1.

SILVERIO V REPUBLIC

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.

DECISION

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 from inside 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 two human 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 law
recognize the changes made by a physician using scalpel, drugs and counseling with
regard to a person’s sex? May a person successfully petition for a change of name and
sex 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
the change of his first name and sex in his birth certificate in the Regional Trial Court of
Manila, Branch 8. The petition, docketed as SP Case No. 02-105207, impleaded the
civil registrar of Manila as respondent.

Petitioner alleged in his petition that he was born in the City of Manila to the spouses
Melecio Petines Silverio and Anita Aquino Dantes on April 4, 1962. His name was
registered as "Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio" in his certificate of live birth (birth
certificate). 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 since
childhood.1 Feeling trapped in a man’s body, he consulted several doctors in the United
States. He underwent psychological examination, hormone treatment and breast
augmentation. His attempts to transform himself to a "woman" culminated on January
27, 2001 when he underwent sex reassignment surgery2 in Bangkok, Thailand. He was
thereafter examined by Dr. Marcelino Reysio-Cruz, Jr., a plastic and reconstruction
surgeon in the Philippines, who issued a medical certificate attesting that he (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 "Rommel Jacinto" to
"Mely," and his sex from "male" to "female."

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

On the scheduled initial hearing, jurisdictional requirements were established. No

opposition to the petition was made.

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

On June 4, 2003, the trial court rendered a decision 4 in favor of petitioner. Its relevant
portions read:

Petitioner filed the present petition not to evade any law or judgment or any
infraction thereof or for any unlawful motive but solely for the purpose of making
his birth records compatible 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 in
consonance 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 the physique of a female. Petitioner’s misfortune to be trapped in
a man’s body is not his own 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
petition would 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
present petition despite due notice and publication thereof. Even the State,
through the [OSG] has not seen fit to interpose any [o]pposition.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered GRANTING the petition and

ordering the Civil 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 and petitioner’s gender from "Male" to FEMALE. 5

On August 18, 2003, the Republic of the Philippines (Republic), thru the OSG, filed a
petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals.6 It alleged that there is no law allowing the
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 the
Republic. It ruled that the trial court’s decision lacked legal basis. There is no law
allowing the change of either name or sex in the certificate of birth on the ground of sex
reassignment through surgery. Thus, the Court of Appeals granted the Republic’s
petition, set aside the decision of the trial court and ordered the dismissal of SP Case
No. 02-105207. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but it was denied. 9 Hence, this
petition.

Petitioner essentially claims that the change of his name and sex in his birth certificate
is allowed under Articles 407 to 413 of the Civil Code, Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules
of Court and RA 9048.10

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 of
name and sex. As found by the trial court:
 Petitioner filed the present petition not to evade any law or judgment or any
infraction thereof or for any unlawful motive but solely for the purpose of
making his birth records compatible with his present sex. (emphasis
supplied)

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

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

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

First Name 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 or nickname which can be corrected or changed by the
concerned city or municipal civil registrar or consul general in accordance with
the provisions of this Act and its implementing rules and regulations.

RA 9048 now governs the change of first name.14 It vests the power and authority to
entertain petitions for change of first name to the city or municipal civil registrar or
consul general concerned. Under the law, therefore, jurisdiction over applications for
change of first name is now primarily lodged with the aforementioned administrative
officers. The intent and effect of the law is to exclude the change of first name from the
coverage of Rules 103 (Change of Name) and 108 (Cancellation or Correction of
Entries in the Civil Registry) of the Rules of Court, until and unless an administrative
petition for change of name is first filed and subsequently denied.15 It likewise lays down
the corresponding venue,16 form17 and procedure. In sum, the remedy and the
proceedings regulating change of first 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
change of 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
dishonor or extremely difficult to write or pronounce;

(2) The new first name or nickname has been habitually and continuously used
by the petitioner 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 transformed
himself into through surgery. However, a change of name does not alter one’s legal
capacity or civil status.18 RA 9048 does not sanction a change of first name on the
ground of sex reassignment. Rather than avoiding confusion, changing petitioner’s first
name for his declared purpose may only create grave complications in the civil registry
and the public interest.

