Dear Atty. Maan,

My siblings and I are legitimate children, yet we were solely raised by our mother. Now, my siblings and I wish to discontinue using our father's surname and start using our mother's maiden name to avoid confusion since our school records bear our mother's surname and we have been introducing ourselves to other people using our mother's surname.

Is it possible for us, legitimate children, to use the maiden name of our mother?

Lorna

Dear Lorna,

Reading Article 364 of the Civil Code together with the State's declared policy to ensure the fundamental equality of women and men before the law, a legitimate child is entitled to use the surname of either parent as a last name. The provision states that legitimate children shall "principally" use the surname of the father, but "principally" does not mean "exclusively."

In the case of Alanis III v Court of Appeals, G.R. 216425, 11 November 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that:

Article 364 of the Civil Code provides:

ARTICLE 364. Legitimate and legitimated children shall principally use the surname of the father.

The Regional Trial Court'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." This gives ample room to incorporate into Article 364 the State policy of ensuring the fundamental equality of women and men before the law, and no discernible reason to ignore it. This Court has explicitly recognized such interpretation in Alfon v Republic:

The only reason why the lower court denied the petitioner's prayer to change her surname is that as legitimate child of Filomeno Duterte and Estrella Alfon she should principally use the surname of her father invoking Art. 364 of the Civil Code. But the word "principally" as used in the codal-provision is not equivalent to "exclusively" so that there is no legal obstacle if a legitimate or legitimated child should choose to use the surname of its mother to which it is equally entitled. Moreover, this Court in Haw Liong vs Republic, G.R. No. L-21194, 29 April 1966, 16 SCRA 677, 679, said: