Tolentino vs CA

TOLENTINO VS CA, 162 SCRA 66 - June 10, 1988 1988 CONSTANCIA C. TOLENTINO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and CONSUELO A!I, respondents  TOPIC" SURNA#E Background/Facts: Consuelo David married Arturo Artur o Tolentino Tolentino in 1931. 1931 . The marriage was dissolved and terminated in 193. Arturo Tolentino then married !ilar Adora"le "ut she died soon a#ter the marriage. A#ter that$ Constancia married Arturo Tolentino on A%ril &1$ 19' and the( had 3 children. Constancia Tolentino is the %resent legal wi#e o# Arturo Tolentino. Consuelo David continued using the surname Tolentino a#ter the divorce and u% to the time that the com%laint was )led. Constancia )led a %etition to sto% and en*oin Consuelo #rom using the surname o# Tolentino. +,--A: 0ssue related to the to%ic: whether or not a woman who has "een legall( divorced #rom her hus"and ma( "e en*oined "( the latters %resent wi#e #rom using the surname o# her #ormer hus"and. 2eld: 4. !hili%%ine law is understanda"l( silent. 5e have no %rovisions #or divorce in our laws and conse6uentl($ the use o# surnames "( a divorced wi#e is not %rovided #or. The wi#e cannot claim an e7clusive right to use the hus"ands surname. +he cannot "e %revented #rom using it8 "ut neither can she restrain others #rom using it.

FACTS" A $o%p&aint 'as (&ed )* petitioner Constan$ia C. To&entino a+ainst Conse&o avid or te prpose o stoppin+ and en/oinin+ er )* in/n$tion ro% sin+ te srna%e  To&entino.  To&entino. 0anar* 0anar* 1, 13425 13425 Respondent Respondent Conse&o Conse&o avid (&ed (&ed er ans'er ad%ittin+ se as )een sin+ and $ontines to se te srna%e To&entino. To&entino. 0anar* 1, 13425  Te tria& $ort $ort +ranted te te petition 'it te a$ta& 'rit 'rit 718 )ein+ issed on anar* 29, 1342. Te private respondent appea&ed te de$ision to te Cort o Appea&s raisin+ severa& isses, a%on+ te%, te pres$ription pres$ription o te p&ainti:;s $ase o a$tion and te a)sen$e o a %onopo&isti$ proprietar* ri+t o te p&ainti: over te se o te srna%e To&entino. 0ne 2<, 134<5 CA reversed te de$ision o te tria& $ort. Te petitioner (&ed a %otion or re$onsideration )t te sa%e 'as denied in a reso&tion reso&tion dated A+st 23,134<. =en$e, tis appea& )* te petitioner. ISSUE" 7RELATE TO T=E TOPIC" PRINCIPAL ISSUE8

Whether or not the petitioner can excu!e "# in$unction Con%ueo &a'i! (ro) u%in* the %urna)e o( her (or)er hu%"an! (ro) +ho) %he +a% !i'orce! -.. =EL" NO. Pi&ippine a+ is nderstanda)&* %ient . >e ave no pro'i%ion% or divor$e in or &a's and $onse?ent&*, $onse?ent&*, the u%e o( %urna)e% "# a !i'orce! +i(e i% not pro'i!e! (or. Te 'ie $annot $&ai% an e@$&sive ri+t to se te s)and;s srna%e. Se $annot )e prevented ro% sin+ it )t neiter $an se restrain oters ro% sin+ it.  Te private respondent respondent as esta)&ised tat to +rant te te in/n$tion in/n$tion to te petitioner petitioner 'o&d )e an a$t o serios dis&o$ation to er. Se as +iven proo tat se entered into $ontra$ts 'it tird persons, a$?ired properties and entered into oter &e+a& re&ations sin+ te srna%e To&entino. Te petitioner, on te oter and, as ai&ed to so' tat se 'o&d s:er an* &e+a& in/r* or deprivation o &e+a& ri+ts

inas%$ as se $an se er s)and;s srna%e and )e &&* prote$ted in $ase te respondent ses te srna%e To&entino or i&&e+a& prposes.  Tere is no usur%ation o te petitioner;s na%e and srna%e in tis $ase so tat te %ere se o te srna%e To&entino )* te Private respondent $annot )e said to ave in/red te petitioner;s ri+ts 78. Conse&o never represented erse& ater te divor$e as #rs. Artro To&entino )t si%p&* as #rs. Conse&o avid-To&entino. Se $o&d not possi)&* )e $o%pe&&ed to se te pre(@ B#issB or se te na%e #rs. avid, di:erent ro% te srna%es o er $i&dren.

Fooootnooootes" 1. Consuelo David was ENJOINED from using, employing and/or applying, in any manner, form or means whatsoever, the surname O!ENINO. ". #espondent Consuelo David was legally married to $rturo olentino on %e&ruary ', 1()1. The marriage was dissolved and terminated pursuant to the law during the Japanese occupation on *eptem&er 1+, 1() &y a de-ree of a&solute divor-e granted &y the Court of %irst Instan-e of anila in Divor-e Case No. #01( entitled $rturo olentino v. Consuelo David on the ground of desertion and abandonment by the wife. he trial -ourt granted the divor-e on its finding that $rturo olentino was a&andoned &y Consuelo David for at least three 2)3 -ontinuous years. ). he usurpation of name implies some in4ury to the interests of the owner of the name. It -onsists in the possi&ility of -onfusion of Identity ... &etween the owner and the usurper. It e5ists when a person designates himself &y another name ... he following are the elements of usurpation of a name6 13 there is an a-tual use of another7s name &y the defendant8 "3 the use is unauthori9ed8 and )3 the use of another7s name is to designate personality or Identify a person. None of these elements e5ists in the -ase at &ar and neither is there a -laim &y the petitioner that the private respondent impersonated her. In fa-t, it is of pu&li- :nowledge that Constan-ia olentino is the legal wife of $rturo olentino so that all invitations for *enator and rs. olentino are sent to Constan-ia. Consuelo never represented herself after the divor-e as rs. $rturo olentino &ut simply as rs. Consuelo Davidolentino. he private respondent has legitimate -hildren who have every right to use the surname olentino. *he -ould not possi&ly &e -ompelled to use the prefi5 iss or use the name rs. David, different from the surnames of her -hildren.

SU ISSUE" >eter or not te petitioner;s $ase o a$tion as a&read* pres$ri)ed =EL"  DES. The action ha% on* pre%cri"e! /. The ca%e +a% e! on No'e)"er -2, 1931 or -0 #ear% a(ter %he o"taine! 4no+e!*e . Art. 11<9 o te Civi& Code provides" BTe ti%e or pres$ription or a&& inds o a$tions, 'en tere is no spe$ia& provision 'i$ ordains oter'ise, sa&& )e $onted ro% te da* te* %a* )e )ro+t.B A&& a$tions, n&ess an e@$eption is provided, ave a pres$riptive period. Un&ess te &a' %aes an a$tion i%pres$ripti)&e, it is s)/e$t to )ar )* pres$ription and te perio! o( pre%cription i% 'e 567 #ear% (ro) the ti)e the ri*ht o( action accrue% +hen no other perio! i% pre%cri"e! "# a+ . Te petitioner so&d ave )ro+t &e+a& a$tion i%%ediate&* a+ainst te private respondent ater se +ained no'&ed+e o te se )* te private respondent o te srna%e o er or%er s)and. NOE6 the supposed violation of the petitioner7s right may &e a -ontinuous one &ut it does not -hange the prin-iple that the moment the &rea-h of right or duty o--urs, the right of a-tion a--rues and the a-tion from that moment -an &e legally instituted.