May a wife resume using her maiden name after a legal separation has been decreed?
Facts: After Elisea L. Santamaria was decreed legally separated from her husband Enrique R. Santamaria, Elisea filed a petition praying that she be allowed to resume using her maiden name Elisea LAPERAL. The trial court denied the petition for the reason that Article 372 of the Civil Code requires the wife, even after she is decreed legally separated from her husband, to continue using the name and surname she employed before the legal separation. Upon Elisea's motion, however, the court, treating the petition as one for change of name, reconsidered its decision and granted the petition on the ground that to allow petitioner, who is a businesswoman decreed legally separated from her husband, to continue using her married name would give rise to confusion in her finances and the eventual liquidation of the conjugal assets. Hence, the state appealed.
Held: Article 372 of the Civil Code reads:
ART. 372. When legal separation has been granted, the wife shall continue using her name and surname employed before the legal separation.
The language of the statute is mandatory that the wife, even after the legal separation has been decreed, shall continue using her name and surname employed before the legal separation. This is so because her married status is unaffected by the separation, there being no severance of the vinculum. It seems to be the policy of the law that the wife should continue to use the name indicative of her unchanged status for the benefit of all concerned.
Even applying Rule 103 (which refers to change of name in general), the fact of legal separation alone — which is the only basis for the petition — is, not a sufficient ground to justify a change of the name of petitioner, for to hold otherwise would be to provide an easy circumvention of the mandatory provisions of Article 372.
The finding that petitioner’s continued use of her husband surname may cause undue confusion in her finances was without basis. It must be considered that the issuance of the decree of legal separation in 1958, necessitate that the conjugal partnership between her and Enrique had automatically been dissolved and liquidated. Hence, there could be no more occasion for an eventual liquidation of the conjugal assets. [Laperal vs. Republic, GR No. L-18008, October 30, 1962]
