cagandahan and silverio case

8/18/2019 Cagandahan and Silverio Case

1/21

SECOND DIVISION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Petitioner,

- versus -

JENNIFER B. CAGANDAHAN, Respondent.

G.R. No. 166676

Present:

QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO MORALES,

TINGA,

VELASCO, JR., and BRION, JJ .

Promulgated:

September 12, 2008

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

DECISION QUISUMBING, J.:

This is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court raising purely questions of

law and seeking a reversal of the Decision[1]

dated January 12, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court

(RTC), Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna, which granted the Petition for Correction of Entries in

Birth Certificate filed by Jennifer B. Cagandahan and ordered the following changes of entries in

Cagandahans birth certificate: (1) the name Jennifer Cagandahan changed to Jeff Cagandahan and

(2) gender from female to male.

The facts are as follows.

On December 11, 2003, respondent Jennifer Cagandahan filed a Petition for Correction

of Entries in Birth Certificate[2]

before the RTC, Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna.

In her petition, she alleged that she was born on January 13, 1981 and was registered as afemale in the Certificate of Live Birth but while growing up, she developed secondary male

characteristics and was diagnosed to have Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) which is a

condition where persons thus afflicted possess both male and female characteristics.

Jennifer Cagandahan Jeff Cagandahan

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn1


2/21

- She further alleged that she was diagnosed to have clitoral hyperthropy in her early

years and at age six, underwent an ultrasound where it was discovered that she has

small ovaries.

- At age thirteen, tests revealed that her ovarian structures had minimized, she has

stopped growing and she has no breast or menstrual development.

-

She then alleged that for all interests and appearances as well as in mind and emotion,she has become a male person.

- Thus, she prayed that her birth certificate be corrected such that her gender be

changed from female to male and her first name be changed from Jennifer to Jeff.

The petition was published in a newspaper of general circulation for three (3) consecutive

weeks and was posted in conspicuous places by the sheriff of the court. The Solicitor General

entered his appearance and authorized the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor to appear in his behalf.

To prove her claim, respondent testified and presented the testimony of Dr. Michael

Sionzon of the Department of Psychiatry, University of the Philippines

Philippine General

Hospital. Dr. Sionzon issued a medical certificate stating that respondents condition is known as

CAH. He explained that genetically respondent is female but because:

- her body secretes male hormones,

- her female organs did not develop normally and s

- he has two sex organs female and male.

- He testified that this condition is very rare, that respondents uterus is not fully

developed because of lack of female hormones,

- and that she has no monthly period.

- He further testified that respondents condition is permanen

- t and recommended the change of gender

- because respondent has made up her mind,

- adjusted to her chosen role as male,

- and the gender change would be advantageous to her.

The RTC granted respondents petition in a Decision dated January 12, 2005 which reads:

The Court is convinced that petitioner has satisfactorily shown that he is entitledto the reliefs prayed [for]. Petitioner has adequately presented to the Court very clear and

convincing proofs for the granting of his petition. It was medically proven that petitioners body produces male hormones, and first his body as well as his action and feelings are

that of a male. He has chosen to be male. He is a normal person and wants to beacknowledged and identified as a male.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Civil Register of Pakil, Laguna is

hereby ordered to make the following corrections in the birth [c]ertificate of JenniferCagandahan upon payment of the prescribed fees:


3/21


4/21

On the other hand, respondent counters that although the Local Civil Registrar of Pakil,

Laguna was not formally named a party in the Petition for Correction of Birth Certificate,

nonetheless the Local Civil Registrar was furnished a copy of the Petition, the Order to publish

on December 16, 2003 and all pleadings, orders or processes in the course of the

proceedings,[8]

respondent is actually a male person and hence his birth certificate has to be

corrected to reflect his true sex/gender ,[9] change of sex or gender is allowed under Rule108,

[10] and respondent substantially complied with the requirements of Rules 103 and 108 of the

Rules of Court.[11]

Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court provide:

Rule 103

CHANGE OF NAME

SECTION 1. Venue. A person desiring to change his name shall present the petition tothe Regional Trial Court of the province in which he resides, [or, in the City of Manila, tothe Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court].

SEC. 2. Contents of petition. A petition for change of name shall be signed and verified

by the person desiring his name changed, or some other person on his behalf, and shallset forth:

(a) That the petitioner has been a bona fide resident of the province where the petition is filed for at least three (3) years prior to the date of such filing;

(b) The cause for which the change of the petitioner's name is sought;

(c) The name asked for.

SEC. 3. Order for hearing . If the petition filed is sufficient in form and substance, the

court, by an order reciting the purpose of the petition, shall fix a date and place for thehearing thereof, and shall direct that a copy of the order be published before the hearing

at least once a week for three (3) successive weeks in some newspaper of generalcirculation published in the province, as the court shall deem best. The date set for thehearing shall not be within thirty (30) days prior to an election nor within four (4) months

after the last publication of the notice.

