REMO - v - SEC. OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
MARIA VIRGINIA V. REMO, Petitioner, versus THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Respondent.
2010-03-05 | G.R. No. 169202
Ponente:
CARPIO, J.:
Facts:
1.
Petitioner Maria Virginia V. Remo is a married
Filipino citizen whose Philippine passport was then expiring. Petitioner 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.
2.
Prior to the expiry of the validity of her
passport, petitioner, whose marriage still subsists, applied for the renewal of
her passport with the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) office in Chicago,
Illinois, U.S.A., with a request to revert to her maiden name and surname in
the replacement passport.
3.
Petitioner's request having been denied.
Issue: WON petitioner, who originally
used her husband's surname in her expired passport, can revert to the use of
her maiden name in the replacement passport, despite the subsistence of her
marriage.
Held/Ratio:
DENIED.
We agree with petitioner that the use
of the word "may" in the above provision indicates that the use of
the husband's surname by the wife is permissive rather than obligatory.
Petitioner cites Yasin as the applicable precedent. However, Unlike in Yasin, which
involved a Muslim divorcee whose former husband is already married to another
woman, petitioner's marriage remains subsisting. Yasin did not involve a
request to resume one's maiden name in a replacement passport, but a petition
to resume one's maiden name in view of the dissolution of one's marriage.
DFA
is cognizant of the provision in the law that it is not obligatory for a
married woman to use her husband's name. Use of maiden name is allowed in
passport application only if the married name has not been used in previous
application. The Office of the Solicitor General, on behalf of the Secretary of
Foreign Affairs, argues that the in Section 5(d) of RA 8239 "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 1 death of
husband, 2 divorce decree, 3
annulment or nullity of marriage. Since petitioner's marriage to her
husband subsists, placing her case outside of the purview of Section 5(d) of RA
8239, she may not resume her maiden name in the replacement passport. The Court
notes that petitioner 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.
Petitioner's
theory of implied repeal must fail. Even assuming RA 8239 conflicts with the
Civil Code, the provisions of RA 8239 which is a special law specifically
dealing with passport issuance must prevail over the provisions of Title XIII
of the Civil Code which is the general law on the use of surnames.
The acquisition of a Philippine
passport is a privilege, constitutional right to travel. However, the State is
also mandated to protect and maintain the integrity and credibility of the
passport and travel documents.
Note: I made this case digest when I was still a law student. The ones posted on my blog were not due for submission as part of any academic requirement. I want to remind you that there is no substitute to reading the full text of the case! Use at your own risk.
