Republic vs. Cagandahan G.R. No. 166676
Respondent here
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.
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 filed a petition at RTC Laguna for Correction
be a male. Life is already difficult for the of Entries in her Birth Certificate such that
ordinary person. We cannot but respect how her gender or sex be changed to male and
respondent deals with his unordinary state and
her first name be changed to Jeff.
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 ISSUE: WON correction of entries in her
not a matter of right but of judicial discretion, to birth certificate should be granted.
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 HELD:
name to a masculine name. Considering the
consequence that respondents change of name
merely recognizes his preferred gender, we find The Court considered the compassionate
merit in respondents change of name. Such a
calls for recognition of the various degrees
change will conform with the change of the
entry in his birth certificate from female to male of intersex as variations which should not be
subject to outright denial. SC is of the view
that where the person is biologically or
Republic vs naturally intersex the determining factor in
his gender classification would be what the
Cagandahan individual, having reached the age of
Republic vs. Cagandahan majority, with good reason thinks of his/her
sex. As in this case, respondent, thinks of
GR. No. 166676, September 12, 2008
himself as a male and considering that his
body produces high levels of male
hormones, there is preponderant biological
FACTS: support for considering him as being a
male. Sexual development in cases of
intersex persons makes the gender
Jennifer Cagandahan was registered as a classification at birth inconclusive. It is at
female in her Certificate of Live maturity that the gender of such persons,
Birth. During her childhood years, she like respondent, is fixed.
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

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 surgery. The Court says that his true name
does not prejudice him at all, and no law
October 22, 2007 (GR. No. allows the change of entry in the birth
174689) certificate as to sex on the ground of sex
reassignment. The Court denied the petition.
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