SEC. 4. Hearing . Any interested person may appear at the hearing and oppose the

petition. The Solicitor General or the proper provincial or city fiscal shall appear on

behalf of the Government of the Republic.

SEC. 5. Judgment . Upon satisfactory proof in open court on the date fixed in the order

that such order has been published as directed and that the allegations of the petition aretrue, the court shall, if proper and reasonable cause appears for changing the name of the

petitioner, adjudge that such name be changed in accordance with the prayer of the petition.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn8


5/21

SEC. 6. Service of judgment . Judgments or orders rendered in connection with this ruleshall be furnished the civil registrar of the municipality or city where the court issuing the

same is situated, who shall forthwith enter the same in the civil register.

Rule 108

CANCELLATION OR CORRECTION OF ENTRIES

IN THE CIVIL REGISTRY

SECTION 1. Who may file petition. Any person interested in any act, event, order ordecree concerning the civil status of persons which has been recorded in the civil register,may file a verified petition for the cancellation or correction of any entry relating thereto,

with the Regional Trial Court of the province where the corresponding civil registry islocated.

SEC. 2. Entries subject to cancellation or correction. Upon good and valid grounds, the

following entries in the civil register may be cancelled or corrected: (a) births; (b)marriages; (c) deaths; (d) legal separations; (e) judgments of annulments of marriage; (f)

judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning; (g) legitimations; (h) adoptions;(i) acknowledgments of natural children; (j) naturalization; (k) election, loss or recoveryof citizenship; (l) civil interdiction; (m) judicial determination of filiation; (n) voluntaryemancipation of a minor; and (o) changes of name.

SEC. 3. Parties. When cancellation or correction of an entry in the civil register is

sought, the civil registrar and all persons who have or claim any interest which would beaffected thereby shall be made parties to the proceeding.

SEC. 4. Notice and publication. Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall, by anorder, fix the time and place for the hearing of the same, and cause reasonable noticethereof to be given to the persons named in the petition. The court shall also cause the

order to be published once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper ofgeneral circulation in the province.

SEC. 5. Opposition. The civil registrar and any person having or claiming any interestunder the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought may, within fifteen (15) daysfrom notice of the petition, or from the last date of publication of such notice, file his

opposition thereto.

SEC. 6. Expediting proceedings. The court in which the proceedings is brought maymake orders expediting the proceedings, and may also grant preliminary injunction forthe preservation of the rights of the parties pending such proceedings.

SEC. 7. Order . After hearing, the court may either dismiss the petition or issue an ordergranting the cancellation or correction prayed for. In either case, a certified copy of the

judgment shall be served upon the civil registrar concerned who shall annotate the samein his record.

The OSG argues that the petition below is fatally defective for non-compliance with

Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court because respondents petition did not implead the local

civil registrar. Section 3, Rule 108 provides that the civil registrar and all persons who have or

claim any interest which would be affected thereby shall be made parties to the


6/21

proceedings. Likewise, the local civil registrar is required to be made a party in a proceeding for

the correction of name in the civil registry. He is an indispensable party without whom no final

determination of the case can be had.[12]

Unless all possible indispensable parties were duly

notified of the proceedings, the same shall be considered as falling much too short of the

requirements of the rules.[13]

The corresponding petition should also implead as respondents the

civil registrar and all other persons who may have or may claim to have any interest that would be affected thereby.

[14] Respondent, however, invokes Section 6,

[15] Rule 1 of the Rules of Court

which states that courts shall construe the Rules liberally to promote their objectives of securing

to the parties a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of the matters brought before it. We

agree that there is substantial compliance with Rule 108 when respondent furnished a copy of the

petition to the local civil registrar.

The determination of a persons sex appearing in his birth certificate is a legal issue and

the court must look to the statutes. In this connection, Article 412 of the Civil Code provides:

ART. 412. No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicialorder.

Together with Article 376[16]

of the Civil Code, this provision was amended by Republic

Act No. 9048[17]

in so far as clerical or typographical errors are involved. The correction or

change of such matters can now be made through administrative proceedings and without the

need for a judicial order. In effect, Rep. Act No. 9048 removed from the ambit of Rule 108 of the

Rules of Court the correction of such errors. Rule 108 now applies only to substantial changes

and corrections in entries in the civil register .[18]

Under Rep. Act No. 9048, a correction in the civil registry involving the change of sex is

not a mere clerical or typographical error. It is a substantial change for which the applicable

procedure is Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.[19]

The entries envisaged in Article 412 of the Civil Code and correctable under Rule 108 of

the Rules of Court are those provided in Articles 407 and 408 of the Civil Code:

ART. 407. Acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons shall be recorded in the civil register.

