[ G.R. No. L-1261. August 02, 1949 ] 84 Phil. 222
[ G.R. No. L-1261. August 02, 1949 ]
CATALINA OSMEÑA DE VALENCIA ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. EMILIA RODRIGUEZ ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES. D E C I S I O N
PARAS, J.:
In an action instituted In the Court of First Instance of Cebu, the plaintiffs prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from using the surname “Valencia”. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and this was sustained by the lower court. Hence this appeal by the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs allege, on the one hand, that they (except Catalina Osmeña) are the legitimate children of the defendant Pio E. Valencia in the latter’s lawful wedlock with plaintiff Catalina Osmeña; and, upon the other hand, that the defendants, (except Emilia Rodriguez and Pio E. Valencia) are the illegitimate children of Pio E. Valencia with his common-law-wife, defendant Emilia Rodriguez. It Is accordingly contended by the plaintiffs that they alone have the right to bear the surname “Valencia”, in accordance with article 114 of the Civil Code which provides that legitimate children have the right to bear the surname of the father. To complete their argument, the plaintiffs point out that, under articles 139 and 845 of the Civil Code, illegitimate children (who are not natural) are entitled only to support.
We concede that the plaintiffs may use the surname of their father as a matter of right by reason of the mere fact that they are legitimate children; but we cannot agree to the view that article 114 of the Civil Code, without more, grants monopolistic proprietary control to legitimate children over the surname of their father. In other words, said article has marked a right of which legitimate children may not be deprived, but it cannot be interpreted as a prohibition against the use by others of what may happen to be the surname of their father. If plaintiff’s theory were correct, they can stop countless inhabitants from bearing the surname “Valencia.”
The defendants’ case becomes the stronger when it is remembered that, from all appearances, Pio E. Valencia (the father) acquiesces in the adoption of his surname by the defendants. But even if he objects, the defendants can still use the surname “Valencia,” in the absence of any law granting exclusive ownership over a surname.
The appealed order is affirmed, and it is so ordered with costs against the plaintiffs and appellants.
Moran, C.J., Perfecto, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor, and Reyes, JJ., concur.
FERIA, J.:
I concur in the result.