380, especially Arts. 370, 371, 373, 376).
- Rule 103, Rules of Court — procedural requirements for judicial change of name.
Constitutional reference (1987 Constitution applicable): Section 14, Article II (recognition of women’s role and fundamental equality before the law), and statutory policies cited in concurring opinion (e.g., R.A. No. 7192, promoting women’s equality).
Issue Presented
Whether a divorced Muslim woman who seeks to resume her maiden name and surname after dissolution of marriage (and after her former husband has remarried) is required to proceed under Rule 103 (petition for change of name) and satisfy its formal and procedural requirements, or whether resumption of her maiden name is a substantive right that may be judicially confirmed without complying with the onerous change-of-name procedure.
Supreme Court’s Holding
The Court held that a petition to resume the use of a maiden name and surname after dissolution of marriage under Muslim law is not a petition to change the true, registered name in the civil register and therefore is not subject to the formal and procedural requirements of Rule 103. Petitioner was authorized to resume her maiden name and surname and the respondent court’s orders requiring compliance with Rule 103 were set aside.
Legal Analysis — Name as Civil Identity and Scope of Article 376
The Court reiterated controlling principles: the true and real name for legal purposes is the name recorded in the civil register. Article 376 (Civil Code) requires judicial authority to change the official name recorded in the civil register. The Court emphasized precedent (e.g., Ng Yao Siong v. Republic) that a change-of-name proceeding concerns only the official name in the civil register. Because petitioner’s registered maiden name (Hatima Centi y Saul) remained her official name of record, she was not seeking to alter the registered name but merely to resume its use after divorce.
Application of Civil Code and Muslim Personal Law on Use of Surnames
The Court examined Articles 370 and 371 of the Civil Code which make use of a husband’s surname by a married woman permissive (using the word “may”), and Article 371’s provisions permitting resumption of maiden name after annulment or when either party remarries. Under the Code of Muslim Personal Laws, divorce (talaq or faskh) severs the marriage bond and permits spouses to remarry (Arts. 45, 54). The Court observed that the law grants the married woman the option to use her husband’s surname during marriage; conversely, after the marriage has been dissolved by divorce or death she need not retain the husband’s surname and may resume her maiden name without special judicial sanction.
Reasoning on Rule 103 and Procedural Requirements
The Court reasoned that applying Rule 103’s change-of-name procedure to petitions that merely seek judicial confirmation of a statutory right to resume a preexisting registered name would be inappropriate and onerous. There is no specific law or rule prescribing a detailed procedure to obtain judicial confirmation of the right to resume one’s maiden name after divorce. Where sufficient facts are alleged and supported by competent proof annexed to the petition (as in this case: divorce decree/certification and proof of the former husband’s subsequent marriage), the Court found that the petition for confirmation of change of civil status and resumption of maiden name should be given due course and summarily granted. The Court deemed remand to the trial court unnecessary because the record sufficed for disposition.
Disposition
The Supreme Court granted the petition, set aside the respondent court’s orders dated July 4, 1990 and August 10, 1990, and authorized petitioner to resume her maiden name and surname.
Concurring Opinion of Justice Romero — Identity, Equality, and Women’s Rights
Justice Romero concurred, emphasizing the centrality of name to personal identity and the legal protections around names. He underscored Article 370’s permissive language allowing a married woman options in name usage and invoked the 1987 Constitution’s Section 14 (fundamental equality of women and men) and statutes such as R.A. No. 7192 to situate the decision within the broader framework of gender equality and women’s freedom to choose name usage. He noted that dissolution of marriage (by annulment, nullity, or divorce where applicable) legally grounds
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 94986)
Facts of the Case
- On May 5, 1990, Hatima C. Yasin filed in the Sharia District Court, Zamboanga City, a "Petition to resume the use of maiden name" (Special Procedure No. 06-3).
- The petition alleged: petitioner is of legal age, a divorcee, Muslim Filipino, resident of Suterville, Zamboanga City, and was represented by her elder brother and attorney-in-fact Hadji Hasan S. Centi under a Special Power of Attorney (Annex "A").