ART. 408. The following shall be entered in the civil register:

(1) Births; (2) marriages; (3) deaths; (4) legal separations; (5) annulments of marriage;(6) judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning; (7) legitimations; (8)adoptions; (9) acknowledgments of natural children; (10) naturalization; (11) loss, or (12)recovery of citizenship; (13) civil interdiction; (14) judicial determination of filiation;

(15) voluntary emancipation of a minor; and (16) changes of name.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn12


7/21

The acts, events or factual errors contemplated under Article 407 of the Civil Code

include even those that occur after birth.[20]

Respondent undisputedly has CAH. This condition causes the early or inappropriate

appearance of male characteristics. A person, like respondent, with this condition produces too

much androgen, a male hormone. A newborn who has XX chromosomes coupled with CAH

usually has a (1) swollen clitoris with the urethral opening at the base, an ambiguous genitalia

often appearing more male than female; (2) normal internal structures of the female reproductive

tract such as the ovaries, uterus and fallopian tubes; as the child grows older, some features start

to appear male, such as deepening of the voice, facial hair, and failure to menstruate at

puberty. About 1 in 10,000 to 18,000 children are born with CAH.

CAH is one of many conditions[21]

that involve intersex anatomy. During the twentieth

century, medicine adopted the term intersexuality to apply to human beings who cannot be

classified as either male or female.[22]

The term is now of widespread use. According

to Wikipedia (BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH!), intersexuality is the state of a living thing of

a gonochoristicspecies whose sex chromosomes, genitalia, and/or secondary sex characteristics

are determined to be neither exclusively male nor female. An organism with intersex may have

biological characteristics of both male and female sexes.

Intersex individuals are treated in different ways by different cultures. In most

societies, intersex individuals have been expected to conform to either a male or female gender

role.[23]

Since the rise of modern medical science in Western societies, some intersex people with

ambiguous external genitalia have had their genitalia surgically modified to resemble either male

or female genitals.[24]

More commonly, an intersex individual is considered as suffering from a

disorder which is almost always recommended to be treated, whether by surgery and/or by taking

lifetime medication in order to mold the individual as neatly as possible into the category of

either male or female.

In deciding this case, we consider the compassionate calls for recognition of the various

degrees of intersex as variations which should not be subject to outright denial. It has been

suggested that there is some middle ground between the sexes, a no-mans land for those

individuals who are neither truly male nor truly female.[25]

The current state of Philippine statutes

apparently compels that a person be classified either as a male or as a female, but this Court is

not controlled by mere appearances when nature itself fundamentally negates such rigid

classification.

In the instant case, if we determine respondent to be a female, then there is no basis for a

change in the birth certificate entry for gender. But if we determine, based on medical testimony

and scientific development showing the respondent to be other than female, then a change in the

subjects birth certificate entry is in order.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn20http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003149.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn21http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003149.htmhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn20


8/21

Biologically, nature endowed respondent with a mixed (neither consistently and

categorically female nor consistently and categorically male) composition. Respondent has

female (XX) chromosomes. However, respondents body system naturally produces high levels of

male hormones (androgen). As a result, respondent has ambiguous genitalia and the phenotypic

features of a male.

Ultimately, we are of the view that where the person is biologically or

naturally intersex the determining factor in his gender classification would be what theindividual, like respondent, having reached the age of majority,with good reason thinks of his/her sex. Respondent here thinks ofhimself as a male and considering that his body produces highlevels of male hormones (androgen) there is preponderantbiological support for considering him as being male. Sexual

development in cases of intersex persons makes the genderclassification at birth inconclusive. It is at maturity that the genderof such persons, like respondent, is fixed.

Respondent here has simply let nature take its course and has not taken unnatural steps to

arrest or interfere with what he was born with. And accordingly, he has already ordered his life

to that of a male. Respondent could have undergone treatment and taken steps, like taking

lifelong medication,[26]

to force his body into the categorical mold of a female but he did not. He

chose not to do so. Nature has instead taken its due course in respondents development to reveal

more fully his male characteristics.

In the absence of a law on the matter, the Court will not dictate on respondent concerning

a matter so innately private as ones sexuality and lifestyle preferences, much less on whether or

not to undergo medical treatment to reverse the male tendency due to CAH. The Court will not

consider respondent as having erred in not choosing to undergo treatment in order to become or

remain as a female. Neither will the Court force respondent to undergo treatment and to take

medication in order to fit the mold of a female, as society commonly currently knows this gender

of the human species. Respondent is the one who has to live with

his intersex anatomy. To him belongs the human right to the pursuit of

happiness and of health. Thus, to him should belong the primordial choice of what coursesof action to take along the path of his sexual development and maturation. In the absence ofevidence that: - respondent is an incompetent

[27]

- and in the absence of evidence to show that classifying respondent as a male will harm

other members of society who are equally entitled to protection under the law, the Court affirms

as valid and justified the respondents position and his personal judgment of being a male.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn26


9/21

In so ruling we do no more than give respect to (1) the diversity of nature; and (2) how an

individual deals with what nature has handed out. In other words, we respect respondents

congenital condition and his mature decision to be a male. Life is already difficult for the

ordinary person. We cannot but respect how respondent deals with his unordinary state and thus

help make his life easier, considering the unique circumstances in this case.

