PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS: Elenita Ledesma Silva & Saturnino R. Silva DEFENDANT-APELLEE: Esther Peralta
DOCTRINE:
Use of surname; Art. 370 of the CC; a married woman is authorized by law to use the surname of her husband; impliedly, it also excludes others from doing likewise
NATURE OF PETITION:
This is an appeal on both questions of fact and law from the decision of the Court of First Instance favoring the defendant commenced by the Silva spouses against Esther Peralta, seeking to: (1) enjoin the latter from representing herself as Mrs. Esther Peralta Silva; (2) order defendant to pay Elenita Silva the sum of P250,000.00 as moral, nominal and exemplary damages [allegedly suffered by reason of such misrepresentation]; and (3) pay an additional amount of P10,000.00 byway of the attorney's fees.
FACTS:
In June 1942, defendant Esther Peralta came to live with her sister, Mrs. Pedro Pia, after abandoning her studies as a student nurse during the outbreak of the war in 1941. During the same time, Saturnino Silva, an American citizen and an officer of the United States Army, was assigned to the Philippines to aid in the country’s fight for freedom.
TAKE NOTE: Saturnino was married to a certain Prescilla Isabel of Australia
In 1944, Saturnino became the commanding officer of the 130th Regiment, with their headquarters located in Magugpo, Tagum, Davao.
During that same year also, Esther accompanied her younger sister Florence in the latter’s arrest and investigation in Anibongan and later to the general headquarters in Magugpo. This was the time when Saturnino first met Esther.
Florence was acquitted from the charges filed against her; however, she was advised to temporarily live in another area of Davao. They decided to stay in the home of the spouses Mr.
& Mrs. Camilo Doctolero.
Saturnino frequently visited Esther in the house of the Doctoleros, and soon after professed his love for the female. Having believed that there were no impediments to their upcoming union, Esther said yes.
On Janury 14, 1945, Saturnino and Esther got married by a certain Father Cote in a house blessing ceremony.
TAKE NOTE: There was no documentary ascertaining the existence of their marriage since they alleged that there were no available printed forms for the purpose.
The couple lived together as common-law husband and wife and their union had begotten them a son whom they named Saturnino Silva, Jr.
In May 1945, Saturnino sustained serious wounds during a battle rendering his transfer from Davao to Leyte, and eventually to the United States.
TAKE NOTE: It was only during his return to the US to be treated for his battle wounds, did he finally divorce his Australian wife, Prescilla Isabel.
On May 9, 1948, Saturnino contracted a marriage with the plaintiff Elenita Ledesma Silva.
Upon Saturnino’s return to the Philippines, Esther demanded that he give support for their child. His refusal instituted a suit for support filed in the Court of First Instance in Manila.
As a counter-attack, Saturnina and Elenita also filed an action (discussed under ‘Nature of Petition’) and another suit in Cotabato.
Silva v. Peralta
and exemplary damages allegedly suffered by reason of such misrepresentation. NO.(3) WoN defendant can claim for actual printed evidence that could ascertain the validity of the marriage between Saturnino and Esther. The only evidence that could be presented was the testimony given by the defendant herself and of her own counsel, Atty.
Juan Quijano. Despite having convincing proof that Saturnino and Esther have lived together as common-law husband and wife, the testimonies presented contained many inconsistencies which rendered it unconvincing. Also, there are some documentary requirements presented that prove that Esther has represented herself as ‘ single’ even after her alleged marriage with Saturnino.
In the face of the evidence, the presumption of the marriage cannot be upheld and it is safe to conclude that no marriage had really taken place. Aside from the evidence that were discussed in the previous paragraph, another argument that strongly contradicts the validity of their marriage is the fact that at the time of the alleged marriage on, Saturnino was still married to the Australian Priscilla Isabel.
In view of the non-existence of appellee's marriage with Saturnino Silva, and the latter's actual marriage to plaintiff Ledesma, it is not proper for Esther to continue representing herself as the wife of Saturnino. Article 370 of the Civil Code of the Philippines authorizes a married woman to use the surname of her
husband; impliedly, it also excludes others from doing likewise.
(2) The court found that Eliza’s claims of humiliation and distress (upon learning from her lawyer that her husband had a child by the defendant, and was being sued for it) are not satisfactorily proved. In the absence of proof that the suit was reckless or malicious, there is no right to claim damages.
(3) The court assumed that the defendant would never have agreed to live maritally with Saturnino nor beget a child by him had not Silva concealed that he was already married. It is well to note in this connection, that Silva's act in support that Silva refused. Wherefore, Esther's loss of employment is ultimately a result of Silva's deception and she should be indemnified therefore. Based on these gprunds, he should
Moreover, based on a clear showing of the facts giving rise to such damages Esther had acted in good faith. Saturnino formerly introduced her to other persons as Mrs. Silva, and sent her letters thus addressed, prior to his subsequent marriage to Elenita.
Esther Peralta is enjoined from representing herself, directly or indirectly to be the wife of appellant Saturnino R. Silva; and appellant Saturnino R. Silva is in turn ordered to pay Esther Peralta the amount of P30,000.00 by way of pecuniary and moral damages, plus P5,000.00 as attorney's fees. No costs.
