For passport issuance purposes, a married woman whose marriage subsists, may not change her family name at will.
Facts: Maria Virginia V. Remo is a married Filipino citizen. Being married to Francisco R. Rallonza, the following entries appear in her passport: “Rallonza” as her surname, “Maria Virginia” as her given name, and “Remo” as her middle name. She applied for her passport’s renewal with the DFA office in Chicago, Illinois, USA with a request to revert to her maiden name and surname in the replacement passport. The DFA refused to grant Virginia’s petition on the basis of RA 8239 (the law on the issuance of passports). According to the DFA, Section 5(d) of the said law “limits the instances when a married woman may be allowed to revert to the use of her maiden name in her passport. These instances are death of husband, divorce decree, annulment or nullity of marriage. None of these conditions is present in Remo’s case, the DFA said.
Remo appealed contending that when a woman marries, she does not change her name but only her civil status so she can still use her maiden name. In fact article 370 of the Civil Code uses the word “may” in enumerating the ways of using her husband’s surname. In said article she may use her maiden first name and surname and add her husband’s surname, or her maiden first name and husband’ surname, or her husband’s full name but prefixing a word indicating that she is his wife, such as “Mrs”. This provision is merely permissive but not obligatory. But RA 8239 prohibiting her to revert to her maiden name in the replacement passport conflicts with, and, thus operate as an implied repeal of Article 370 of the Civil Code. Was Remo correct?
Remo appealed contending that when a woman marries, she does not change her name but only her civil status so she can still use her maiden name. In fact article 370 of the Civil Code uses the word “may” in enumerating the ways of using her husband’s surname. In said article she may use her maiden first name and surname and add her husband’s surname, or her maiden first name and husband’ surname, or her husband’s full name but prefixing a word indicating that she is his wife, such as “Mrs”. This provision is merely permissive but not obligatory. But RA 8239 prohibiting her to revert to her maiden name in the replacement passport conflicts with, and, thus operate as an implied repeal of Article 370 of the Civil Code. Was Remo correct?
Held: There is no conflict between Article 370 of the Civil Code and Section 5 (d) RA 8239. RA 8239 and its implementing rules and regulations, does not prohibit a married women from using her maiden name in her passport. In fact, in recognition of this right, the DFA allows a married woman who applies for a passport to use her maiden name. However once a married woman opted to adopt her husband’s surname in her passport, she may not revert to the use of her maiden name except in cases of (1) death of the husband, (2) divorce (3) annulment, or (4) declaration of nullity of marriage. Since Remo’s marriage subsists, she may not resume her maiden name in the replacement passport.
Even assuming there is a conflict, the provisions of RA 8239 which is a special law specifically dealing with passport issuance must prevail over the general provisions of the Civil Code on the use of surnames. A special law prevails over a general law.
Moreover, well entrenched is the rule that an implied repeal is disfavored. The apparently conflicting provisions of two laws should be harmonized as much as possible, so that each shall be effective. For a law to repeal another law, the two laws must actually be inconsistent and repugnant as to be irreconcilable. Remo failed to establish this fact.
Remo would not have encountered any problems in the replacement passport had she opted to continuously and consistently use her maiden name from the moment she was married and from the time she first applied for a Philippine passport. However, she consciously chose to use her husbands surname before, in her previous passport application, and now desires to resume her maiden name. If this is allowed, nothing prevents her in the future from requesting to revert to the use of her husbands surname. Such unjustified changes in one's name and identity in a passport, which is considered superior to all other official documents, cannot be countenanced. Otherwise, undue confusion and inconsistency in the records of passport holders will arise. [Ma. Virginia V. Remo vs. The Honorable Secretary of Foreign Affairs,” G.R. No. 169202, March 5, 2010]