As for respondents change of name under Rule 103, this Court has held that a change of

name is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion, to be exercised in the light of the reasons

adduced and the consequences that will follow.[28]

The trial courts grant of respondents change of

name from Jennifer to Jeff implies a change of a feminine name to a masculine name.

Considering the consequence that respondents change of name merely recognizes his preferred

gender, we find merit in respondents change of name. Such a change will conform with the

change of the entry in his birth certificate from female to male.

WHEREFORE, the Republics petition is DENIED. The Decision dated January 12,

2005 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna, is AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice

FACTS: Jennifer Cagandahan filed before the Regional Trial Court Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna a Petition for

Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate of her name from Jennifer B. Cagandahan to Jeff Cagandahan and her

gender from female to male. It appearing that Jennifer Cagandahan is suffering from Congenital Adrenal

Hyperplasia which is a rare medical condition where afflicted persons possess both male and female

characteristics. Jennifer Cagandahan grew up with secondary male characteristics. To further her petition,

Cagandahan presented in court the medical certificate evidencing that she is suffering from Congenital Adrenal

Hyperplasia which certificate is issued by Dr. Michael Sionzon of the Department of Psychiatry, University of the

Philippines-Philippine General Hospital, who, in addition, explained that “Cagandahan genetically is female but

because her body secretes male hormones, her female organs did not develop normally, thus has organs of both

male and female.” The lower court decided in her favor but the Office of the Solicitor General appealed before the

Supreme Court invoking that the same was a violation of Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court because the said

petition did not implead the local civil registrar.

ISSUE: The issue in this case is the validity of the change of sex or gender and name of respondent as ruled by the

lower court.

HELD: The contention of the Office of the Solicitor General that the petition is fatally defective because it failed to

implead the local civil registrar as well as all persons who have or claim any interest therein is not without merit.

However, it must be stressed that private respondent furnished the local civil registrar a copy of the petition, the

order to publish on December 16, 2003 and all pleadings, orders or processes in the course of the proceedings. In

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2008/september2008/166676.htm#_ftn28


10/21

which case, the Supreme Court ruled that there is substantial compliance of the provisions of Rules 103 and 108 of

the Rules of Court. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that the determination of a person’s sex appearing in his

birth certificate is a legal issue which in this case should be dealt with utmost care in view of the delicate facts

present in this case.

In deciding the case, the Supreme Court brings forth the need to elaborate the term “intersexuality” which is the

condition or let us say a disorder that respondent is undergoing. INTERSEXUALITY applies to human beings whocannot be classified as either male or female. It is the state of a living thing of a gonochoristic species whose sex

chromosomes, genitalia, and/or secondary sex characteristics are determined to be neither exclusively male nor

female. It is said that an organism with intersex may have biological characteristics of both male and female sexes.

In view of the foregoing, the highest tribunal of the land consider the compassionate calls for recognition of the

various degrees of intersex as variations which should not be subject to outright denial.

The current state of Philippine statutes apparently compels that a person be classified either as a male or as a

female, but this Court is not controlled by mere appearances when nature itself fundamentally negates such rigid

classification. That is, Philippine courts must render judgment based on law and the evidence presented. In the

instant case, there is no denying that evidence points that respondent is male. In determining respondent to be a

female, there is no basis for a change in the birth certificate entry for gender. The Supreme Court held that where

the person is biologically or naturally intersex the determining factor in his gender classification would be what the

individual, like respondent, having reached the age of majority, with good reason thinks of his/her sex. Sexual

development in cases of intersex persons makes the gender classification at birth inconclusive. It is at maturity that

the gender of such persons, like respondent, is fixed. The Court will not consider respondent as having erred in not

choosing to undergo treatment in order to become or remain as a female. Neither will the Court force respondent

to undergo treatment and to take medication in order to fit the mold of a female, as society commonly currently

knows this gender of the human species. Respondent is the one who has to live with his intersex anatomy. To him

belongs the human right to the pursuit of happiness and of health. Thus, to him should belong the primordial

choice of what courses of action to take along the path of his sexual development and maturation. In the absence

of evidence that respondent is an “incompetent” and in the absence of evidence to show that classifying

respondent as a male will harm other members of society who are equally entitled to protection under the law,

the Supreme Court affirmed as valid and justified the respondent’s position and his personal judgment of being a

male.

FACTS:

Jennifer Cagandahan was registered as a female in her Certificate of Live Birth. During her childhood years, she

suffered from clitoral hypertrophy and was later on diagnosed that her ovarian structures had minimized. She

likewise has no breast nor menstruation. Subsequently, she was diagnosed of having Congenital Adrenal

Hyperplasia (CAH), a condition where those afflicted possess secondary male characteristics because of too much

secretion of male hormones, androgen. According to her, for all interests and appearances as well as in mind and

emotion, she has become a male person. She filed a petition at RTC Laguna for Correction of Entries in her Birth

Certificate such that her gender or sex be changed to male and her first name be changed to Jeff.

