The Supreme Court has ruled that a married woman who previously used her husband’s surname in her passport cannot revert to her maiden name in a renewal application unless her marriage has been legally terminated through death, divorce, annulment, or a declaration of nullity. This decision clarifies that while married women have the option to use their maiden name, once they opt to use their husband’s surname in their passport, they are bound by that choice unless the marriage is dissolved. The ruling balances a woman’s right to choose her identity with the state’s interest in maintaining the integrity of passport records.

Identity Embodied: Can a Married Woman Reclaim Her Maiden Name on Her Passport?

The case of Maria Virginia V. Remo v. The Honorable Secretary of Foreign Affairs revolves around a pivotal question: can a married woman, having once adopted her husband’s surname on her passport, revert to her maiden name while the marriage subsists? Maria Virginia V. Remo, married to Francisco R. Rallonza, sought to renew her Philippine passport using her maiden name, a request denied by the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA). This denial was based on the premise that Philippine law, particularly the Philippine Passport Act of 1996 (RA 8239), allows such reversion only in cases of divorce, annulment, or the death of the husband.

The petitioner argued that Article 370 of the Civil Code grants married women the option to use their maiden name. The Supreme Court acknowledged this right, referencing Yasin v. Honorable Judge Shari’a District Court, which affirmed that a married woman’s use of her husband’s surname is permissive, not obligatory. However, the Court distinguished the Yasin case, which involved a Muslim divorcee, from Remo’s situation, where the marriage remained intact.

The Court then turned to RA 8239, the law governing passport issuance, specifically Section 5(d), which stipulates the requirements for passport issuance to married, separated, divorced, widowed, or annulled women. The provision states:

Sec. 5. Requirements for the Issuance of Passport. — No passport shall be issued to an applicant unless the Secretary or his duly authorized representative is satisfied that the applicant is a Filipino citizen who has complied with the following requirements: x x x

(d) In case of a woman who is married, separated, divorced or widowed or whose marriage has been annulled or declared by court as void, a copy of the certificate of marriage, court decree of separation, divorce or annulment or certificate of death of the deceased spouse duly issued and authenticated by the Office of the Civil Registrar General: Provided, That in case of a divorce decree, annulment or declaration of marriage as void, the woman applicant may revert to the use of her maiden name: Provided, further, That such divorce is recognized under existing laws of the Philippines; x x x

The Court interpreted the proviso in Section 5(d) as limiting the instances in which a married woman can revert to her maiden name on her passport to cases where the marriage has been terminated. The Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 8239 further reinforce this interpretation. While the DFA allows a married woman applying for a passport for the first time to use her maiden name, it restricts a reversion to the maiden name after the husband’s surname has been adopted, unless the marriage has been severed.

The petitioner contended that RA 8239’s restriction conflicted with and impliedly repealed Article 370 of the Civil Code. The Court rejected this argument, finding no real conflict between the two laws. RA 8239 does not prohibit a married woman from using her maiden name; it merely regulates the conditions under which she can revert to it after having adopted her husband’s surname on her passport. The court emphasized that a special law, like RA 8239, prevails over a general law, like the Civil Code, in cases of conflict.

The Court also addressed the petitioner’s implied repeal argument, stating that such repeals are disfavored, and laws should be harmonized whenever possible. For a law to repeal another, the two must be irreconcilably inconsistent, which the Court did not find in this case.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted the importance of maintaining consistency in passport records. Allowing a married woman to change her name at will could lead to confusion and undermine the integrity of the passport as an official document of identity and nationality. Passports are the property of the government, and its issuance is heavily regulated.

The decision underscores that while a married woman has the initial option to use her maiden name, once she chooses to adopt her husband’s surname on her passport, this decision becomes binding unless the marriage is legally terminated. This balances individual choice with the state’s interest in ensuring accurate and reliable travel documents.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether a married woman who previously used her husband’s surname in her passport can revert to her maiden name while her marriage is still subsisting.
What did the Supreme Court rule?	The Supreme Court ruled that a married woman cannot revert to her maiden name on her passport unless her marriage has been legally terminated through death, divorce, annulment, or a declaration of nullity.
What is Article 370 of the Civil Code?	Article 370 of the Civil Code states that a married woman may use her maiden first name and surname and add her husband’s surname, her maiden first name and her husband’s surname, or her husband’s full name with a prefix indicating she is his wife.
What is Section 5(d) of RA 8239?	Section 5(d) of RA 8239, the Philippine Passport Act of 1996, outlines the requirements for passport issuance, stating that a woman may revert to her maiden name in case of divorce, annulment, or declaration of marriage as void, provided such divorce is recognized under Philippine law.
Does RA 8239 prohibit a married woman from using her maiden name?	No, RA 8239 does not prohibit a married woman from using her maiden name when applying for a passport for the first time. However, it restricts a reversion to the maiden name after the husband’s surname has been adopted, unless the marriage has been severed.
Why did the Court rule that RA 8239 prevails over the Civil Code?	The Court ruled that RA 8239, as a special law specifically dealing with passport issuance, prevails over the provisions of the Civil Code, which is a general law on the use of surnames.
What is the significance of a passport?	A passport is an official document of identity and nationality issued to a person intending to travel or sojourn in foreign countries, and the Philippine government requests other governments to allow its holder to pass safely and freely, and in case of need, to give aid and protection.
Who owns the Philippine passport?	A Philippine passport remains at all times the property of the Government. The holder is merely a possessor of the passport as long as it is valid and the same may not be surrendered to any person or entity other than the government or its representative

In conclusion, the Remo case clarifies the rights of married women regarding the use of surnames on their passports. The ruling emphasizes the importance of consistency in official documents and balances personal choice with the state’s regulatory interests.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Maria Virginia V. Remo v. The Honorable Secretary of Foreign Affairs, G.R. No. 169202, March 05, 2010