- The petition further alleged that petitioner was formerly married to Hadji Idris Yasin in accordance with Muslim rites and customs; that a decree of divorce was granted on March 13, 1984 by the Mindanao Islamic Center Foundation, Inc., in accordance with Islamic law, officiated by Ustadz Sharif Jain Jali (Certification dated March 13, 1984, Annex "B"); and that the former husband subsequently contracted another marriage with another woman.
- The petition invoked Article 143, paragraph 1(c) of Presidential Decree No. 1083 in relation to Article 371(2) of the New Civil Code and prayed that petitioner be allowed to resume the use of her maiden name "Hatima Centi y Saul."
Lower Court Proceedings and Orders
- On July 4, 1990, the respondent Sharia District Court issued an order declaring the petition patently insufficient in form and substance under Section 2(a) and 3, Rule 103, Rules of Court, specifically noting: inadequate indication of petitioner's residence and that the name sought to be adopted was not properly indicated in the title; citations given included Ng Yao Siong v. Republic, Go v. Republic, and Pabellar v. Republic. The court ordered amendment of the petition within one week.
- Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the petition is not governed by Rule 103 but is a petition to resume the use of her maiden name and surname after dissolution of marriage under the Code of Muslim Personal Laws and after the former husband's remarriage.
- The respondent court denied the motion for reconsideration by order dated August 10, 1990, holding that the petition is substantially a petition for change of name and thus must comply with Rule 103, Rules of Court, because resumption would result in the resumption of the petitioner's surname.
- Petitioner brought the matter to the Supreme Court challenging the application of Rule 103 by the respondent court.
Issue Presented
- Whether, upon annulment or divorce under the Code of Muslim Personal Laws and where the husband has remarried, a former wife who desires to resume her maiden name or surname is required to file a petition for change of name and comply with the formal requisites of Rule 103 of the Rules of Court.
- Stated differently: whether a petition to resume the use of a maiden name and surname is, for procedural purposes, a petition for change of name subject to Rule 103.
Supreme Court Holding
- The Supreme Court ruled in the negative: a petition to resume the use of a maiden name and surname under the circumstances presented is not a petition for change of name subject to the onerous formal requirements of Rule 103.
- The petition filed by Hatima C. Yasin was granted; the orders of the respondent court dated July 4, 1990 and August 10, 1990 were set aside; petitioner was authorized to resume her maiden name and surname.
Court's Reasoning — Legal Character of "Name" and "Change of Name"
- The Court reaffirmed that the true and real name of a person is that given and entered in the civil register, citing Chomi v. Local Civil Registrar of Manila, Ng Yao Siong v. Republic, Rendora v. Republic, and Pabellar v. Republic.
- Article 376 of the Civil Code, which requires judicial authority to change a person's name or surname, applies only to the true or official name recorded in the civil register; the Court cited Ng Yao Siong v. Republic to emphasize that only the official name in the civil register may be changed under Article 376.
- Petitioner’s registered name was identified by the Court as "Hatima Centi Y. Saul." The petition did not seek to change that registered maiden name; it sought to resume the use of that maiden name following dissolution of marriage by divorce under Muslim law.
Court's Reasoning — Divorce under the Code of Muslim Personal Laws and Effects on Civil Status
- The Court discussed the definition and effects of divorce under the Code of Muslim Personal Laws as quoted in the ponencia:
- Divorce (talaq) is defined in P.D. No. 1086 (the Code of Muslim Personal Laws) with Article 45 describing divorce as the formal dissolution of the marriage bond; it may be effected by repudiation (talaq) and by judicial decree (faskh), among other mechanisms.
- Article 54 of P.D. No. 1086 provides that a talaq or faskh, once irrevocable, severs the marriage bond and the spouses may contract another marriage in accordance with the Code.
- The divorce becomes irrevocable after observance of the idda, a waiting period defined in Article 56 and Article 57(b) (the source cites Article 57[b], P.D. 1083).