ISSUE: WON correction of entries in her birth certificate should be granted.

HELD:

The Court considered the compassionate calls for recognition of the various degrees of intersex as variations which

should not be subject to outright denial. SC is of the view that where the person is biologically or naturally intersex

the determining factor in his gender classification would be what the individual, having reached the age of

majority, with good reason thinks of his/her sex. As in this case, respondent, thinks of himself as a male and

considering that his body produces high levels of male hormones, there is preponderant biological support for


11/21

considering him as being a male. Sexual development in cases of intersex persons makes the gender classification

at birth inconclusive. It is at maturity that the gender of such persons, like respondent, is fixed.


12/21

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 174689 October 22, 2007

ROMMEL JACINTO DANTES SILVERIO, petitioner,

vs.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

D E C I S I O N

CORONA, J.:

When God created man, He made him in the likeness of God; He created them male and female.(Genesis 5:1-2)

Amihan gazed upon the bamboo reed planted by Bathala and she heard voices coming frominside the bamboo. "Oh North Wind! North Wind! Please let us out!," the voices said. She pecked

the reed once, then twice. All of a sudden, the bamboo cracked and slit open. Out came twohuman beings; one was a male and the other was a female. Amihan named the man "Malakas"(Strong) and the woman "Maganda" (Beautiful). (The Legend of Malakas and Maganda)

When is a man a man and when is a woman a woman? In particular, does the lawrecognize the changes made by a physician using scalpel, drugs and counseling withregard to a person’s sex? May a person successfully petition for a change of name andsex appearing in the birth certificate to reflect the result of a sex reassignment surgery?

On November 26, 2002, petitioner Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio filed a petition for thechange of his first name and sex in his birth certificate in the Regional Trial Court ofManila, Branch 8. The petition, docketed as SP Case No. 02-105207, impleaded thecivil registrar of Manila as respondent.

Petitioner alleged in his petition that he was born in the City of Manila to the spousesMelecio Petines Silverio and Anita Aquino Dantes on April 4, 1962. His name wasregistered as "Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio" in his certificate of live birth (birthcertificate). His sex was registered as "male."

He further alleged that he is a male transsexual, that is, "anatomically male but feels,

thinks and acts as a female" and that he had always identified himself with girls sincechildhood.1 Feeling trapped in a man’s body, - he consulted several doctors in the United States.- He underwent psychological examination, hormone treatment and breastaugmentation.- His attempts to transform himself to a "woman" culminated on January 27, 2001 whenhe underwent sex reassignment surgery2 in Bangkok, Thailand.

Rommel Mely


13/21

- He was thereafter examined by Dr. Marcelino Reysio-Cruz, Jr., a plastic andreconstruction surgeon in the Philippines, who issued a medical certificate attesting thathe (petitioner) had in fact undergone the procedure.

From then on, petitioner lived as a female and was in fact engaged to be married. He

then sought to have his name in his birth certificate changed from "RommelJacinto" to "Mely," and his sex from "male" to "female."

An order setting the case for initial hearing was published in the People’s JournalTonight, a newspaper of general circulation in Metro Manila, for three consecutiveweeks.3 Copies of the order were sent to the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) andthe civil registrar of Manila.

On the scheduled initial hearing, jurisdictional requirements were established. Noopposition to the petition was made.

During trial, petitioner testified for himself. He also presented Dr. Reysio-Cruz, Jr. andhis American fiancé, Richard P. Edel, as witnesses.

On June 4, 2003, the trial court rendered a decision4 in favor of petitioner. Its relevantportions read:

Petitioner filed the present petition not to evade any law or judgment or any infractionthereof or for any unlawful motive but solely for the purpose of making his birth recordscompatible with his present sex.

The sole issue here is whether or not petitioner is entitled to the relief asked for.

The [c]ourt rules in the affirmative.

Firstly, the [c]ourt is of the opinion that granting the petition would be more inconsonance with the principles of justice and equity. With his sexual [re-assignment],petitioner, who has always felt, thought and acted like a woman, now possesses thephysique of a female. Petitioner’s misfortune to be trapped in a man’s body is not hisown doing and should not be in any way taken against him.

Likewise, the [c]ourt believes that no harm, injury [or] prejudice will be caused to

anybody or the community in granting the petition. On the contrary, granting the petitionwould bring the much-awaited happiness on the part of the petitioner and her [fiancé]and the realization of their dreams.

Finally, no evidence was presented to show any cause or ground to deny the presentpetition despite due notice and publication thereof. Even the State, through the [OSG]has not seen fit to interpose any [o]pposition.


14/21

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered GRANTING the petition and ordering theCivil Registrar of Manila to change the entries appearing in the Certificate of Birth of[p]etitioner, specifically for petitioner’s first name from "Rommel Jacinto" to MELY andpetitioner’s gender from "Male" to FEMALE. 5

On August 18, 2003, the Republic of the Philippines (Republic), thru the OSG, filed apetition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals.6 It alleged that there is no law allowingthe change of entries in the birth certificate by reason of sex alteration.

