Zulueta v CA

Mendoza, J.:
FACTS:
- Petitioner, Cecilia Zulueta is married to private respondent, Dr. Alfredo Martin.
- That petitioner accused her husband of infidelity.
- That on March 26, 1982, petitioner went to the clinic of private respondent, who is a doctor of medicine,
without the consent of the latter. That on the same date mentioned, petitioner opened the drawers and
cabinet of her husband and took 157 documents and papers consisting of private correspondence
between Dr. Martin and his alleged paramours.
- The documents found by petitioner were seized for use as evidence in a case for legal separation filed
by Zulueta.
- Dr. Martin brought this action below for recovery of the documents and papers and for damages against
petitioner.
- The RTC, decided in favor of private respondent, declaring him the capital/exclusive owner of
properties described and ordering petitioner to return the properties to Dr. Martin and pay him nominal
and moral damages and attorneys fees, and cost of the suit.
- Furthermore, petitioner and her attorneys and representatives were enjoined from using or
submitting/admitting as evidence the documents and papers in question.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision made by the Regional Trial Court. Hence, this
petition.
ISSUE:
WON the documents and papers in question are admissible in evidence.
HELD:
NO.
- The Supreme Court held that the documents and papers in question are inadmissible in evidence.
- The constitutional injunction declaring the privacy of communication and correspondence [to be]
inviolable (Sec.3, Par.1, Art.III, 1987 Constitution) is no less applicable simply because it is the wife
(who thinks herself aggrieved by her husband’s infidelity) who is the party against whom the
constitutional provision is to be enforced. The only exception to the provision in the constitution is if
there is a lawful order [from a] court or when public safety or order requires otherwise as provide by
law. (Sec.3, Par.1, Art.III, 1987 Constitution) Any violation of this provision renders the evidence
obtained inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. (Sec.3, Par.2, Art.III,1987 Constitution)
- A person, by contracting marriage does not shed his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an individual
and the constitutional protection is ever available to him or to her. The law ensures absolute freedom of
communication between the spouses by making it privileged. Neither husband nor wife may testify for
or against the other without consent of the affected spouse while the marriage subsists. (Sec.22,
Rule130, Rules of Court). Neither maybe examined without the consent of the other as to any
communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage, save for specified
exceptions. (Sec.24, Rule 130, Rules of Court)
PT&T v NLRC
REGALADO, J.:
FACTS:

When petitioner learned later about the marriage. discharge. 1991 as reliever for C. or to stipulate expressly or tacitly that upon getting married. from June 10. It is recognized that company is free to regulate manpower and employment from hiring to firing. As stated in the labor code: “ART. 1992. explicitly prohibits discrimination merely by reason of marriage of a female employee.” . except in those cases of unlawful discrimination or those provided by law. 1991 to August 8. PT&T’s policy of not accepting or disqualifying from work any woman worker who contracts marriage is afoul of the right against discrimination provided to all women workers by our labor laws and by our Constitution. The record discloses clearly that de Guzman’s ties with PT&T were dissolved principally because of the company’s policy that married women are not qualified for employment in the company. Delia M. HELD: Article 136 of the Labor Code. was a reminder about the company’s policy of not accepting married women for employment. ISSUE: Whether the alleged concealment of civil status can be grounds to terminate the services of an employee. — It shall be unlawful for an employer to require as a condition of employment or continuation of employment that a woman shall not get married. de Guzman was again asked to join PT&T as a probationary employee where probationary period will cover 150 days. discriminate or otherwise prejudice a woman employee merely by reason of marriage. The government abhors any stipulation or policy in the nature adopted by PT&T. for a fixed period from November 21. Stipulation against marriage. one of the protective laws for women. On September 2. Included in the memorandum. Dizon who went on leave on 2 periods. Oficial. its branch supervisor. 1991 and July 19. 1991. it was apparent that she had been discriminated on account of her having contracted marriage in violation of company policies. who had already gained the status of a regular employee. or to actually dismiss. Tenorio who went on maternity leave. 1991.F. 1993 declaring that petitioner illegally dismissed De Guzman.PT&T (Philippine Telegraph & Telephone Company) initially hired Grace de Guzman specifically as “Supernumerary Project Worker”. Labor Arbiter handed down decision on November 23. a woman employee shall be deemed resigned or separated. She was dismissed from the company effective January 29. She indicated in the portion of the job application form under civil status that she was single although she had contracted marriage a few months earlier. Furthermore. 1990 until April 20. She was again invited for employment as replacement of Erlina F. 1991 to July 1. sent de Guzman a memorandum requiring her to explain the discrepancy. 136. and not merely because of her supposed acts of dishonesty. according to their discretion and best business judgment.

