LEGITIMATE children can now use the surname of their mothers as their surname.
The Supreme Court has reversed rulings of Judge Gregorio dela Pena III, of Branch 12 of the Zamboanga City Regional Trial Court, and the Court of Appeals denying the petition of Anacleto B. Alanis III to change his surname to Ballaho.
The petitioner said he has been using the surname Ballaho, the surname of his mother who he said raised him and his siblings as a solo parent.
But the RTC, in an April 2008 order, denied his petition saying that to allow him to drop his father’s surname is to disregard his natural and legitimate father, in violation of the Family Code and the Civil Code.
Article 174 of the Family Code which was cited by the RTC states that “legitimate children have the right to bear the surnames of the father and mother, in conformity with the provisions of the Civil Code on Surnames.” Article 364 states that “legitimate and legitimated children shall principally use the surname of their father.”
The RTC also denied his motion for reconsideration in an order issued on June 2008.
Alanis elevated the case to the CA which in a May 2014 ruling upheld the trial court’s decision, saying it did not gravely err in denying his plea. In December of the same year, the CA also junked his motion for reconsideration, prompting him to bring the case to the SC.
The SC ruling penned by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen explained that the word “principally” in the Civil Code on Surnames does not mean “exclusively.”
“The RTC’s application of Article 364 of the Civil Code is incorrect.Indeed, the provision states that legitimate children shall “principally” use the surname of the father but “principally” does not mean “exclusively,” said the SC ruling dated Nov. 11, 2020 but released only this week.
“Thus, the RTC erred gravely when it held that legitimate children cannot use their mother’s surnames,” it added.
The SC also cited the State policy of ensuring the fundamental equality of women and men before the law. It added the RTC also failed to consider the spirit and mandate of the Constitution and Republic Act 7192 or the Women in Development and Nation Building Act in its ruling.
Both requires the State to take appropriate measures necessary to ensure the equality of men and women before the law.
The SC said the lower court’s ruling further embedded the concept of patriarchy in the country’s system, which it said runs counter to the equality provision of the Constitution.