On February 23, 2006, the Court of Appeals7 rendered a decision8 in favor of theRepublic. It ruled that the trial court’s decision lacked legal basis. There is no lawallowing the change of either name or sex in the certificate of birth on the ground of sexreassignment through surgery. Thus, the Court of Appeals granted the Republic’spetition, set aside the decision of the trial court and ordered the dismissal of SP CaseNo. 02-105207. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but it was denied.9 Hence, thispetition.

Petitioner essentially claims that the change of his name and sex in his birth certificateis allowed under:

1. Articles 407 to 413 of the Civil Code,2. Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court and3. RA 9048.

The petition lacks merit.

A Person’s First Name Cannot Be Changed On the Ground of Sex Reassignment

Petitioner invoked his sex reassignment as the ground for his petition for change ofname and sex. As found by the trial court:

Petitioner filed the present petition not to evade any law or judgment or any infractionthereof or for any unlawful motive but solely for the purpose of making his birthrecords compatible with his present sex. (emphasis supplied)

Petitioner believes that after having acquired the physical features of a female, hebecame entitled to the civil registry changes sought. We disagree.

The State has an interest in the names borne by individuals and entities for purposes ofidentification.11 A change of name is a privilege, not a right.12 Petitions for change ofname are controlled by statutes.13 In this connection, Article 376 of the Civil Codeprovides:


15/21

ART. 376. No person can change his name or surname without judicial authority.

This Civil Code provision was amended by RA 9048 (Clerical Error Law). In particular,Section 1 of RA 9048 provides:

SECTION 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or Typographical Error and Change of FirstName or Nickname. – No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a

judicial order, except for clerical or typographical errors and change of first name ornickname which can be corrected or changed by the concerned city or municipal civilregistrar or consul general in accordance with the provisions of this Act and itsimplementing rules and regulations.

RA 9048 now governs the change of first name.14It vests the power and authorityto entertain petitions

for change of first nameto the city or municipal civil registrar or consul general concerned.

Under the law, therefore, jurisdiction over applications for change of first name is nowprimarily lodged with the aforementioned administrative officers. The intent and effect ofthe law is to exclude the change of first name from the coverage of Rules 103 (Changeof Name) and 108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) of theRules of Court, until and unless an administrative petition for change of name is firstfiled and subsequently denied.15 It likewise lays down the corresponding venue,16form17 and procedure. In sum, the remedy and the proceedings regulating change offirst name are primarily administrative in nature, not judicial.

RA 9048 likewise provides the grounds for which change of first name may be allowed:

SECTION 4. Grounds for Change of First Name or Nickname. – The petition for changeof first name or nickname may be allowed in any of the following cases:

(1) The petitioner finds the first name or nickname to be ridiculous, tainted with dishonoror extremely difficult to write or pronounce;

(2) The new first name or nickname has been habitually and continuously used by thepetitioner and he has been publicly known by that first name or nickname in the

community; or

(3) The change will avoid confusion.

Petitioner’s basis in praying for the change of his first name was his sex reassignment.He intended to make his first name compatible with the sex he thought he transformedhimself into through surgery. However, a change of name does not alter one’s legal


16/21

capacity or civil status.18 RA 9048 does not sanction a change of first name on theground of sex reassignment. Rather than avoiding confusion, changing petitioner’s firstname for his declared purpose may only create grave complications in the civil registryand the public interest.

Before a person can legally change his given name, he must present proper orreasonable cause or any compelling reason justifying such change.19 In addition, hemust show that he will be prejudiced by the use of his true and official name.20 In thiscase, he failed to show, or even allege, any prejudice that he might suffer as a result ofusing his true and official name.

In sum, the petition in the trial court in so far as it prayed for the change of petitioner’sfirst name was not within that court’s primary jurisdiction as the petition should havebeen filed with the local civil registrar concerned, assuming it could be legally done. It

was an improper remedy because the proper remedy was

administrative, that is, that provided under RA 9048.It was also filed in the wrong venue as the proper venue was in the Office of theCivil Registrar of Manila where his birth certificate is kept.More importantly, it had no merit since the use of his true and official name does notprejudice him at all. For all these reasons, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissedpetitioner’s petition in so far as the change of his first name was concerned.

No Law Allows The Change of Entry In The Birth Certificate As To Sex On the Groundof Sex Reassignment

The determination of a person’s sex appearing in his birth certificate is a legal issue andthe court must look to the statutes.21 In this connection, Article 412 of the Civil Codeprovides:

ART. 412. No entry in the civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicialorder.