He’s a biological male who feels trapped in a male body. disguised or dissembled forms as discriminatory conduct derogatory of the laws of the land not only for order but also imperatively required. 412. ART. He wanted to make these changes. J. The kind of policy followed by PT&T strikes at the very essence. the petition of Silverio insofar as his first name is concerned is procedurally infirm. that there was no opposition to his petition (even the OSG did not make any basis for opposition at this point). among others. injury or prejudice will be caused to anybody or the community in granting the petition. The RTC granted Silverio’s petition. in 2002. The Supreme Court ruled that the change of such entries finds no support in existing legislation. granting the petition would bring the much-awaited happiness on the part of Silverio and [her] fiancé and the realization of their dreams.Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio is a male transsexual. Issue on the change of first name In 2001. family as the foundation of the nation. Even assuming that the petition filed properly. a petition for certiorari was filed by the OSG before the CA. HELD: NO. Thereafter. so that he can marry his American fiancé. Such policy must be prohibited in all its indirect. SILVERIO v REPUBLIC CORONA. He filed the petition before the Manila RTC. he sought gender re-assignment in Bangkok. The RTC ruled that it should be granted based on equity. Being that.136 of the Labor Code on the right of a woman to be free from any kind of stipulation against marriage in connection with her employment and it likewise is contrary to good morals and public policy. Under the law. ISSUE: WON the entries pertaining to sex and first name in the birth certificate may be changed on the ground of gender re-assignment.The policy of PT&T is in derogation of the provisions stated in Art. that Silverio’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. Hence. Later. The CA reversed the decision of the RTC.: FACTS: . he filed a petition for the change of his first name (from Rommel to Mely) and his sex (male to female) in his birth certificate. ideals and purpose of marriage as an inviolable social institution and ultimately. that no harm. Republic Act 9048 (AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OR MUNICIPAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OR THE CONSUL GENERAL TO CORRECT A CLERICAL OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN AN ENTRY AND/OR CHANGE OF FIRST NAME OR NICKNAME IN THE CIVIL REGISTER WITHOUT NEED OF A JUDICIAL ORDER) was passed. a change of name may only be grounded on the following: . it cannot be granted still because the ground upon which it is based(gender re-assignment) is not one of those provided for by the law. This law provides that it should be the local civil registrar that has jurisdiction in petitions for the change of first names and not the regular courts. No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected without a judicial order. Thailand. The procedure was successful – he (she) now has a female body. a privilege that is inherent in an individual as an intangible and inalienable right. depriving a woman of her freedom to choose her status. On the contrary.

The corresponding petition should also implead as respondents the civil registrar . tainted with dishonor or extremely difficult to write or pronounce. But what about equity. . But the SC emphasized: “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. . the same shall be considered as falling much too short of the requirements of the rules. there are various laws which apply particularly to women such as the provisions of the Labor Code on employment of women. Silverio was born a male hence it was just but right that the entry written in his birth certificate is that he is a male. The sex of a person is determined at birth. Section 3. He is an indispensable party without whom no final determination of the case can be had. J. Unless all possible indispensable parties were duly notified of the proceedings. as ruled by the RTC? No. if not attended by error. 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.In 2003. the local civil registrar is required to be made a party in a proceeding for the correction of name in the civil registry. is immutable.Jennifer is genetically female but has phenotypic features of a male individual.The RTC granted her petition. To grant the changes sought by Silverio will substantially reconfigure and greatly alter the laws on marriage and family relations.Jennifer Cagandahan has organs of both male and female because she is suffering from a rare and permanent medical condition known as Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH). visually done by the birth attendant (the physician or midwife) by examining the genitals of the infant. the determination of a person’s sex made at the time of his or her birth.” REPUBLIC v CAGANDAHAN QUISUMBING. Silverio did not allege any of the above.1 1 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. he merely alleged gender re-assignment as the basis.(1) The petitioner finds the first name or nickname to be ridiculous.: FACTS: . These laws underscore the public policy in relation to women which could be substantially affected if Silverio’s petition were to be granted. Not with the courts because there is no law to support it. it has to enact legislation laying down the guidelines in turn governing the conferment of that privilege. among others. the Office of the Solicitor General appealed to the SC arguing that the petition is fatally defective because it violates Rule 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court since the petition did not implead the local civil registrar. Considering that there is no law legally recognizing sex reassignment. or (3) The change will avoid confusion. Second. (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. However. . Unfortunately. And not with the civil registry because there is no clerical error involved. Issue on the change of sex This entry cannot be changed either via a petition before the regular courts or a petition for the local civil registry. certain felonies under the Revised Penal Code and the presumption of survivorship in case of calamities under Rule 131 of the Rules of Court. she filed a Petition for Correction of Entries in her Birth Certificate to change her name from “Jennifer” to “Jeff” and her gender to male. According to the SC. this amounts to judicial legislation. It will allow the union of a man with another man who has undergone sex reassignment (a male-to-female post-operative transsexual).

