ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
August-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-1261 August 2, 1949 - CATALINA OSMEÑA DE VALENCIA, ET AL. v. EMILIA RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 222

  • G.R. No. L-3059 August 2, 1949 - VICENTE G. CRUZ, ET AL. v. PLACIDO RAMOS, ET AL.

    084 Phil 226

  • G.R. No. L-1494 August 3, 1949 - ALLISON J. GIBBS v. EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 230

  • G.R. No. L-1514 August 5, 1949 - BONIFACIO VILLAREAL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    084 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. L-1826 August 5, 1949 - JOSE L. GOMEZ, ET AL. v. MIGUELA TABIA

    084 Phil 269

  • G.R. No. L-48346 August 9, 1949 - DESTILERIA C. AYALA, INC. v. LIGA NACIONAL OBRERA DE FILIPINAS, ET AL

    084 Phil 280

  • G.R. No. L-1438 August 11, 1949 - SOCORRO C. VDA. DE ARANETA v. REHABILITATION FINANCE CORP.

    084 Phil 282

  • G.R. No. L-1935 August 11, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELADIO BALOTOL

    084 Phil 289

  • G.R. No. L-2062 August 11, 1949 - JESUS B. LOPEZ v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN, ET AL.

    084 Phil 292

  • G.R. No. L-1367 August 16, 1949 - PIO PORTEA v. JACINTO PABELLON, ET AL.

    084 Phil 298

  • G.R. No. L-1892 August 16, 1949 - JACINTO NOTOR v. RAMON MARTINEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 300

  • G.R. No. L-1956 August 16, 1949 - LETICIA H. CALDERA, ET AL. v. EUSEBIO BALCUEBA, ET AL.

    084 Phil 304

  • G.R. No. L-3025 August 16, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ILDEFONSO DE CASTRO, JR.

    084 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. L-1648 August 17, 1949 - PEDRO SYQUIA, ET AL. v. NATIVIDAD ALMEDA LOPEZ

    084 Phil 312

  • G.R. No. L-1029 August 23, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO L. RAMOS

    084 Phil 326

  • G.R. No. L-2016 August 23, 1949 - RICHARD THOMAS FITZSIMMONS v. ATLANTIC, GULF & PACIFIC CO. OF MLA.

    084 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. L-2035 August 23, 1949 - ANGELITA V. VILLANUEVA, ET AL. v. DIRECTOR OF POSTS

    084 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. L-1761 August 24, 1949 - IN RE: JOSE LEELIN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    084 Phil 352

  • G.R. No. L-1544 August 25, 1949 - F. V. LARRAGA, ET AL. v. EULOGIA B. BAÑEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 354

  • G.R. No. L-2766 August 25, 1949 - PABLO P. ROBATON v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    084 Phil 357

  • G.R. No. L-2828 August 25, 1949 - JOAQUIN GOZUN, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL, ET AL.

    084 Phil 359

  • G.R. No. L-1760 August 26, 1949 - MARIA MOLATO, ET AL. v. CELEDONIA ARCOS, ET AL.

    084 Phil 361

  • G.R. No. L-2372 August 26, 1949 - INT’L. HARVESTER CO. OF THE PHIL. v. CRISANTO ARAGON, ET AL.

    084 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. L-2044 August 26, 1949 - J. ANTONIO ARANETA v. RAFAEL DINGLASAN, ET AL.

    084 Phil 368

  • G.R. No. L-1617 August 29, 1949 - PANFILO B. MORALES, ET AL. v. OSCAR VENTANILLA, ET AL.

    084 Phil 459

  • G.R. Nos. L-1625 & L-1626 August 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO PINEDA

    084 Phil 465

  • G.R. No. L-1563 August 30, 1949 - IN RE: JOSE GO v. ANTI-CHINESE LEAGUE OF THE PHIL.

    084 Phil 468

  • G.R. No. L-1542 August 30, 1949 - JOSE CRISTOBAL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    084 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. L-1485 August 30, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLO DESLATE

    084 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. L-1442 August 30, 1949 - MIGUEL R. MATEO v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

    084 Phil 482

  • G.R. No. L-2166 August 30, 1949 - ESTRELLA LEDESMA v. EDUARDO ENRIQUEZ

    084 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. L-2452 August 30, 1949 - LORENZO LLAMOSO v. VICENTE FERRER, ET AL.

    084 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. L-2894 August 30, 1949 - BUCRA CORP. v. HIGINO B. MACADAEG. ET AL.

    084 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-3063 August 30, 1949 - MACARIO QUINTERO, ET AL. v. FELIX MARTINEZ, ET AL.

    084 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. L-3226 August 30, 1949 - DOMINADOR S. PONGOS v. HIDALGO ENTERPRISES, INC., ET AL.

    084 Phil 499

  • G.R. No. L-1358 August 31, 1949 - MARIETA J. ROTEA, ET AL. v. LEVY HERMANOS, INC., ET AL.

    084 Phil 502

  • G.R. No. L-1827 August 31, 1949 - ALFREDO CATOLICO v. IRINEO RANJO, ET AL.

    084 Phil 505

  • G.R. No. L-2262 August 31, 1949 - FLORENTINA ZAFRA VDA. DE VALENZUELA v. BERNABE DE AQUINO, ET AL.