Together with Article 376 of the Civil Code, this provision was amended by RA 9048 inso far as clerical or typographical errors are involved. The correction or change of suchmatters can now be made through administrative proceedings and without the need fora judicial order. In effect, RA 9048 removed from the ambit of Rule 108 of the Rules of

Court the correction of such errors.22 Rule 108 now applies only to substantial changesand corrections in entries in the civil register.23

Section 2(c) of RA 9048 defines what a "clerical or typographical error" is:

SECTION 2. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act, the following terms shall mean:

xxx xxx xxx


17/21

(3) "Clerical or typographical error" refers to a mistake committed in the performance ofclerical work in writing, copying, transcribing or typing an entry in the civil register that isharmless and innocuous, such as misspelled name or misspelled place of birth or thelike, which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding, and can be corrected

or changed only by reference to other existing record or records: Provided, however,That no correction must involve the change of nationality, age, status or sex of thepetitioner. (emphasis supplied)

Under RA 9048, a correction in the civil registry involving the change of sex is not amere clerical or typographical error. It is a substantial change for which the applicableprocedure is Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.

The entries envisaged in Article 412 of the Civil Code and correctable under Rule 108 ofthe Rules of Court are those provided in Articles 407 and 408 of the Civil Code:24

ART. 407. Acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status of persons shallbe recorded in the civil register.

ART. 408. The following shall be entered in the civil register:

(1) Births; (2) marriages; (3) deaths; (4) legal separations; (5) annulments of marriage;(6) judgments declaring marriages void from the beginning; (7) legitimations; (8)adoptions; (9) acknowledgments of natural children; (10) naturalization; (11) loss, or(12) recovery of citizenship; (13) civil interdiction; (14) judicial determination of filiation;(15) voluntary emancipation of a minor; and (16) changes of name.

The acts, events or factual errors contemplated under Article 407 of the Civil Codeinclude even those that occur after birth.25 However, no reasonable interpretation of theprovision can justify the conclusion that it covers the correction on the ground of sexreassignment.

To correct simply means "to make or set aright; to remove the faults or error from" whileto change means "to replace something with something else of the same kind or withsomething that serves as a substitute."26 The birth certificate of petitioner contained noerror. All entries therein, including those corresponding to his first name and sex, wereall correct. No correction is necessary.

Article 407 of the Civil Code authorizes the entry in the civil registry of certain acts (suchas legitimations, acknowledgments of illegitimate children and naturalization), events(such as births, marriages, naturalization and deaths) and judicial decrees (such aslegal separations, annulments of marriage, declarations of nullity of marriages,adoptions, naturalization, loss or recovery of citizenship, civil interdiction, judicialdetermination of filiation and changes of name). These acts, events and judicial decreesproduce legal consequences that touch upon the legal capacity, status and nationality of


18/21

a person. Their effects are expressly sanctioned by the laws. In contrast, sexreassignment is not among those acts or events mentioned in Article 407. Neither is itrecognized nor even mentioned by any law, expressly or impliedly.

"Status" refers to the circumstances affecting the legal situation (that is, the sumtotal of capacities and incapacities) of a person in view of his age, nationality and hisfamily membership.27

The status of a person in law includes all his personal qualities and relations, more orless permanent in nature, not ordinarily terminable at his own will, such as his beinglegitimate or illegitimate, or his being married or not. The comprehensive term status…include such matters as the beginning and end of legal personality, capacity to haverights in general, family relations, and its various aspects, such as birth, legitimation,adoption, emancipation, marriage, divorce, and sometimes even succession.28(emphasis supplied)

A person’s sex is an essential factor in marriage and family relations. It is a part of aperson’s legal capacity and civil status. In this connection, Article 413 of the Civil Codeprovides:

ART. 413. All other matters pertaining to the registration of civil status shall be governedby special laws.

But there is no such special law in the Philippines governing sex reassignment and itseffects. This is fatal to petitioner’s cause.

Moreover, Section 5 of Act 3753 (the Civil Register Law) provides:

SEC. 5. Registration and certification of births. – The declaration of the physician ormidwife in attendance at the birth or, in default thereof, the declaration of either parentof the newborn child, shall be sufficient for the registration of a birth in the civil register.Such declaration shall be exempt from documentary stamp tax and shall be sent to thelocal civil registrar not later than thirty days after the birth, by the physician or midwife inattendance at the birth or by either parent of the newborn child.

In such declaration, the person above mentioned shall certify to the following facts: (a)date and hour of birth; (b) sex and nationality of infant; (c) names, citizenship and

religion of parents or, in case the father is not known, of the mother alone; (d) civil statusof parents; (e) place where the infant was born; and (f) such other data as may berequired in the regulations to be issued.

xxx xxx xxx (emphasis supplied)

Under the Civil Register Law, a birth certificate is a historical record of the facts as theyexisted at the time of birth.29 Thus, the sex of a person is determined at birth, visually


19/21

done by the birth attendant (the physician or midwife) by examining the genitals of theinfant. Considering that there is no law legally recognizing sex reassignment, thedetermination of a person’s sex made at the time of his or her birth, if not attended by

error, is immutable.

