BAR MATTER NO. 1625
BAR MATTER NO. 1625
RE: PETITION TO USE MAIDEN NAME IN PETITION TO TAKE THE
2006 BAR EXAMINATIONS, JOSEPHINE P.
UY-TIMOSA, PETITIONER
Facts:
1.
A petition for Josephine P. Uy-Timosa praying
that she be allowed to use her maiden name, Josephine P. Uy to take the 2006 Bar Examinations.
2.
Despite her marriage, she has continuously used
her maiden name in all her transactions, except in her school records and those
in the Commission on Higher Education
and other offices. However, all her records in the University of Santo Tomas
reflect her maiden name.
3.
She and her husband have been separated since
May 2000
4.
a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage is now pending before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Manila.
5.
Thus, petitioner requests that she be allowed to
use her maiden name considering the impossibility of facilitating on time the
amendment of her surname appearing in all the records concerned.
Issue: WON petitioner can use her
maiden name for the 2006 bar examinations?
Held/Ratio:
Yes. GRANTED. ART. 370. A married
woman may use:
(1) Her maiden first name and surname
and add her husband's surname, or
(2) Her maiden first name and her
husband's surname, or
(3) Her husband's full name, but
prefixing a word indicating that she is his wife, such as “Mrs.”
Under the present article of our
Code, however, the word “may” is used, indicating that the
use of the husband’s
surname of the wife is permissive rather than obligatory. No law which provides
that the wife shall change her name to that of the husband upon marriage. This
in is consonance with the principle that surnames indicate descent.
Yasin v. Judge Shari’a District court: … when the marriage ties no
longer exists as in the case of death of the husband or divorce as authorized
by the Muslim Code, the widow or divorcee need not seek judicial confirmation
of the change in her civil status in order to revert to her maiden name as the
use of her former husband's name is optional and not obligatory for her.
Section 14, Article II of the 1987
Constitution: “The State
recognises the role of women in anion building, and shall ensure the
fundamental equality before the law of women and men.”
Justice Flerida Ruth P. Romero, in
her Concurring Opinion in Yasin, expounded, “it signifies that women, no less than men, shall enjoy the
same rights accorded by law and this include the freedom of choice in the use
of name upon marriage.”