    084 Phil 507

  • G.R. No. L-2345 August 31, 1949 - SEGUNDO AGUSTIN, ET AL. v. MANUEL DE LA FUENTE

    084 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. L-2480 August 31, 1949 - FLORENTINA ZAFRA VDA. DE VALENZUELA v. IRENE ZAFRA DE AGUILAR

    084 Phil 518

  • G.R. No. L-2754 August 31, 1949 - FIDEL ABRIOL v. VICENTE HOMERES

    084 Phil 525

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-1261   August 2, 1949 - CATALINA OSMEÑA DE VALENCIA, ET AL. v. EMILIA RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. <br /><br />084 Phil 222

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-1261. August 2, 1949.]

    CATALINA OSMEÑA DE VALENCIA, ET AL., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. EMILIA RODRIGUEZ, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

    Sato & Repollo for Appellants.

    Filemon Sotto for Appellees.

    SYLLABUS


    1. PARENT AND CHILD; CHILDREN’S RIGHT TO USED THEIR FATHERS SURNAME; ARTICLE 114, CIVIL CODE APPLIED AND CONSTRUED. — Children may use the surname of their father as a matter of right by reason of the mere fact that they are legitimate children but article 114 of the Civil Code does not mean to grant monopolistic proprietary control to legitimate children over the surname of their father. Said article cannot be interpreted as a prohibition against the use by others of what may happen to be the surname of their father.


    D E C I S I O N


    PARAS, J.:


    In an action instituted in the Court of First Instance of Cebu, the plaintiffs prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from using the surname "Valencia." The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and this was sustained by the lower court. Hence this appeal by the plaintiffs.

    The plaintiffs allege, on the one hand, that they (except Catalina Osmeña) are the legitimate children of the defendant Pio E. Valencia in the latter’s lawful wedlock with plaintiff Catalina Osmeña; and, upon the other hand, that the defendants, (except Emilia Rodriguez and Pio E. Valencia) are the illegitimate children of Pio E. Valencia with his common-law-wife, defendant Emilia Rodriguez. It is accordingly contended by the plaintiffs that they alone have the right to bear the surname "Valencia," in accordance with article 114 of the Civil Code which provides that legitimate children have the right to bear the surname of the father. To complete their argument, the plaintiffs point out that, under articles 139 and 845 of the Civil Code, illegitimate children (who are not natural) are entitled only to support.

    We concede that the plaintiffs may use the surname of their father as a matter of right by reason of the mere fact that they are legitimate children; but we cannot agree to the view that article 114 of the Civil Code, without more, grants monopolistic proprietary control to legitimate children over the surname of their father. In other words, said article has marked a right of which legitimate children may not be deprived, but it cannot be interpreted as a prohibition against the use by others of what may happen to be the surname of their father. If plaintiff’s theory were correct, they can stop countless inhabitants from bearing the surname "Valencia."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The defendants’ case becomes the stronger when it is remembered that, from all appearances, Pio E. Valencia (the father) acquiesces in the adoption of his surname by the defendants. Put even if he objects, the defendants can still use the surname "Valencia," in the absence of any law granting exclusive ownership over a surname.

    The appealed order is affirmed, and it is so ordered with costs against the plaintiffs and appellants.

    Moran, C.J., Perfecto, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor and Reyes, JJ., concur.

    Separate Opinions


    FERIA, J.:


    I concur in the result.

    OZAETA, J., concurring and dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I concur in the affirmance of the order appealed from on the following ground: It appears from paragraph 5 of the complaint that the defendant Pio E. Valencia has allowed his illegitimate children by his codefendant Emilia Rodriguez to bear his surname even after they had reached the age of reason. From this allegation it may be inferred that since their birth these illegitimate children have been given and have borne the surname of their father with the latter’s consent. The plaintiffs predicate their case upon articles 114, 139, and 845 of the Civil Code and Rule 103 of the Rules of Court. Article 114 says that legitimate children shall have the right to bear the surnames of their father and mother; and articles 139 and 845 say that illegitimate children who have not the status of natural children shall be entitled only to support. Rule 103 of the Rules of Court prescribes the procedure for change of name. Upon the facts alleged in the complaint, these statutory provisions are not sufficient, in my opinion, to entitle the plaintiffs to the relief sought by their complaint. The mere fact that legitimate children have the right to bear the surnames of their parents and illegitimate children are entitled only to support, does not necessarily imply that the father may not voluntarily permit his illegitimate children to bear his surname. Rule 103 is not applicable because it is not alleged in the complaint that the twelve defendants who are alleged to be illegitimate children of their codefendant Pio E. Valencia have illegally changed their surname from some other to that of Valencia. On the contrary we infer from the complaint that since their birth they have always borne that surname with the knowledge and consent of their putative father.

    I dissent from so much of the majority opinion as may convey the idea (1) that a person who claims to be the illegitimate child of another may use or adopt the surname of the latter even against his will and without his consent, and without authorization from the court; and (2) that any person is free to use any surname he may have a fancy for without the authorization of the court even though he may not have originally borne that surname. Concerning the first idea, I am of the opinion that a person cannot adjudicate to himself a status which adversely affects another without the latter’s consent or without the intervention of the court. And as to the second idea, it is clear from Rule 103 that a person cannot adopt a new name, or use one other than that he has originally borne, without complying with the requisites provided for in said rule.

    G.R. No. L-1261   August 2, 1949 - CATALINA OSMEÑA DE VALENCIA, ET AL. v. EMILIA RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. <br /><br />084 Phil 222


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED