Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to www.scribd.com

Scribd
Upload
1K views1 page

Yasin V Sharia Court

A woman filed a petition to resume using her maiden name after her marriage was dissolved by divorce under Muslim personal laws. The Shari'a court denied the petition, ruling she must comply with Rule 103 for changing names. The Supreme Court held that reverting to her maiden name after divorce is not a name change under Rule 103, as she did not change her name during marriage and is not required to use her ex-husband's name after divorce. The Court granted the petition and authorized the woman to resume using her maiden name and surname without following Rule 103.

Uploaded by

PMV
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views1 page

Yasin V Sharia Court

A woman filed a petition to resume using her maiden name after her marriage was dissolved by divorce under Muslim personal laws. The Shari'a court denied the petition, ruling she must comply with Rule 103 for changing names. The Supreme Court held that reverting to her maiden name after divorce is not a name change under Rule 103, as she did not change her name during marriage and is not required to use her ex-husband's name after divorce. The Court granted the petition and authorized the woman to resume using her maiden name and surname without following Rule 103.

Uploaded by

PMV
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

TOPIC: On use of surnames

G.R. No. 94986 Month Day, Year: February 23, 1995

TITLE: HATIMA C. YASIN, represented by her Attorney-in-Fact, HAD JI HASAN S. CENTI petitioner-appellee, vs. The Honorable
Judge SHARI'A DISTRICT COURT, THIRD SHARI'A JUDICIAL DISTRICT, Zamboanga City, respondent-appellant.

PONENTE: Bidin, J.
NATURE OF ACTION: Petition for the declaration of presumptive death

FACTS: On May 5, 1990, Hatima C. Yasin filed in the Shari'a District Court in Zamboanga City a "Petition to resume the use of
maiden name.” The respondent court ordered amendments to the petition as it was not sufficient in form and substance in
accordance Rule 103, Rules of Court, regarding the residence of petitioner and the name sought to be adopted is not properly
indicated in the title thereof which should include all the names by which the petitioner has been known. Hatima filed a motion for
reconsideration of the aforesaid order alleging that the petition filed is not covered by Rule 103 of the Rules of Court but is merely a
petition to resume the use of her maiden name and surname after the dissolution of her marriage by divorce under the Code of
Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines, and after marriage of her former husband to another woman. The respondent court denied
the motion since compliance to rule 103 is necessary if the petition is to be granted, as it would result in the resumption of the use of
petitioner’s maiden name and surname.

ISSUES: Whether or not a petition for resumption of maiden name and surname is also a petition for change of name.

HELD: No. When a woman marries a man, she need not apply and/or seek judicial authority to use her husband's name by prefixing
the word "Mrs." before her husband's full name or by adding her husband's surname to her maiden first name. The law grants her
such right (Art. 370, Civil Code). Similarly, when the marriage ties or vinculum no longer exists as in the case of death of the
husband or divorce as authorized by the Muslim Code, the widow or divorcee need not seek judicial confirmation of the change in
her civil status in order to revert to her maiden name as the use of her former husband's name is optional and not obligatory for her.
When petitioner married her husband, she did not change her name but only her civil status. Neither was she required to secure
judicial authority to use the surname of her husband after the marriage, as no law requires it. The use of the husband's surname
during the marriage, after annulment of the marriage and after the death of the husband is permissive and not obligatory except in
case of legal separation.

The court finds the petition to resume the use of maiden name filed by petitioner before the respondent court a superfluity and
unnecessary proceeding since the law requires her to do so as her former husband is already married to another woman after
obtaining a decree of divorce from her in accordance with Muslim laws.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the orders of respondent court dated July 4, 1990 and
August 10, 1990 are hereby SET ASIDE. Petitioner is authorized to resume her maiden name and surname.

DOCTRINE: The onerous requirements of Rule 103 of the Rules of Court on change of name should not be applied to judicial
confirmation of the right of a divorced woman to resume her maiden name and surname.

You might also like