TOLENTINO VS CA, 162 SCRA 66 - June 10, 1988

CONSTANCIA C. TOLENTINO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and CONSUELO

A!I, respondents
TOPIC" SURNA#E
Background/Facts:
Consuelo David married Arturo Tolentino in 1931. The marriage was dissolved and
terminated in 193. Arturo Tolentino then married !ilar Adora"le "ut she died soon a#ter the
marriage. A#ter that$ Constancia married Arturo Tolentino on A%ril &1$ 19' and the( had 3
children. Constancia Tolentino is the %resent legal wi#e o# Arturo Tolentino. Consuelo David
continued using the surname Tolentino a#ter the divorce and u% to the time that the
com%laint was )led. Constancia )led a %etition to sto% and en*oin Consuelo #rom using the
surname o# Tolentino.
+,--A./:
0ssue related to the to%ic: whether or not a woman who has "een legall( divorced #rom her
hus"and ma( "e en*oined "( the latter1s %resent wi#e #rom using the surname o# her #ormer
hus"and.
2eld: 34. !hili%%ine law is understanda"l( silent. 5e have no %rovisions #or divorce in our
laws and conse6uentl($ the use o# surnames "( a divorced wi#e is not %rovided #or. The wi#e
cannot claim an e7clusive right to use the hus"and1s surname. +he cannot "e %revented
#rom using it8 "ut neither can she restrain others #rom using it.
FACTS"
A $o%p&aint 'as (&ed )* petitioner Constan$ia C. To&entino a+ainst Cons,e&o avid
-or t.e p,rpose o- stoppin+ and en/oinin+ .er )* in/,n$tion -ro% ,sin+ t.e s,rna%e
To&entino. 01an,ar* 12, 13425 Respondent Cons,e&o avid (&ed .er ans'er ad%ittin+
s.e .as )een ,sin+ and $ontin,es to ,se t.e s,rna%e To&entino. 01an,ar* 16, 13425
T.e tria& $o,rt +ranted t.e petition 'it. t.e a$t,a& 'rit
718
)ein+ iss,ed on 1an,ar* 29,
1342. T.e private respondent appea&ed t.e de$ision to t.e Co,rt o- Appea&s raisin+
severa& iss,es, a%on+ t.e%, t.e pres$ription o- t.e p&ainti:;s $a,se o- a$tion and
t.e a)sen$e o- a %onopo&isti$ proprietar* ri+.t o- t.e p&ainti: over t.e ,se o- t.e
s,rna%e To&entino. 01,ne 2<, 134<5 CA reversed t.e de$ision o- t.e tria& $o,rt. T.e
petitioner (&ed a %otion -or re$onsideration ),t t.e sa%e 'as denied in a reso&,tion
dated A,+,st 23,134<. =en$e, t.is appea& )* t.e petitioner.
ISSUE"
7RELATE TO T=E TOPIC" PRINCIPAL ISSUE8
Whether or not the petitioner can excu!e "#
in$unction Con%ueo &a'i! (ro) u%in* the %urna)e o( her (or)er hu%"an!
(ro) +ho) %he +a% !i'orce!
,-.
.
=EL"
NO. P.i&ippine a+ is ,nderstanda)&* %ient. >e .ave no pro'i%ion% -or divor$e in
o,r &a's and $onse?,ent&*, the u%e o( %urna)e% "# a !i'orce! +i(e i% not
pro'i!e! (or. T.e 'i-e $annot $&ai% an e@$&,sive ri+.t to ,se t.e .,s)and;s
s,rna%e. S.e $annot )e prevented -ro% ,sin+ itA ),t neit.er $an s.e restrain ot.ers
-ro% ,sin+ it.
T.e private respondent .as esta)&is.ed t.at to +rant t.e in/,n$tion to t.e petitioner
'o,&d )e an a$t o- serio,s dis&o$ation to .er. S.e .as +iven proo- t.at s.e entered
into $ontra$ts 'it. t.ird persons, a$?,ired properties and entered into ot.er &e+a&
re&ations ,sin+ t.e s,rna%e To&entino. T.e petitioner, on t.e ot.er .and, .as -ai&ed
to s.o' t.at s.e 'o,&d s,:er an* &e+a& in/,r* or deprivation o- &e+a& ri+.ts
inas%,$. as s.e $an ,se .er .,s)and;s s,rna%e and )e -,&&* prote$ted in $ase t.e
respondent ,ses t.e s,rna%e To&entino -or i&&e+a& p,rposes.
