43. Laperal v.

Republic Name of Digester: Fred Bucu

G.R. No. 18008 Date: October 30, 1962 Ponente:

Subject / Syllabus Topic: VII. The Law on Separation of the Spouses (B) Concept of Legal Separation (8) Effects of decree of legal
separation (e) on the use of surname
Petitioner: ELISEA LAPERAL Respondent: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
Doctrine: FC Art. 68; NCC Art. 372
Article 372 of the Civil Code: “When legal separation has been granted, the wife shall continue using her name and surname
employed before the legal separation.”
Facts:
 The petitioner, a bona fide resident of Baguio City, was married with Mr. Enrique R. Santamaria on March 1939.
However, a decree of legal separation was later on issued to the spouses. Aside from that, she ceased to live with
Enrique. During their marriage, she naturally uses Elisea L. Santamaria.
 She filed this petition to be permitted to resume in using her maiden name Elisea Laperal. This was opposed by the City
Attorney of Baguio on the ground that it violates Art. 372 of the Civil Code.
 She was claiming that continuing to use her married name would give rise to confusion in her finances and the eventual
liquidation of the conjugal assets.
Issue/s: Ruling:
 W/N the petitioner be allowed to change her name or  WHEREFORE, the order of the lower court, granting
be permitted to resume using her maiden name the petition, is hereby set aside and the petition
dismissed.
Holding:
 The language of the statute is mandatory that the wife, even after the legal separation has been decreed, shall continue
using her name and surname employed before the legal separation.
 In legal separation, the married status is unaffected by the separation, there being no severance of the vinculum. The
finding that petitioner’s continued use of her husband surname may cause undue confusion in her finances was without
basis. It must be considered that the issuance of the decree of legal separation in 1958, necessitate that the conjugal
partnership between her and Enrique had automatically been dissolved and liquidated. Hence, there could be no more
occasion for an eventual liquidation of the conjugal assets.
 Furthermore, applying Rule 103 is not a sufficient ground to justify a change of the name of Elisea for to hold otherwise
would be to provide for an easy circumvention of the mandatory provision of Art. 372.