En Banc
BAR MATTER NO. 1625
RE: Petition to Use Maiden Name in Petition to Take the 2006 Bar Examinations, JOSEPHINE P. UY-TIMOSA, petitioner
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
BAR MATTER NO. 1625 - Petition to Use Maiden Name in Petition to Take the 2006 Bar Examinations, JOSEPHINE P. UY-TIMOSA, petitioner.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Marriage does not change a woman's name, it merely changes her civil
status. Her true and real name is that
given to her and entered in the Civil Registry which she may continue to use
despite her marriage or cessation of marriage for whatever reason she may have.[1]
For our Resolution is the letter dated June 14, 2006 of Josephine
P. Uy-Timosa, petitioner herein, praying that she be allowed
to use her maiden name, Josephine P. Uy,
in her Petition to Take the 2006 Bar Examinations.
Petitioner alleged that, 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
Petitioner further alleged that she and her husband have been separated
since May 2000 and that a Petition for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage is now pending before the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 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.
We grant petitioner's request.
Article 370 of the Civil Code reads:
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."
This provision clearly indicates that the wife's use of her
husband's surname is optional, not obligatory.
Following; is the explanation given by the prominent civilist,
Arturo M. Tolentino:
Under the present article of our Code, however, the word "may" is used, indicating that the
use of the husband's surname by the wife is permissive rather than obligatory. We have
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. It
seems, therefore, that a married woman may use only her maiden name and
surname. She has an option, but not a
duty, to use the surname of the husband in any of the ways provided by this
Article."[2]
The Court adopted this view in Yasin v. Judge, Shari'a District Court,[3] thus:
"Even under the Civil Code, the use of the husband's surname during the marriage (Art. 370, Civil Code),
after the annulment of marriage (Art. 371, Civil Code) and after the death of
the husband (Art. 373, Civil Code) is
permissive and not obligatory x x x.
When a woman marries a man, she need not apply and/or seek judicial
authority to use her husband's name by prefixing the word "Mrs." before her husband's full name or by adding
her husband's surname to her maiden first name. The law grants her such right (Art. 370, Civil
Code). Similarly, when the marriage ties
or vinculum 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. When petitioner married her
husband, she did not change her name but only her civil status. Neither was she required to secure judicial
authority to use the surname of her husband after the marriage as no law
requires it."
Clearly, petitioner has the right to use her maiden name Jospehine P. Uy in her Petition to Take the 2006
Bar Examinations.
Section 14, Article II of the 1987 Constitution stales that: "The State recognizes the role of women in
nation building, and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the law of
women and men". This is our nation's
response to the increasing clamor of women worldwide for gender equality. Justice Flerida Ruth
P. Romero, in her Concurring Opinion in Yasin, expounded that if this constitutional provision means
anything at all, "it signifies that
women, no less than men, shall enjoy the same rights accorded by law and this
includes the freedom of choice in the use of names upon marriage."
ACCORDINGLY, we GRANT petitioner's request to use her maiden
name Josephine P. Uy in her Petition
to Take the 2006 Bar Examinations.
Very truly yours,
(sgd.) MA. lUISA d. VIllARAMA
Clerk of Court