The Supreme Court has ruled that a married woman cannot revert to the use of her maiden name in her application for passport renewal while her marriage is still subsisting.

The ruling arose from the case of Maria Virginia V. Remo, who earlier requested the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) to issue her a replacement passport in which she will be using her maiden name.

At the time she made the request with the DFA office in Chicago, Illinois, Remo was still married to Francisco R. Rallonza. In her passport, the following entries appeared: "Rallonza" as her surname, "Maria Virginia" as her given name, and "Remo" as her middle name.

Remo’s request had been denied by the DFA, prompting her to go to the Office of the President. When her request was also turned down by the Office of the President, Remo brought her case to the Court of Appeals (CA).

The CA later on upheld the decisions of the DFA and the Office of the President. Thus, she filed a petition for review with the SC.

In a 12-page decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, the SC sustained the CA ruling and dismissed Remo’s petition for lack of merit.

The High Court said a married woman has the option to either retain the use of her maiden name or use the surname of her husband for passport application and issuance purposes.

But once she chose the latter option, she could no longer revert to the use of her maiden name in her passport while their marriage remains in force, it added.

The court pointed out that Republic Act (RA) 8239 or the Philippine Passport Act of 1996 limits the instances when a married woman applicant may exercise the option to revert to the use of her maiden name. These are death of husband, divorce, annulment, and declaration of nullity of marriage.

It also clarified that RA 8239 and its implementing rules and regulations do not actually prohibit a married woman from using her maiden name in her passport.

In fact, the DFA allows a married woman who applies for a passport for the first time to use her maiden name.

In case of renewal of passport, the court said she may either adopt her husband’s surname or continuously use her maiden name.

However, once she opted to use her husband’s surname in her original passport, she may not revert to the use of her maiden name, except if any of the four grounds provided under RA 8239 is present.

Further, even assuming RA 8239 conflicts with the Civil Code, the provisions of RA 8239 that is a special law specifically dealing with passport issuance must prevail over the provisions of the Civil Code, which is the general law on the use of surnames.

The court explained that basic in statutory construction is that a special law prevails over a general law.

At the same time, the court held that the acquisition of a Philippine passport is a privilege, and that while the law recognizes the passport applicant’s right to travel, the State is likewise mandated to protect and maintain the integrity and credibility of the travel documents proceeding from it.

It said the Philippine passport remains at all times the property of the government, and that the holder is merely a possessor as long as it is valid.

Unjustified changes in one’s name and identity in a passport, which is considered superior to all other official documents, is not permitted to avoid undue confusion and inconsistency in the records of passport holders, the court said.