Tolentino v. Court of Appeals
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the use of the surname 'Tolentino.' Constancia C. Tolentino, the present legal wife of Arturo Tolentino, sought to enjoin Consuelo David, Arturo Tolentino's former wife from whom he was legally divorced in 1943, from continuing to use the surname 'Tolentino.' Consuelo David had continued to use the surname after the divorce, and Arturo Tolentino himself, along with his family, had consented to her continued use of the name. 2. Procedural History: Constancia C. Tolentino filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance of Quezon City seeking an injunction against Consuelo David's use of the surname 'Tolentino,' and also claimed damages, which she later waived. A preliminary injunction was granted, and subsequently, the trial court rendered a decision making the injunction permanent. Consuelo David appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, dismissing the complaint. Constancia C. Tolentino filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. This led to the present appeal by Constancia C. Tolentino to the Supreme Court. 3. The Petition: This case comes before the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari. The petitioner, Constancia C. Tolentino, argues that her cause of action is imprescriptible and that she has the right to prevent Consuelo David from using the surname 'Tolentino.' The core issues presented are whether the petitioner's cause of action has prescribed and whether a divorced woman can be enjoined from using her former husband's surname. The petitioner contends that the use of the surname constitutes a continuing wrong and that Articles 370 and 371 of the Civil Code support her claim. The petition seeks to reinstate the trial court's permanent injunction.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the petitioner's cause of action has already prescribed. Whether or not the petitioner can exclude by injunction Consuelo David from using the surname of her former husband from whom she was divorced.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The writs of preliminary and mandatory injunction issued by the trial court are set aside.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prescription: The petitioner's contention that her cause of action is imprescriptible is without merit. The use of a surname by a divorced wife for a purpose not criminal in nature is not a crime, and civil actions are subject to prescription periods. Article 1150 of the Civil Code provides that the time for prescription is counted from the day the action may be brought. Even if the violation is continuous, the right of action accrues at the moment of the breach. The Court of Appeals correctly opined that the action had long prescribed, whether calculated from the petitioner's marriage to Arturo Tolentino, the effectivity of the Civil Code, or the petitioner's knowledge of respondent's use of the surname. The petitioner filed her complaint on November 23, 1971, after waiting for approximately twenty (20) years since gaining knowledge of the use of the surname. On the issue of whether a divorced woman may continue using the surname of her former husband: Philippine law is silent on this matter as it does not provide for divorce. However, the Court noted that Senator Tolentino, in his commentary on Article 370 of the Civil Code, stated that a wife cannot claim an exclusive right to use her husband's surname and cannot prevent others from using it. Article 371, concerning annulment, is not applicable here as divorce results in a severance of valid marriage ties. The respondent established that enjoining her from using the surname would cause serious dislocation, as she has entered into contracts, acquired properties, and engaged in legal relations using the surname Tolentino. The petitioner failed to show any actual legal injury or deprivation of legal rights, as she can continue using her husband's surname and be protected if the respondent uses it for illegal purposes. There was no usurpation of the petitioner's name, as the respondent did not impersonate her and Consuelo David-Tolentino used the surname legitimately, especially considering she has legitimate children with the surname Tolentino. The Court found it just and equitable to leave things as they are, as the petitioner's grievance was primarily a hurt to her feelings, which is not a basis for injunctive relief.
Main Doctrine
A divorced woman may continue using the surname of her former husband, and such use does not constitute usurpation of name or infringe upon the rights of the former husband's present wife, especially when the use has been long-standing and causes dislocation if enjoined, and the present wife fails to show actual legal injury.