Can a Legally Separated Wife Use Her Maiden Name? | CASE DIGEST: Elisea Laperal vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-18008, October 30, 1962 (6 SCRA 357)

 

SHORT ANSWER: No — a legally separated wife cannot revert to her maiden name, because legal separation does not dissolve the marriage bond, so Article 372 of the Civil Code requires her to continue using the surname she used during the marriage. This specific provision prevails over the general change-of-name procedure under Rule 103, even if the wife cites practical reasons like business or financial convenience. 

DOCTRINE: A woman legally separated from her husband remains married in the eyes of the law and must continue to use her married surname; she cannot use a decree of legal separation as a basis to resume her maiden name, since Article 372 of the Civil Code — not the general change-of-name procedure under Rule 103 governs her situation.

This case illustrates the distinction between legal separation (which does not sever marital bond), and annulment or declaration of nullity (which does), and its effect on a woman's right to use her name. 

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

Elisea Laperal married Enrique R. Santamaria in 1939 and, during the marriage, went by the name "Elisea L. Santamaria". In 1958, a court decreed the legal separation of the spouses. In 1960, she filed a petition asking the court to allow her to resume using her maiden name, "Elisea Laperal", treating it as either a change of name or as a mere resumption of her maiden name following the legal separation. 

The City Attorney of Baguio opposed the petition, arguing that it violated Article 372 of the Civil Code and was not sanctioned by the Rules of Court. The trial court initially denied the petition, but on petitioner's motion for reconsideration, treated it as a petition for change of name under Rule 103 and granted it, reasoning that as a businesswoman legally separated from her husband, continuing to use her married name would cause confusion in her finances and in the eventual liquidation of the conjugal assets.

ISSUE:

1. Whether Rule 103 prevails over the specific provision of Article 372 of the Civil Code
2. Whether a decree of legal separation may be used as a ground to change or revert the wife's surname to her maiden name

RULING:

1. Article 372 controls, not Rule 103. Article 372 of the Civil Code specifically provides that when legal separation has been granted, the wife shall continue using her name and surname employed before the legal separation. Because this is a specific rule governing married woman who are legally separated, it prevails over the general provision of Rule 103 on change of name. The Court also found the petitioner's fear of financial confusion insufficient to override the mandate of Article 372.
2. A decree of legal separation is not, by itself, a sufficient ground to change or revert one's name. Legal Separation does not dissolve the marriage bond (vinculum) and thus, the marital status is not affected by the separation. Since the marriage tie subsists, allowing her to drop the husband's surname would be inconsistent with her continuing status as a married woman.