DAVAO CITY (November 5) — A woman does not surrender her identity when she gets married. Marriage also does not automatically require her to take her husband’s surname.
This legal principle is what two proposed measures in the House of Representatives seek to clarify, as lawmakers work to address the difficulties married women still face when they choose to retain their maiden names.
On October 5, 2026, the House Committee on Revision of Laws approved House Bills No. 1648 and 8630, both seeking to amend Article 370 of the Civil Code of the Philippines to expressly recognize a married woman’s option to retain her maiden surname.
The House of Representatives confirmed the committee action in an October 29 statement, saying the proposed amendments aim to address confusion and discriminatory practices stemming from inconsistent interpretations and applications of existing laws.
But the right itself is not new. Under Philippine law, a married woman is not obligated to adopt her husband’s surname. She may continue using her maiden name even after marriage.
Article 370 of the Civil Code provides three options for a married woman who wishes to use her husband’s surname:
- Her maiden first name and surname, with her husband’s surname added;
- Her maiden first name and her husband’s surname; or
- Her husband’s full name, preceded by a word indicating that she is his wife, such as “Mrs.”
The provision does not require a woman to choose any of these options. She may also continue using her maiden name.
The Supreme Court clarified this principle in its March 5, 2010 decision in Remo v. Secretary of Foreign Affairs.
The Court ruled that a married woman has the option, but not the duty, to use her husband’s surname. It explained that marriage changes a woman’s civil status, not automatically her name.
In other words, a marriage certificate does not, by itself, compel a woman to abandon the surname she has used throughout her life.
Despite this legal protection, many married women have reported being required to use their husbands’ surnames when filling out application forms, updating records, or conducting official transactions.
Some have also encountered institutions refusing to process otherwise legitimate transactions because they continue to use their maiden names.
The Philippine Commission on Women (PCW) addressed these concerns through Memorandum Circular No. 2016-07, issued on October 12, 2016.
The circular reminded government agencies, private institutions, and other concerned organizations that a married woman has the option—not the obligation—to use her husband’s surname.
It also called on institutions to review their policies, procedures, records management systems, and practices to ensure that married women are not subjected to discriminatory requirements.
The PCW reiterated this protection in Memorandum Circular No. 2023-04, which reminded banks and financial institutions to recognize married women’s right to use their maiden names in financial transactions.
These directives underscore that the issue is not simply about what surname a woman prefers. It is also about whether institutions respect a right already recognized under Philippine law.
House Bill No. 1648 was introduced by Representatives Ysabel Maria Zamora and John Tracy Cagas, while House Bill No. 8630 was introduced by Representative Cheeno Miguel Almario.
Both measures seek to expressly include the option of retaining a maiden surname in Article 370.
The proposed amendments respond to a practical problem: while the law and jurisprudence already recognize a woman’s choice, inconsistent interpretations continue to create unnecessary barriers.
For women who have established their academic credentials, professional licenses, employment records, businesses, and careers under their maiden names, being forced to change surnames can create confusion and additional administrative burdens.
It can mean reconciling documents, explaining differences in records, and repeatedly establishing that the person identified by her maiden name is the same person who is legally married.
More importantly, the issue touches on a woman’s autonomy and right to make decisions about her own identity.
A woman’s surname is not merely a label on a government form. It is connected to her personal history, family lineage, professional reputation, and identity.
An important legal distinction exists between continuously retaining a maiden name after marriage and reverting to it after previously adopting a husband’s surname.
The Philippine Commission on Women explains that while a married woman may continue using her maiden name in her passport, special rules under Republic Act No. 8239, or the Philippine Passport Act of 1996, apply when she has already adopted her husband’s surname in a previous passport.
Under the rules discussed by the PCW, reverting to a maiden name in that situation is generally allowed in specific circumstances, including the husband’s death, divorce, annulment, or declaration of nullity of marriage.
Thus, a woman who has consistently retained her maiden name is in a different legal situation from one who previously changed her passport surname and later seeks to revert.
The House Committee on Revision of Laws’ approval of House Bills 1648 and 8630 does not mean they have become law. The measures must still complete the remaining legislative process before they can be enacted.
Nevertheless, the committee approval brings renewed attention to a longstanding issue affecting married Filipino women.
At its core, the proposal aims to ensure that a woman’s legal rights are respected not only in written laws but also in the everyday transactions where those rights are exercised.
Marriage may change a woman’s civil status. It does not erase her identity, her achievements, or her right to choose the name she wants to carry.
A woman may take her husband’s surname if she wishes. But she should never be made to feel that she must give up her own name simply because she said, “I do.”-Editha Z Caduaya
