Tolentino vs.

Court
of Appeals
G.R. NO. L-41427 JUNE 10, 1988

CALVIN V. OSIT
11593857
DECEMBER 7, 2016
 Facts

Constancia filed a
complaint for injunction
CFIwith
granted. TCto
the CFI affirmed.
stop CA
reversed.
Consuelo from using
the surname
Tolentino.

Pilar
Constancia Tolentino
Consuelo Arturo Adorable
David Tolentino

193 194 194 195 197

1 3 5 1 1
Issue

Whether the Constancias cause of action has already prescribed.

Arguments

Constancia Tolentino Consuelo David

Cause of action is imprescriptible
because it is a continuous
violation.

Cause of action has already

prescribed.
Ruling
Yes. Gen. Rule: All actions have a prescriptive period. 5 years from the time
the right of action accrues when no other period is prescribed by law (Civil
Code, Art. 1149).
Exception: When the law specifically provides that an action be
imprescriptible.
Civil Code does not provide that an action regarding the use of surname is
imprescriptible. Neither is there a special law providing for its
imprescriptibility.
Mere fact that the supposed violation of the Constancias right may be a
continuous one does not change the principle that the moment the breach of
right or duty occurs, the right of action accrues (Civil Code, Art. 1150), thus
period for prescription commences.
 Action has long prescribed whether the cause accrued in 1945 when
the Constancia and Arturo Tolentino got married, or in 1950, 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
prescription.
Constancia should have brought legal action immediately against the
Consuelo after she gained knowledge. Action was brought only in in
1971 or after 20 years.
Petition Denied. CAs decision affirmed.