1.MariaVirginaV.
RemovT heH
onorableS ecretaryofForeignA
ffairs,G.R.No.169202,March5,
2010
FACTS:MariaVirginiaV.RemoisaF ilipinoc itizen,marriedtoF ranciscoR.Rallonza.Priorexpirationof
thev alidityofherpassportonOctober27,2 000,sheappliedf oritsrenewalwithD FAofficeinChicago,
IL,U S.Sherequestedtoreverthermaidennameandsurnameforthereplacementpassportsincethe
namereflectedonherpassportw as“MariaVirginiaRemoR allonza”.Remo’srequestw asdenied.A tty.
ManuelJosephR.BretanaIII,representingR emo,wrotethenS ecretaryofF oreignAffairsD omingo
Siasonexpressingtherequest.D FAdeniedtherequeststatingthat“theImplementingRulesand
RegulationsforPhilippinePassportActof1996clearlydefinesthec onditionswhenaw omanapplicant
mayreverttoh ermaidenname,t hatis,onlyinc asesofannulmentofmarriage,divorcea nddeathof
theh usband”.Remofiledamotionforreconsiderationwasdenied.Shethenfiledanappealtothe
officeoft hePresident.H owever,t hemotionf orrecommendationw asa lsod
enied.Remofileda
petitionforreviewtoC ourtofA
ppeals.CAalsodeniedthepetition.Remoagainmovedfor
reconsiderationwhichCAd enied.Hence,thispetition.
ISSUE:WhetherornotRemoc anreverttot heuseofhermaidennameinherreplacementpassport
despitethesubsistenceofhermarriage
HELD:No. Am
arriedwomanhasa noptionbutnota duty,t ouset hesurnameoftheh
usbandinanyof
thew
aysprovidedusinghermaidennameoncesheismarriedbecausewhenaw omanm arries,she
doesnotchangehernamebutonlyherc ivilstatus.
sp
A rovidedbyArticle370oftheC
ode:Amarriedw
omanmayuse:(1)H ermaidenfirstnameand
surnameanda ddherhusband’ssurname,or(2)Hermaidenfirstnameandherhusband'ssurname,or
(3)H erhusband’sfullname,butprefixingawordindicatingthatsheish
isw
ife,suchas"Mrs."
Onceam arriedwomanoptedtoadoptherhusband’ssurnameinherp assport,shemaynotrevertto
theu
seofhermaidenname,exceptint hec asese numeratedinS ection5(d)ofRA8239.T heseinstances
are:(1)deathofhusband,(2)divorce,(3)annulment,or(4)nullityofmarriage.S incepetitioner’s
marriagetoherhusbandsubsists,shemaynotresumehermaidennameinthereplacementpassport.
Otherwisestated,a marriedwoman’sreversiontot heuseofh
ermaidennamemustb
ebasedonlyon
theseveranceofthemarriage.
S incepetitioner’smarriaget oherhusbandsubsists,p lacingh
ercaseoutsideofthepurviewofS ection
5(d)ofRA8239(astotheinstanceswhenam arriedwomanmayreverttotheuseofh ermaidenname),
shemaynotresumeh ermaidennameinthereplacementp assport.T hisprohibition,accordingto
petitioner,c onflictsw ithand,t hus,operatesasa nimpliedrepealofA rticle370oftheCivilCode.
Thepetitioner’st heoryofimpliedrepealm
ustf ail.Well-entrenchedistherulethatanimpliedrepealis
disfavored.T hea pparentlyconflictingprovisionsofa lawortwolawsshouldbeh
armonizedasmucha s
possible,sot hateachshallbeeffective.F oralawtooperatetorepealanotherlaw,thetwolawsmust
be inconsistent.Theformermustbesorepugnanta stobeirreconcilablew iththelatteract.T his
petitioner failedtoestablish.
Petitionisdeniedandthedecisiona ndresolutionofCAisa ffirmed.