On remarriage, FC 40 Lilia Olivia Weigel v Hon.

Alicia Sempio-Diy and Karl Heinz Weigel Facts:

1. Respondent Karl asked for the Declaration of Nullity of his marriage to herein Petitioner Lilia on
the ground of a previous existing marriage with Eduardo Maxion, having been performed on June 25, 1972.

2. Lilia, while having admitted the existence of her marriage with Maxion, claimed that such
marriage was null and void on the ground that she and Maxion have been allegedly forced to enter said marital union: a. First marriage was vitiated by force

b. Maxion at the time of 1972 is already married to someone else

Issue: WoN marriage is void? Held: Yes Vitiated by force voidable Assuming that indeed it was vitiated by force, thus it is voidable, it is valid until annulled. Since no annulment has been made, it is clear that when she married respondent she was still validly married to her husband, her marriage with respondent thus is VOID. Prior existing marriage void Though the first marriage is void, judicial declaration of such fact is needed and for all intents and purposes she would still be regarded as a married woman at the time she contracted her marriage with Respondent.

On the property regime of the marriage Noel Buenaventura v Court of Appeals and Isabel Buenaventura Facts:

1. Petitioner filed a Petition for Declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of the
alleged psychological incapacity of Respondent Isabel.

2. After Respondent filed her Answer, Petitioner amended his petition by stating that both of them
were psychologically incapacitated. 3. RTC declared the marriage null and void. a. It ordered the liquidation of the assets of the conjugal partnership marriage, separation of benefits by ceding, giving and paying Respondent 50% of such and of his shares of stock with Manila Memorial Park b. Give regular support in favor of their son Javy c. Care and custody of the minor Javy to his mother. 4. Petitioner appealed to CA contending the error Issue: WoN the property regime was correctly liquidated and divided? Held: YES Since the present case does not involve the annulment of a bigamous marriage, the provisions of Article 50 in relation to Articles 41, 42 and 43 of the Family Code, providing for the dissolution of the absolute community or conjugal partnership of gains, as the case may be, do not apply. Rather, the general rule applies, which is that in case a marriage is declared void ab initio, the property regime applicable and to be liquidated, partitioned and distributed is that of equal co-ownership. In a void marriage, regardless of the cause thereof, the property relations of the parties during the period of cohabitation is governed by the provisions of Article 147 or Article 148, such as the case may be, of the Family Code. ART. 147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership. In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares. xxx When only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good faith, the share of the party in bad faith in the co-ownership shall be forfeited in favor of their common

children. In case of default of or waiver by any or all of the common children or their descendants, each vacant share shall belong to the respective surviving descendants. In the absence of descendants, such share shall belong to the innocent party. In all cases, the forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the cohabitation. Further, since the properties ordered to be distributed by the court a quo were found, both by the trial court and the Court of Appeals, to have been acquired during the union of the parties, the same would be covered by the co-ownership. No fruits of a separate property of one of the parties appear to have been included or involved in said distribution. The liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties owned in common by the parties herein as ordered by the court a quo should, therefore, be sustained, but on the basis of co-ownership and not of the regime of conjugal partnership of gains.

On use of the surnames Maria Virginia Remo v Hon. Secretary of Foreign Affairs Facts:

1. Petitioner Maria Virginia V. Remo is a married Filipino citizen whose Philippine passport was then
expiring on 27 October 2000.

2. Petitioner being married to Francisco R. Rallonza, the following entries appear in her passport:
"Rallonza" as her surname, "Maria Virginia" as her given name, and "Remo" as her middle name.

3. Prior to the expiry of the validity of her passport, petitioner, whose marriage still subsists, applied
for the renewal of her passport with the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) office in Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A., with a request to revert to her maiden name and surname in the replacement passport.

4. DFA denied such request:

The Implementing Rules and Regulations for Philippine Passport Act of 1996 clearly defines the conditions when a woman applicant may revert to her maiden name, that is only in cases of annulment of marriage, divorce and death of the husband. Ms. Remos case does not meet any of these conditions. Issue: WoN petitioner, who originally used her husbands surname in her expired passport, can revert to the use of her maiden name in the replacement passport, despite the subsistence of her marriage. Held: NO 1. Article 370 the use of the husbands surname by the wife is permissive. However, Petitioner has already used her husbands surname, having a subsisting and valid marriage, she cannot revert it to her maiden name. Title XIII of the Civil Code governs the use of surnames. In the case of a married woman, Article 370 of the Civil Code provides: ART. 370. A married woman may use: (1) Her maiden first name and surname and add her husbands surname, or

(2) Her maiden first name and her husband's surname, or (3) Her husbands full name, but prefixing a word indicating that she is his wife, such as "Mrs." Indeed, the use of the word "may" in the above provision indicates that the use of the husbands surname by the wife is permissive rather than obligatory, as settled in the case of Yasin. Clearly, a married woman has an option, but not a duty, to use the surname of the husband in any of the ways provided by Article 370 of the Civil Code.13 She is therefore allowed to use not only any of the three names provided in Article 370, but also her maiden name upon marriage. She is not prohibited from continuously using her maiden name once she is married because when a woman marries, she does not change her name but only her civil status. Further, this interpretation is in consonance with the principle that surnames indicate descent. However, the case of Yasin cannot be applied because Yasins petition to resume her maiden name was on the ground of the dissolution of her marriage under the Code of Muslim Personal Laws, unlike in the case of Petitioner where her marriage is still subsisting. 2. RA 8239 limits the instances when a married woman may be allowed to revert the use of her maiden name in her passport, such instances include annulment or nullity of marriage. The law governing passport issuance is RA 8239 and the applicable provision in this case is Section 5(d), which 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 (Emphasis supplied) Section 5(d) of RA 8239 "limits the instances when a married woman may be allowed to revert to the use of her maiden name in her passport." These instances are death of husband, divorce decree, annulment or nullity of marriage. Since petitioners marriage to her husband subsists, placing her case outside of the purview of Section 5(d) of RA 8239 (as to the instances when a married woman may revert to the use of her maiden name), she may not resume her maiden name in the replacement passport.15 This prohibition, according to petitioner, conflicts with and, thus, operates as an implied repeal of Article 370 of the Civil Code.

3. RA 8239 prevails over the Civil Code.

Even assuming RA 8239 conflicts with the Civil Code, the provisions of RA 8239 which is a special law specifically dealing with passport issuance must prevail over the provisions of Title XIII of the Civil Code which is the general law on the use of surnames. A basic tenet in statutory construction is that a special law prevails over a general law.

4. Philippine passport is impressed with public interest thus its amendment is subject to
limitations.

The acquisition of a Philippine passport is a privilege. The law recognizes the passport applicants constitutional right to travel. However, the State is also mandated to protect and maintain the integrity and credibility of the passport and travel documents proceeding from it23 as 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. [T]he issuance of passports is impressed with public interest. A passport is an official document of identity and nationality issued to a person intending to travel or sojourn in foreign countries. It is issued by the Philippine government to its citizens requesting other governments to allow its holder to pass safely and freely, and in case of need, to give him/her aid and protection.