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

In sum, the petition in the trial court in so far as it prayed for the change of petitioner’s
first name was not within that court’s primary jurisdiction as the petition should have
been 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 the Civil 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 not prejudice
him at all. For all these reasons, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed petitioner’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
Ground of Sex Reassignment

The determination of a person’s sex appearing in his birth certificate is a legal issue and
the court must look to the statutes.21 In this connection, Article 412 of the Civil Code
provides:
 ART. 412. No entry in the civil register shall be changed or corrected without a
judicial order.

Together with Article 376 of the Civil Code, this provision was amended by RA 9048 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, 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 changes
and 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

(3) "Clerical or typographical error" refers to a mistake committed in the

performance of clerical work in writing, copying, transcribing or typing an
entry in the civil register that is harmless and innocuous, such as
misspelled name or misspelled place of birth or the like, 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 the petitioner. (emphasis supplied)

Under RA 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.

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:24

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.

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

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

Article 407 of the Civil Code authorizes the entry in the civil registry of certain acts (such
as legitimations, acknowledgments of illegitimate children and
naturalization), events (such as births, marriages, naturalization and deaths) and judicial
decrees (such as legal separations, annulments of marriage, declarations of nullity of
marriages, adoptions, naturalization, loss or recovery of citizenship, civil interdiction,
judicial determination of filiation and changes of name). These acts, events and judicial
decrees produce legal consequences that touch upon the legal capacity, status and
nationality of a person. Their effects are expressly sanctioned by the laws. In contrast,
sex reassignment is not among those acts or events mentioned in Article 407. Neither is
it recognized nor even mentioned by any law, expressly or impliedly.

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

The status of a person in law includes all his personal qualities and
relations, more or less permanent in nature, not ordinarily terminable at his
own will, such as his being legitimate 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 have rights 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 a

person’s legal capacity and civil status. In this connection, Article 413 of the Civil Code
provides:
 ART. 413. All other matters pertaining to the registration of civil status shall be
governed by special laws.

But there is no such special law in the Philippines governing sex reassignment and its
effects. 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

or midwife in attendance at the birth or, in default thereof, the declaration of
either parent of 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 the local civil registrar not later than thirty days after the
birth, by the physician or midwife in attendance 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 status of parents; (e) place where the infant was born; and
(f) such other data as may be required 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 they
existed at the time of birth.29Thus, the sex of a person is determined at birth, visually
done by the birth attendant (the physician or midwife) by examining the genitals of the
infant. Considering that there is no law legally recognizing sex reassignment, the
determination of a person’s sex made at the time of his or her birth, if not attended by
error,30 is immutable.31

When words are not defined in a statute they are to be given their common and ordinary
meaning 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 (and
even all other laws) should therefore be understood in their common and ordinary
usage, there being no legislative intent to the contrary. In this connection, sex is defined
as "the sum of peculiarities of structure and function that distinguish a male from a
female"32 or "the distinction between male and female." 33Female is "the sex that
produces ova or bears young"34 and male is "the sex that has organs to produce
spermatozoa for fertilizing ova."35 Thus, the words "male" and "female" in everyday
understanding do not include persons who have undergone sex reassignment.
Furthermore, "words that are employed 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 the statutory language of the Civil Register Law was enacted in
the early 1900s and remains unchanged, it cannot be argued that the term "sex" as
used then is something alterable through surgery or something that allows a post-
operative male-to-female transsexual to be included in the category "female."

For these reasons, while petitioner may have succeeded in altering his body and
appearance 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 of the entries in his birth certificate.

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

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

The changes sought by petitioner will have serious and wide-ranging legal and public
policy 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 of permanent
union between a man and a woman.37 One of its essential requisites is the legal
capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female.38 To grant the
changes sought by petitioner will substantially reconfigure and greatly alter the laws on
marriage and family relations. It will allow the union of a man with another man who has
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 the
Labor Code on employment of women,39 certain felonies under the Revised Penal
Code40 and the presumption of survivorship in case of calamities under Rule 131 of the
Rules of Court,41 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 decline
to 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 interpret the law, not to make or amend it.

In our system of government, it is for the legislature, should it choose to do so, to

determine what guidelines should govern the recognition of the effects of sex
reassignment. The need for legislative guidelines becomes particularly important in this
case where the claims asserted are statute-based.

