YASIN VS SHARI’A DISTRICT COURT (GR No.

94986 | February 23, 1995)

Petitioner: Hatima Yasin
Respondents: Honorable Judge if the Shari’a District Court
Ponente: Judge Bidin
Petition for review of a decision of the Shari’a District Court  
Muslim Divorces
SUMMARY:
FACTS:
• May 5, 1990
o Hatima Yasin filed in aforementioned court a petition to resume the use of
maiden name.
• July 4, 1990
o Court denied the petition, citing that it is not sufficient in form and
substance in accordance with Rule 103 of the Rules of Court.
• Yasin filed a motion for reconsideration, stating that her petition was not covered
by Rule 103, but merely a petition to resume the use of her maiden name and
surname after the dissolution of her marriage by divorce in accordance with the
Code of Muslim Personal Laws.
• Motion was denied; Court held that accordance with Rule 103 is still necessary.

ISSUE/S:
• WoN a petition for resumption of maiden name and surname is also a petition for
change of name.
HELD:
• NO
o The true and real name of a person is that given to him and entered in the
civil register.
o While it is true that under Art. 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.
o Rules of Court and Civil Code shall be applied suppletorily to the Code of
Muslim Personal Laws.
§ The use of the husband’s surname during the marriage, after the
annulment of the marriage, and after the death of the husband is
permissive and not obligatory except in case of legal separation.
o When the marriage ties no longer exist as in the case of death of the
husbad or divorce as authorized by the Muslim Code, the widow or
 divorcee need not seek judicial confirmation of the change in her civil
status in order to revert to her maiden name as the use of her former
husband’s name is optional and not obligatory for her.
RULING:
• Petition is granted.
NOTES:
• Concurring Opinions:
o Justice Romero: The law uses the directory word “may”, instead of the
mandatory “shall”. Obviously, a married woman need not use her
husband’s name, if she chooses not to.
o Justice Vitug: (did not add anymore since her concurring opinion did not
really contain anything that was not included in the ponencia)