When words are not defined in a statute they are to be given their common and ordinarymeaning in the absence of a contrary legislative intent. The words "sex," "male" and"female" as used in the Civil Register Law and laws concerning the civil registry (andeven all other laws) should therefore be understood in their common and ordinaryusage, there being no legislative intent to the contrary. In this connection, sex is definedas "the sum of peculiarities of structure and function that distinguish a male from afemale" or "the distinction between male and female." Female is "the sex that producesova or bears young" and male is "the sex that has organs to produce spermatozoa forfertilizing ova." Thus, the words "male" and "female" in everyday understanding do notinclude persons who have undergone sex reassignment. Furthermore, "words that areemployed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning are presumed to

have been used in that sense unless the context compels to the contrary."36 Since thestatutory language of the Civil Register Law was enacted in the early 1900s andremains unchanged, it cannot be argued that the term "sex" as used then is somethingalterable through surgery or something that allows a post-operative male-to-femaletranssexual to be included in the category "female."

For these reasons, while petitioner may have succeeded in altering his body andappearance through the intervention of modern surgery, no law authorizes the change

of entry as to sex in the civil registry for that reason. Thus, there is no legal

basis for his petition for the correction or change ofthe entries in his birth certificate.

Neither May Entries in the Birth Certificate As to First Name or Sex Be Changed on theGround of Equity

The trial court opined that its grant of the petition was in consonance with the principlesof justice and equity. It believed that allowing the petition would cause no harm, injury orprejudice to anyone. This is wrong.

The changes sought by petitioner will have serious and wide-ranging legal and publicpolicy consequences. First, even the trial court itself found that the petition was but

petitioner’s first step towards his eventual marriage to his male fiancé.However, marriage, one of the most sacred social institutions, is a special contract ofpermanent union between a man and a woman. One of its essential requisites is thelegal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female. To grant thechanges sought by petitioner will substantially reconfigure and greatly alter the laws onmarriage and family relations. It will allow the union of a man with another man who has


20/21

undergone sex reassignment (a male-to-female post-operative transsexual). Second,there are various laws which apply particularly to women such as the provisions of theLabor Code on employment of women, certain felonies under the Revised Penal Codeand the presumption of survivorship in case of calamities under Rule 131 of the Rules ofCourt, among others. These laws underscore the public policy in relation to women

which could be substantially affected if petitioner’s petition were to be granted.

It is true that Article 9 of the Civil Code mandates that "[n]o judge or court shall declineto render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the law."However, it is not a license for courts to engage in judicial legislation.

The duty of the courts is to apply or interpretthe law, not to make or amend it.

In our system of government, it is for the legislature, should it choose to do so, todetermine what guidelines should govern the recognition of the effects of sexreassignment. The need for legislative guidelines becomes particularly important in thiscase where the claims asserted are statute-based.

To reiterate, the statutes define who may file petitions for change of first name and forcorrection or change of entries in the civil registry, where they may be filed, whatgrounds may be invoked, what proof must be presented and what procedures shall beobserved. If the legislature intends to confer on a person who has undergone sexreassignment the privilege to change his name and sex to conform with his reassignedsex, it has to enact legislation laying down the guidelines in turn governing theconferment of that privilege.

It might be theoretically possible for this Court to write a protocol on when a person maybe recognized as having successfully changed his sex. However, this Court has noauthority to fashion a law on that matter, or on anything else. The Court cannot enact alaw where no law exists. It can only apply or interpret the written word of its co-equalbranch of government, Congress.

Petitioner pleads that "[t]he unfortunates are also entitled to a life of happiness,contentment and [the] realization of their dreams." No argument about that. The Courtrecognizes that there are people whose preferences and orientation do not fit neatly intothe commonly recognized parameters of social convention and that, at least for them,

life is indeed an ordeal. However, the remedies petitioner seeks involvequestions of public policy to be addressed solely by thelegislature, not by the courts.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.

Costs against petitioner.


21/21

SO ORDERED.

Puno, C.J., Chairperson, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Azcuna, Garcia, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. 174689 October 22 2007 [Change of name or sex]

FACTS:

Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio having undergone a sex reassignment surgery, sought to have

his first name changed from Rommel to Mely, and his sex from male to female. Trial court

granted his petition. CA, however, upon appeal filed by the Republic of the Philippines thru the

OSG, reversed the trial court decision, holding that there is no law allowing the change of

entries of either name or sex in the birth certificate by reason of sex alteration.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Rommel's first name and sex be changed on the ground of sex reassignment.

RULING: No. There is no law authorizes the change of entry as of sex and first name through

the intervention of sex reassignment surgery. Article 376 of the Civil Code as amended by RA

9048 (Clerical Error Law), together with Article 412 of the same Code, change of name or sex in

the birth certificate is allowed by the courts so long as clerical or typographical errors are

involved.

Changes sought by Silverio will have serious legal and public policy consequences. To grant thispetition filed by Silverio will greatly alter the laws on marriage and family relations. Second,

there will be major changes in statutes that underscore the public policy in relation to women.

cagandahan and silverio case

Documents