Legamiavs.

IAC
GR No. L-63817 – August 28, 1984
Justice Abad Santos

Topic: SURNAMES

Petitioner: Corazon Legamia y Rivera

Respondents: Intermediate Appellate Court and People of the Philippines

FACTS:
 Corazon Legamia lived with Emilio N. Reyes for 19 years, from November 8, 1955 to September 26, 1974
when Emilio died
o During the time that they were living together, they had a baby named Michael Reyes
o From the time that they lived together until Emilio died, Corazon was named Corazon Reyes – had
people call her Mrs. Reyes and Emilio also introduced her to friends as “Mrs. Reyes”
 Before his death, Emilio worked as a Branch Claim Manager of the Agricultural Credit Administration (ACA)
in Naga
o Shortly after his death, Corazon filed a letter in behalf of Michael, their son, with the ACA for death
benefits – the letter was signed “Corazon L. Reyes”
o The voucher evidencing the payment to Michael was also claimed under the name Corazon L. Reyes
 Felicisima, the legal wife of Emilio then filed a complaint against Corazon for using the name “Reyes” when
she wasn’t actually married to Emilio  this led to her prosecution
o Parenthetically, the amount paid to Michael was equivalent to 2/5 of that which is due to each legitimate
child under the provisions of the Civil Code
 The Court of First Instance found Corazon guilty of violating Commonwealth Act No. 142 because she
willfully and unlawfully used the alias CORAZON L. REYES even the name she was christened by was
CORAZON LEGAMIA Y RIVERA. In addition, she didn’t need a pseudonym for any literary purpose, nor
was she authorized by any competent court to change her name

Commonwealth Act No. 142 Section 1. Except as a pseudonym solely for literary, cinema, television,
radio or other entertainment purposes and in athletic events where the use of pseudonym is a normally
accepted practice, no person shall use any name different from the one with which he was registered
at birth in the office of the local civil registry, or with which he was baptized for the first time, or in
case of an alien, with which he was registered in the Bureau of Immigration upon entry; or such
substitute name as may have been authorized by a competent court...

ISSUE:
1. W/N the petitioner violated the law by using REYES as her last name

HELD:
1. NO
o The court stated that it wasn’t uncommon in Philippine society for a woman to represent herself as the
wife and use the name of the man she is living with despite the fact that the man is married to another
woman. This practice is not encouraged by the court and it is unduly frowned upon. However, so many
women living with prominent men in the Philippines do the same thing and publicly hold themselves
as wives of the men who are legally married to other women, yet they aren’t being charged of violating
C.A. No. 142 because ours is not a bigoted but a tolerant and understanding society
o In the case at bar, Emilio and Corazon had been living together for 20 years and Emilio introduced her
to the public as his wife.
o In addition, the SC stated that the benefits she applied for weren’t for herself, it was for their son,
Michael. “Surely, the lawmakers could not have meant to criminalize what Corazon had done
especially because some of them probably had their own Corazons.”

RULING:
WHEREFORE, the decision under review is hereby set aside; the petitioner is acquitted of the charge.