Rule 103 And 108 Cases.docx

Republic vs. Cagandahan G.R. No. 166676 September 12, 2008 FACTS: Jennifer Cagandahan filed a Petition for Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate[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 RTC granted respondents petition in a Decision dated January 12, 2005. ISSUE: 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.

RULING: 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, 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 one’s 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 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 respondent’s 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 deal 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. 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

Republic Cagandahan

vs

Republic vs. Cagandahan GR. No. 166676, September 12, 2008

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.

Case Digest: G.R. No. 174689. October 22, 2007 Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio, petitioner, vs. Republic of the Philippines, respondent. Facts: Petitioner was born and registered as male. He admitted 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. He underwent psychological examination, hormone treatment, breast augmentation and sex reassignment surgery. From then on, petitioner lived as 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. The trial court rendered a decision in favor of the petitioner. Republic of the Philippines thru the OSG filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals. CA rendered a decision in favor of the Republic.

Issue: Whether or not petitioner is entitled to change his name and sex in his birth certificate.

Ruling: Article 376 of the Civil Code provides that no person can change his name or surname without judicial authority which was amended by RA 9048 – Clerical Error Law which does not sanction a change of first name on the ground of sex reassignment. Before a person can legally change his given name, he must present proper or reasonable cause or any compelling reason justifying such change. In addition, he must show that he will be prejudiced by the use of his true

and official name. 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. Article 412 of the Civil Code provides that no entry in the civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order. The birth certificate of petitioner contained no error. All entries therein, including those corresponding to his first name and sex, were all correct. Hence, no correction is necessary. Article 413 of the Civil Code provides that all other matters pertaining to the registration of civil status shall be governed by special laws. However, there is no such special law in the Philippines governing sex reassignment and its effects. Under the Civil Register Law, a birth certificate is a historical record of the facts as they existed at the time of birth. Thus, 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 is immutable

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. The remedies petitioner seeks involve questions of public policy to be addressed solely by the legislature, not by the courts. Hence, petition is denied.

Silverio v. Republic October 22, 2007 (GR. No. 174689) PARTIES: petitioner: Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio respondent: Republic of the Philippines FACTS: On November 26, 2002, Silverio field a petition for the change of his first name “Rommel Jacinto” to “Mely” and his sex from male to female in his birth certificate in the RTC of Manila, Branch 8, for reason of his sex reassignment. He alleged that he is a male transsexual, he is anatomically male but thinks and acts like a female. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of him, explaining that it is consonance with the principle of justice and equality. The Republic, through the OSG, filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals alleging that there is no law allowing change of name by reason of sex alteration. Petitioner filed a reconsideration but was denied. Hence, this petition. ISSUE: WON change in name and sex in birth certificate are allowed by reason of sex reassignment. HELD: No. A change of name is a privilege and not a right. It may be allowed in cases where the name is ridiculous, tainted with dishonor, or difficult to pronounce or write; a nickname is habitually used; or if the change will avoid confusion. The petitioner’s basis of the change of his name is that he intends his first name compatible with the sex he thought he transformed himself into thru

surgery. The Court says that his true name does not prejudice him at all, and no law allows the change of entry in the birth certificate as to sex on the ground of sex reassignment. The Court denied the petition.