GR No.

166676

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner

CASE
vs. JENNIFER B. CAGANDAHAN, Respondent

Article 6, Family Code of the Philippines

Art. 6. No prescribed form or religious rite for the solemnization of the marriage is required. It shall be
necessary, however, for the contracting parties to appear personally before the solemnizing officer and
declare in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age that they take each other as husband and
wife. This declaration shall be contained in the marriage certificate which shall be signed by the contracting
parties and their witnesses and attested by the solemnizing officer.

In case of a marriage in articulo moris, when the party at the point of death is unable to sign the
marriage certificate, it shall be sufficient, for one of the witnesses to the marriage to write the name of the
said party, which fact shall be attested by the solemnizing officer. (55a)

FACTS ISSUE/S RULING

A. Jennifer Cagandahan filed for Whether or not the Yes.

a Petition for Correction of
Entries in Birth Certificate on
December 11, 2003 at the
RTC Branch 33 of Siniloan,
Laguna.
B. Cagandahan alleged that she
was born on the 13th of
January 1981, was registered
as a female in the Certificate
of Live Birth however, while
growing up, she developed
secondary male
characteristics and was
diagnosed to have Congenital
Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH.
This a condition where a
person afflicted possesses
both male and female
characteristics. She further
alleged that she was
diagnosed to have Clitoral
Hyperthrophy in her early
years at age six, underwent an
ultrasound where it was
discovered that she has small
ovaries. At age 13, tests were
also revealed that her ovarian
structures had minimized, and
that she has no breast or
menstrual development. All
these led to the idea that for all
interests and appearances as
well as in mind and in emotion,
she has become a male
person. Thus, she prayed that
her be changed and her first
correction of entries in her
birth certificate should be
granted or not.
The Supreme Court considered the
compassionate calls for recognition of
the various degrees of intersex as
variations which should not be subject to
outright denial.
The Supreme Court is on a view that
where the person is biologically or
naturally intersex the determining factor
in his gender classification would what
the individual , like Respondent, having
reached the age of maturity, with good
reason thinks his/her sex.
In this case, Cagandahan 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.
The Supreme Court give respect (1) the
diversity of nature; and (2) how an
individual deals with what nature has
handed out. This means that the
Supreme Court respects the
respondent’s condition and his decision
to become a male and by changing his
name from Jennifer to Jeff.
Furthermore, under the Rule 103 of the
Rules of Court, Court has held that a
change of name is not a matter of right
 name be changed from but of judicial discretion, to be exercised
Jennifer to Jeff. in the light of the reasons adduced and
the consequences that will follow.
C. Respondent proved her claim
by testifying and presented the
testimony of Dr. Michael WHEREFORE, the Republic’s petition
Sionzon of the Department of is DENIED. The Decision dated January
Psychiatry, University of the 12, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court,
Philippines – Philippine Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna,
General Hospital. Dr. Sionzon is AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to
issued a medical certificate costs.
stating that Cagandahan’s
condition is known as CAH.
He explained that respondent
is female but because her
body secretes male hormones,
or her female organs did not
develop normally and she has
two sex organs – female and
male.

Ruling of RTC: RTC granted

respondent’s petition RTC was
convinced that petitioner has shown
that Respondent is entitled to the
reliefs prayed for. However, the Office
of the Solicitor General petitioned that
the requirements of Rules 103 and 108
of court have not been complied with
on the grounds of Respondent’s
medical condition.

OSG further contends that

respondent’s 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 years prior to the
date of such filing as mandated under
Section 2(b), Rule 103 of the Rules of
Court.

Prepared by:

Clarence B. Fuentes