HATIMA C. YASIN vs.

SHARIA COURT
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". She was formerly married to a certain Hadji Idris Yasin, also
a Muslim Filipino in accordance with Muslim rites and customs. They were granted a decree of
divorce by the Mindanao Islamic Center Foundation, Inc.
Petition was denied by the respondent on the ground that the it is substantially for change of
name and that compliance with the provisions of Rule 103, Rules of Court on change of name 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.
ISSUE:
Whether or not a petition for resumption of maiden name and surname is also a petition for
change of name
HELD:
No. The true and real name of a person is that given to him and entered in the civil register. While
it is true that under Article 376 of the Civil Code, no person can change his name or surname
without judicial authority, nonetheless, the only name that may be changed is the true and
official name recorded in the Civil Register.
Petitioner's registered name is Hatima Centi Y. Saul. In the instant petition, petitioner does not
seek to change her registered maiden name but, instead, prays that she be allowed to resume
the use of her maiden name in view of the dissolution of her marriage to Hadji Idris Yasin.
We find 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. WHEREFORE, petitioner is authorized to resume her maiden name
and surname.

Sharica Mari Go Tan Vs. Spouses Tan

FACTS: On April 18, 1999, Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan (petitioner) and Steven L. Tan (Steven) were
married On April 18, 1999, Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan (petitioner) and Steven L. Tan (Steven) were
married. On January 12, 2005, barely six years into the marriage, petitioner filed a Petition with
Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Protective Order (TPO)[6] against Steven and her parentsin-law, Spouses Perfecto C. Tan and Juanita L. Tan (respondents) before the RTC. She alleged that
Steven, in conspiracy with respondents, were causing verbal, psychological and economic abuses
upon her in violation of Section 5, paragraphs (e)(2)(3)(4), (h)(5), and (i)[7] of RA No. 9262,
otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004.
On January 25, 2005, the RTC issued an Order/Notice[9] granting petitioner's prayer for a TPO.
However on March 7, 2005, the RTC issued a Resolution[12] dismissing the case as to
respondents on the ground that, being the parents-in-law of the petitioner, they were not
included/covered as respondents under R.A. No. 9262 under the well-known rule of law
expression unius est exclusio alterius (the expression of one thing is the exclusion of
another). The RTC reasoned that to include respondents under the coverage of R.A. No. 9262
would be a strained interpretation of the provisions of the law.
ISSUE: WoN respondents-spouses may be included in the petition for the issuance of a protective
order
HELD: Yes, they may be included. As petitioner contends, respondents may be included because
R.A. No. 9262 must be understood in the light of the provisions of Section 47 of R.A. No. 9262
which explicitly provides for the suppletory application of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and,
accordingly, the provision on conspiracy under Article 8 of the RPC
can be suppletorily applied to R.A. No. 9262. While Section 3 of R.A. No. 9262 provides that the
offender be related or connected to the victim by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or
dating relationship, it does not preclude the application of the principle of conspiracy under the
RPC. Legal principles developed from the Penal Code may be applied in a supplementary capacity
to crimes punished under special laws, such as R.A. No. 9262 as per Article
10 of the RPC: Offenses not subject to the provisions of this Code. Offenses which are or in the
future may be punishable under special laws are not subject to the provisions of this Code. This
Code shall be supplementary to such laws, unless the latter should specially provide the
contrary.
The express language of R.A. No. 9262 reflects the intent of the legislature for liberal construction
as will best ensure the attainment of the object of the law according to its true intent, meaning
and spirit the protection and safety of victims of violence against women and children.
However, conspiracy is an evidentiary matter which should be threshed out in a full-blown trial on
the merits and cannot be determined in the present petition since this Court is not a trier of facts.
[26] It is thus premature for petitioner to argue evidentiary matters since this controversy is
centered only on the determination of whether respondents may be
included in a petition under R.A. No. 9262. The presence or absence of conspiracy can be best
passed upon after a trial on the merits.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions dated March 7, 2005 and
July 11, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 94, Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-05-54536 are
hereby PARTLY REVERSED and SET ASIDE insofar as the dismissal of the petition against
respondents is concerned.

San Diego vs RTC

FACTS: Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 5(a) of RA 9262. He charged in the RTC of
using personal violence on his girlfriend by pulling her hair, punching her back, shoulder and left
eye, thereby demeaning and degrading the complainants intrinsic worth and dignity as a human
being. After examining the supporting evidence, the RTC found probable cause and consequently,
issued a warrant of arrest against petitioner on November 19, 2009.
Petitioner averred that at the time of the alleged incident on July 13, 2009, he was no longer in a
dating relationship with private respondent; hence, RA 9262 was inapplicable. In her affidavit,
private respondent admitted that her relationship with petitioner had ended prior to the subject
incident. She had gone to him to ask for payment for money she loaned him and also asked him if
he was responsible for spreading rumors about her. After he admitted to the latter she
slapped him which led to him incurring the mentioned physical abuses.
ISSUE: Whether RA 9262 should be construed in a manner that will favor the accused
HELD: No. RA 9262 is broad in scope but specifies two limiting qualifications for any act or series
of acts to be considered as a crime of violence against women through physical harm, namely: (1)
it is committed against a woman or her child and the woman is the offenders wife, former wife,
or with whom he has or had sexual or dating relationship or with whom he has a common child;
and (2) it results in or is likely to result in physical harm or suffering. The elements of the crime of
violence against women through harassment (Ang vs CA):
1. The offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the offended woman;
2. The offender, by himself or through another, commits an act or series of acts of harassment
against the woman; and
3. The harassment alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to her It is
not, however, indispensable that the act of violence be a consequence of such relationships
mentioned in #1. Nowhere in the law can such limitation be inferred.
The Information having sufficiently alleged the necessary elements of the crime, such as: a
dating relationship between the petitioner and the private respondent; the act of violence
committed by the petitioner; and the resulting physical harm to private respondent, the offense is
covered by RA 9262 which falls under the jurisdiction of the RTC. Petition is DISMISSED.