T.ere is no usur%ation o- t.e petitioner;s na%e and s,rna%e in t.is $ase so t.at t.e
%ere ,se o- t.e s,rna%e To&entino )* t.e Private respondent $annot )e said to .ave
in/,red t.e petitioner;s ri+.ts
728
. Cons,e&o never represented .erse&- a-ter t.e
divor$e as #rs. Art,ro To&entino ),t si%p&* as #rs. Cons,e&o avid-To&entino. S.e
$o,&d not possi)&* )e $o%pe&&ed to ,se t.e pre(@ B#issB or ,se t.e na%e #rs.
avid, di:erent -ro% t.e s,rna%es o- .er $.i&dren.
Fooootnooootes"
1. Consuelo David was ENJOINED from using, employing and/or applying, in any manner, form or means
whatsoever, the surname O!ENINO.
". #espondent Consuelo David was legally married to $rturo olentino on %e&ruary ', 1()1. The marriage was
dissolved and terminated pursuant to the law during the Japanese occupation on *eptem&er 1+, 1(,) &y a
de-ree of a&solute divor-e granted &y the Court of %irst Instan-e of .anila in Divor-e Case No. #/01( entitled 1$rturo
olentino v. Consuelo David1 on the ground of desertion and abandonment by the wife. he trial -ourt granted
the divor-e on its finding that $rturo olentino was a&andoned &y Consuelo David for at least three 2)3 -ontinuous
years.
). 1he usurpation of name implies some in4ury to the interests of the owner of the name. It -onsists in the possi&ility
of -onfusion of Identity ... &etween the owner and the usurper. It e5ists when a person designates himself &y another
name ... he following are the elements of usurpation of a name6 13 there is an a-tual use of another7s name &y the
defendant8 "3 the use is unauthori9ed8 and )3 the use of another7s name is to designate personality or Identify a
person1.
None of these elements e5ists in the -ase at &ar and neither is there a -laim &y the petitioner that the private
respondent impersonated her. In fa-t, it is of pu&li- :nowledge that Constan-ia olentino is the legal wife of $rturo
olentino so that all invitations for *enator and .rs. olentino are sent to Constan-ia. Consuelo never represented
herself after the divor-e as .rs. $rturo olentino &ut simply as .rs. Consuelo David/olentino. he private
respondent has legitimate -hildren who have every right to use the surname olentino. *he -ould not possi&ly &e
-ompelled to use the prefi5 1.iss1 or use the name .rs. David, different from the surnames of her -hildren.
SUC ISSUE"
>.et.er or not t.e petitioner;s $a,se o- a$tion .as a&read* pres$ri)ed
=EL"
DES. The action ha% on* pre%cri"e!
,/.
0 The ca%e +a% 1e! on No'e)"er -2,
1931 or -0 #ear% a(ter %he o"taine! 4no+e!*e. Art. 11<9 o- t.e Civi& Code
provides" BT.e ti%e -or pres$ription -or a&& Einds o- a$tions, '.en t.ere is no spe$ia&
provision '.i$. ordains ot.er'ise, s.a&& )e $o,nted -ro% t.e da* t.e* %a* )e
)ro,+.t.B A&& a$tions, ,n&ess an e@$eption is provided, .ave a pres$riptive period.
Un&ess t.e &a' %aEes an a$tion i%pres$ripti)&e, it is s,)/e$t to )ar )* pres$ription
and t.e perio! o( pre%cription i% 1'e 567 #ear% (ro) the ti)e the ri*ht o(
action accrue% +hen no other perio! i% pre%cri"e! "# a+. T.e petitioner
s.o,&d .ave )ro,+.t &e+a& a$tion i%%ediate&* a+ainst t.e private respondent a-ter
s.e
+ained Eno'&ed+e o- t.e ,se )* t.e private respondent o- t.e s,rna%e o- .er
-or%er .,s)and.
NOE6 the supposed violation of the petitioner7s right may &e a -ontinuous one &ut it does not -hange the prin-iple
that the moment the &rea-h of right or duty o--urs, the right of a-tion a--rues and the a-tion from that moment -an
&e legally instituted.