The RTC declared the marriage void ab initio. But if we determine. “if we determine respondent to be a female. .00 because the latter never processed her petition for citizenship and all other persons who may have or may claim to have any interest that would be affected thereby. Fringer.The Court ruled that a change of name is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion.: FACTS: On October 22. she did not pay Fringer $2.The SC agrees that there is substantial compliance with Rule 108 when respondent furnished a copy of the petition to the local civil registrar. an American citizen. 2006.” It noted that Cagandahan “thinks of himself as a male and considering that his body produces high levels of male hormones (androgen). then there is no basis for a change in the birth certificate entry for gender. to him should belong the primordial choice of what courses of action to take along the path of his sexual development and maturation. they separated and never lived as husband and wife because they never really had any intention of entering into a married state or complying with any of their essential marital obligations. Respondent is the one who has to live with his intersex anatomy. 2004.In the absence of a law on the matter. J. Rule 1 of the Rules of Court states that courts shall construe the Rules liberally to promote their objectives of securing to the parties a just. . Thus. to be exercised in the light of the reasons and the consequences that will follow. In the instant case. and Albios were married. in deciding the case. alleging that immediately after their marriage. there is preponderant biological support for considering him as being male.” . To him belongs the human right to the pursuit of happiness and of health.000.00. REPUBLIC v ALBIOS MENDOZA. much less on whether or not to undergo medical treatment to reverse the male tendency due to CAH. Albios filed with the RTC a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage with Fringer. considered “the compassionate calls for recognition of the various degrees of intersex as variations which should not be subject to outright denial. as evidenced by a Certificate of Marriage.The Court. HELD: YES. However. Albios stated that she contracted Fringer to enter into a marriage to enable her to acquire American citizenship and that in consideration thereof. based on medical testimony and scientific development showing the respondent to be other than female.ISSUE: WON the change of name and sex may be allowed. the Court will not dictate on respondent concerning a matter so innately private as ones sexuality and lifestyle preferences. . The RTC opined that the parties married each other for convenience only.” It stressed that she has let nature take its course in her development to reveal more fully his male characteristics. speedy and inexpensive disposition of the matters brought before it. Neither will the Court force respondent to undergo treatment and to take medication in order to fit the mold of a female. . she agreed to pay him the sum of $2. On December 6. as society commonly currently knows this gender of the human species. The Court will not consider respondent as having erred in not choosing to undergo treatment in order to become or remain as a female. then a change in the subject’s birth certificate entry is in order.000.

Consent must also be conscious or intelligent. In fact. Their consent was also conscious and intelligent as they understood the nature and the beneficial and inconvenient consequences of their marriage. That their consent was freely given is best evidenced by their conscious purpose of acquiring American citizenship through marriage. In ruling that Albios’ marriage was void for lack of consent. A freely given consent requires that the contracting parties willingly and deliberately entered into the marriage. however. and incidents of marriage are governed by law and not subject to stipulation. Genuine consent was. for consent to be valid. the CA characterized such as akin to a marriage by way of jest. but for a complete absence of consent. The avowed purpose of marriage under Article 1 of the Family Code is for the couple to establish a conjugal and family life. and with a clear understanding that the parties would not be bound. legal in form but entered into as a joke. MARRIAGE IS VALID. such as the acquisition of foreign citizenship. considering that only a valid marriage can properly support an application for citizenship. There was a clear intention to enter into a real and valid marriage so as to fully comply with the requirements of an application for citizenship. ISSUE: WON the marriage is void ab initio on the ground that it lacks consent HELD: NO. Therefore. insufficient to nullify a marriage freely entered into in accordance with law. The ceremony is not followed by any conduct indicating a purpose to enter into such a relation. there was real consent because it was not vitiated nor rendered defective by any vice of consent. defective. it must be (1) freely given and (2) made in the presence of a solemnizing officer. clearly present. hence. an apparent intention to enter into the actual marriage status and to create a legal tie. so long as all the . consequences. A marriage may. The respondent’s marriage is not at all analogous to a marriage in jest. The CA affirmed the RTC ruling which found that the essential requisite of consent was lacking. Such plainly demonstrates that they willingly and deliberately contracted the marriage. Only a genuine consent to be married would allow them to further their objective. force. and both the beneficial or unfavorable consequences of their act. with no real intention of entering into the actual marriage status. albeit for a limited purpose. Based on the above. thus. There is no law that declares a marriage void if it is entered into for purposes other than what the Constitution or law declares. There is no genuine consent because the parties have absolutely no intention of being bound in any way or for any purpose.The OSG filed an appeal before the CA. There was a full and complete understanding of the legal tie that would be created between them. since it was that precise legal tie which was necessary to accomplish their goal. A marriage in jest is a pretended marriage. intimidation. Under Article 2 of the Family Code. The same Article 1 provides that the nature. and undue influence. such as fraud. The possibility that the parties in a marriage might have no real intention to establish a life together is. Marriages in jest are void ab initio. Albios and Fringer had an undeniable intention to be bound in order to create the very bond necessary to allow the respondent to acquire American citizenship. or unintelligent consent. Consent must be real in the sense that it is not vitiated nor rendered defective by any of the vices of consent under Articles 45 and 46 of the Family Code. consent was not lacking between Albios and Fringer. only be declared void or voidable under the grounds provided by law. the absence of any genuine consent. not for vitiated. thus.27 It is a pretended marriage not intended to be real and with no intention to create any legal ties whatsoever. therefore. in that the parties must be capable of intelligently understanding the nature of. as nothing impaired their ability to do so. There was.

. it shall be declared valid.essential and formal requisites prescribed by law are present. and it is not void or voidable under the grounds provided by law.