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

It might be theoretically possible for this Court to write a protocol on when a person may
be recognized as having successfully changed his sex. However, this Court has no
authority to fashion a law on that matter, or on anything else. The Court cannot enact a
law where no law exists. It can only apply or interpret the written word of its co-equal
branch 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 Court
recognizes that there are people whose preferences and orientation do not fit neatly into
the commonly recognized parameters of social convention and that, at least for them,
life is indeed an ordeal. However, the remedies petitioner seeks involve questions of
public policy to be addressed solely by the legislature, not by the courts.

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED.

Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

CASE DIGEST

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 this petition 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.

2. REPUBLIC V CAGANDAHAN

SECOND DIVISION

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 166676

Petitioner,
Present:

QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson,

CARPIO MORALES,
- versus -
TINGA,

VELASCO, JR., and

BRION, JJ.

Promulgated:
JENNIFER B. CAGANDAHAN,

Respondent.
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 a female 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. 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 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 she 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 permanent 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 entitled to 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 be
acknowledged 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 Jennifer Cagandahan upon payment of the prescribed fees:

a) By changing the name from Jennifer Cagandahan to

JEFF CAGANDAHAN; and

b) By changing the gender from female to MALE.

It is likewise ordered that petitioners school records, voters registry,

baptismal certificate, and other pertinent records are hereby amended to
conform with the foregoing corrected data.

SO ORDERED.[3]

Thus, this petition by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) seeking a reversal
of the abovementioned ruling.
 The issues raised by petitioner are:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE PETITION

CONSIDERING THAT:
I.
THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULES 103 AND 108 OF THE RULES OF
COURT HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH; AND,

II.
CORRECTION OF ENTRY UNDER RULE 108 DOES NOT ALLOW
CHANGE OF SEX OR GENDER IN THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE, WHILE
RESPONDENTS MEDICAL CONDITION, i.e., CONGENITAL ADRENAL
HYPERPLASIA DOES NOT MAKE HER A MALE.[4]

Simply stated, the issue is whether the trial court erred in ordering the correction
of entries in the birth certificate of respondent to change her sex or gender, from female
to male, on the ground of her medical condition known as CAH, and her name from
Jennifer to Jeff, under Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court.

The OSG contends that the petition below is fatally defective for non-compliance
with Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court because while the local civil registrar is an
indispensable party in a petition for cancellation or correction of entries under Section 3,
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, respondents petition before the court a quo did not
implead the local civil registrar.[5] The OSG further contends respondents petition is
fatally defective since it failed to state that respondent is a bona fide resident of the
province where the petition was filed for at least three (3) years prior to the date of such
filing as mandated under Section 2(b), Rule 103 of the Rules of Court. [6] The OSG
argues that Rule 108 does not allow change of sex or gender in the birth certificate and
respondents claimed medical condition known as CAH does not make her a male.[7]

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 Rule 108,[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 to the Regional Trial Court of the province in which he resides,
[or, in the City of Manila, to the 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 shall set 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 the hearing 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 general circulation published
in the province, as the court shall deem best. The date set for the hearing
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 are true, 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.
SEC. 6. Service of judgment. Judgments or orders rendered in connection
with this rule shall 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 or decree 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 is
located.

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
recovery of citizenship; (l) civil interdiction; (m) judicial determination of
filiation; (n) voluntary emancipation 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 be affected thereby shall be made parties to the
proceeding.

SEC. 4. Notice and publication. Upon the filing of the petition, the court
shall, by an order, fix the time and place for the hearing of the same, and
cause reasonable notice thereof 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 of general circulation in
the province.

SEC. 5. Opposition. The civil registrar and any person having or claiming
any interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought
may, within fifteen (15) days from 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 may make orders expediting the proceedings, and may also grant
preliminary injunction for the 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 order granting 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 same in 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 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 judicial order.

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.

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, intersexuality 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. 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 achange in the

subjects birth certificate entry is in order.

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 the
individual, like respondent, having reached the age of majority, with good reason thinks
of his/her sex.Respondent here thinks of himself as a male and considering that his
body produces high levels of male hormones (androgen) there is preponderant
biological support for considering him as being 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.

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

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.

CASE DIGEST

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 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.