Dapar v Biascan

(G.R. No. 141880. September 27, 2004)

Facts:
Gloria and Mario Biascan were legally married & had four
children. However, when Mario worked in Saudi Arabia, he met a
certain Zenaida Dapar, a domestic helper, and became her lover.
Zenaida and Mario then both returned to the Philippines and lived
together in Valenzuela, Metro Manila. Then, they opened a joint
bank and, later on, bought a parcel of land on installment in the
name of "Spouses Mario Biascan and Zenaida Biascan. When the
property was fully paid, the title was issued in their names
On November 1993, Gloria Biascan filed a complaint against
Zenaida for the annulment of the title over the land in question, reconveyance, and damages, with the RTC of Caloocan City on
grounds that the defendants use of the surname Biascan is a
usurpation of surname under Article 377, among others. Zenaida
then moved to dismiss the case on the ground, among others, that
she had earlier filed an action for partition over the same land with
another branch of the RTC in Caloocan; that she was declared a coowner of half of said property in the case; and that the decision had
already become res judicata. After trial, the RTC ruled in favor of
Zenaida, applying Article 148 of the FC. However, on appeal, the CA
reversed the decision, declaring the title of Mario and Zenaida over
the land in question null and void, and ordering Zenaida to reconvey
in favor of Gloria half undivided portion of the property in question;
thus this petition.
Issue:
WON Gloria was entitled to damages because of Zenaida's use of
the surname "Biascan"?
Held & Rationale
No. Zenaida is not guilty of usurpation of name under Article 311
of the Civil Code because it was Mario who allowed her to use his
surname. The mere use of a surname cannot be enjoined. It is the
use thereof coupled with the representation that one is the lawful
wife, or the usurpation of the wife's status, which gives rise to an
action for damages. Gloria did not claim that Zenaida attempted to
impersonate her.