Tolentino v. CA
PETITIONER: Constancia Tolentino RESPONDENT: Court of Appeals FACTS:
Contancia Tolentino is the present legal wife of Arturo Tolentino; they were married in April 1945
Consuelo David was legally married to Arturo in Feb. 1931, they had children, but the marriage was terminated pursuant to law during the Japanese occupation in September 1943, by decree of absolute divorce granted by Court of First Instance of Manila
Divorce on ground of desertion and abandonment by the wife, on finding that Arturo was abandoned by Consuelo David for at least three continuous years
Arturo married again: first a Pilar Adorable, who passed, then Constancia in April 1945
Consuelo kept using the surname Tolentino after divorce and up to the time of the complaint
Third party defendant (Arturo) admitted that the use of the surname “Tolentino” by Consuelo was with his family’s consent.
Constancia Tolentino filed complaint against Consuelo David to enjoin her by injunction from using the surname “Tolentino”
Consuelo file an answer: admitted to using the surname and stated she will continue to use the surname
Trial Court granted Constancia’s action for a writ of preliminary injunction: Consuelo David was enjoined from using/employing/applying in any manner the surname “TOLENTINO”
Consuelo David filed a motion for leave to file a third party complaint against her former husband; it was granted, and Arturo Tolentino, third party defendant, filed his answer
Trial Court then confirmed the preliminary injunction in making the same permanent and perpetual-restraining and enjoined Consuelo David from using the surname “Tolentino”
Consuleo appealed to the CA on the following grounds: plaintiff Constancia Tolentino’s cause of action had prescribed and the absence of the monopolistic proprietary right of Constancia to the use of the surname
“Tolentino”
CA: reversed decision of trial court ISSUES:
Constancia’s cause of action has prescribed.
Use by respondent Consuelo David of surname is NOT a continuing actionable wrong
The use of a surname by a divorced wife for a purpose not criminal in nature is not a crime Art. 1150 of the Civil Code on prescription:
“the time for prescription for all kinds of actions, when there is no special provision which ordains otherwise, shall be contained from the day they may be brought”
All actions, unless an exception is provided, have a prescription period. Unless made imprescriptible by law, an action is subject to bar by prescription with a prescription period of five ears from the time the right cause of action accrues when no other period is prescribed by law (Civil Code, Art. 1149).
Civil Code provides for some rights which are not extinguished by prescription, but an action as in this case is not among them; there is no special law providing for imprescriptibility.
Even if supposed violation is a continuous one, does not change the principle that the moment the breach of right or duty occurs, the right of action accrues and the action from that moment can be legally instituted
Tolentino v. CA
prescribed whether the cause accrued on April 1945, when Constancia and Arturo were married, or August 1959 when the present Civil Code took effect or in 1951 when Constancia came to know of the fact that Consuelo David was still using the surname Tolentino It is the legal possibility of bringing the action, which determines the starting point for the computation of the period of prescriptionConstancia should have brought legal action immediately against Consuelo David after gaining knowledge of the use of the latter of the surname of her former husband
Action was brought only on Nov. 1971, after twenty years
CA: “where plaintiff fails to go to Court within the prescriptive period, he loses his cause, not because the defendant acquired ownership by adverse possession over his name but because the plaintif’s cause of action had lapsed thru the statute of limitations
Constancia MAY NOT exclude Consuelo from using the name of her former husband, from whom she was divorced.
To sustain Consuelo’s use of the surname does not contradict Articles. 370 and 371 of the Civil Code.
Senator Tolentino’s commentary on Art. 370 of the Civil Code:
“the wife cannot claim an exclusive right to use the husband’s surname. She cannot be prevented from using it; but neither can she restrain others from using it.”
Arr. 371: not applicable because it speaks of annulment while the case at bar refers to absolute divorce where there is a severance of valid marriage ties.
Effect of divorce is more akin to the death of the spouse where the deceased woman continues to be referred to as the “Mrs.” of the husband, even if the latter has remarried rather than to annulment, as if there had been no
Presented proof of entering into contracts with third persons, acquired properties and entered into other legal relations using the cannot be said to have injured Constancia
Usurpation of identity implies injury to the interests of the owner of the name; elements of usurpation of a name
i. Possibility of a confusion of identity between owner and usurper
ii. Use is unauthorized
iii. Use of another’s name is to designate personality or identify a person
None of these elements exist in the case at bar;
Constancia did not claim that Consuelo had impersonated her
It is public knowledge that Constancia is the legal wife of Arturo Tolentino; invitations to public functions are always addressed to her as the wife
Consuelo never represented herself after the divorce as “Mrs. Arturuo Tolentino” but simply as “Mrs. Consuelo David-Tolentino”
Consuelo David has legitimate children who have every right to use the surname Tolentino
She cannot be compelled to use the prefix Consuelo David does not impinge on the rights of Constancia.
Tolentino v. CA
134 332 Alampay
Persons and Family Relations
Petition dismissed for lack of merit. CA decision affirmed. Writs of preliminary and
mandatory injunction by the trial court, set aside.