Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 20 views

    138 - Tolentino vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    cvosit
    This case involves a dispute over the use of the surname "Tolentino." Constancia Tolentino filed a complaint against Consuelo David to stop her from using the Tolentino surname. The Court of First Instance granted the complaint but the Court of Appeals reversed. The issue is whether Constancia's cause of action has prescribed. The Supreme Court rules that Constancia's action has prescribed as the Civil Code does not state that actions regarding surname use are imprescriptible. The legal possibility of bringing the action determines the start of the prescription period, so Constancia's action brought 20 years later was too late.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    138 - Tolentino vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    cvosit
    20 views6 pages
    This case involves a dispute over the use of the surname "Tolentino." Constancia Tolentino filed a complaint against Consuelo David to stop her from using the Tolentino surname. The Court of First Instance granted the complaint but the Court of Appeals reversed. The issue is whether Constancia's cause of action has prescribed. The Supreme Court rules that Constancia's action has prescribed as the Civil Code does not state that actions regarding surname use are imprescriptible. The legal possibility of bringing the action determines the start of the prescription period, so Constancia's action brought 20 years later was too late.

    Original Description:

    Tolentino vs CA (Prescription)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case involves a dispute over the use of the surname "Tolentino." Constancia Tolentino filed a complaint against Consuelo David to stop her from using the Tolentino surname. The Court of First Instance granted the complaint but the Court of Appeals reversed. The issue is whether Constancia's cause of action has prescribed. The Supreme Court rules that Constancia's action has prescribed as the Civil Code does not state that actions regarding surname use are imprescriptible. The legal possibility of bringing the action determines the start of the prescription period, so Constancia's action brought 20 years later was too late.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    20 views6 pages

    138 - Tolentino vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    cvosit
    This case involves a dispute over the use of the surname "Tolentino." Constancia Tolentino filed a complaint against Consuelo David to stop her from using the Tolentino surname. The Court of First Instance granted the complaint but the Court of Appeals reversed. The issue is whether Constancia's cause of action has prescribed. The Supreme Court rules that Constancia's action has prescribed as the Civil Code does not state that actions regarding surname use are imprescriptible. The legal possibility of bringing the action determines the start of the prescription period, so Constancia's action brought 20 years later was too late.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 6

    Tolentino vs.

    Court
    of Appeals
    G.R. NO. L-41427 JUNE 10, 1988
    CALVIN V. OSIT
    11593857
    DECEMBER 7, 2016

    Facts

    Constancia filed a
    complaint for injunction
    CFIwith
    granted.
    TCto
    affirmed.
    CA
    the CFI
    stop
    reversed.
    Consuelo from using
    the surname
    Tolentino.

    Consuelo
    David

    193
    1

    Arturo
    Tolentino
    194 194
    5
    3

    195
    1

    Pilar
    Constancia
    Tolentino
    Adorable

    197
    1

    Issue

    Whether the Constancias cause of action has already prescribed.

    Arguments
    Constancia Tolentino

    Consuelo David

    Cause of action is imprescriptible


    because it is a continuous
    violation.

    Cause of action has already


    prescribed.

    Ruling

    Yes. Gen. Rule: All actions have a prescriptive period. 5 years from the time
    the right of action accrues when no other period is prescribed by law (Civil
    Code, Art. 1149).

    Exception: When the law specifically provides that an action be


    imprescriptible.

    Civil Code does not provide that an action regarding the use of surname is
    imprescriptible. Neither is there a special law providing for its
    imprescriptibility.

    Mere fact that the supposed violation of the Constancias right may be a
    continuous one does not change the principle that the moment the breach of
    right or duty occurs, the right of action accrues (Civil Code, Art. 1150), thus
    period for prescription commences.

    Action has long prescribed whether the cause accrued in 1945 when
    the Constancia and Arturo Tolentino got married, or in 1950, when the
    present Civil Code took effect, or in 1951 when Constancia came to
    know of the fact that Consuelo David was still using the surname
    Tolentino. It is the legal possibility of bringing the action which
    determines the starting point for the computation of the period of
    prescription.

    Constancia should have brought legal action immediately against the


    Consuelo after she gained knowledge. Action was brought only in in
    1971 or after 20 years.

    Senator Tolentino himself in his commentary on Art. 370 of the Civil


    Code states that the wife cannot claim an exclusive right to use the
    husbands surname. She cannot be prevented from using it but
    neither can she restrain others from using it.

    Petition Denied. CAs decision affirmed.

    You might also like