REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

JENNIFER CAGANDAHAN
GR No. 166676,       September 12, 2008

FACTS:

Jennifer Cagandahan filed before the Regional Trial Court Branch 33 of Siniloan,
Laguna a Petition for Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate of her name from Jennifer
B. Cagandahan to Jeff Cagandahan and her gender from female to male. It appearing
that Jennifer Cagandahan is suffering from Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia which is a
rare medical condition where afflicted persons possess both male and female
characteristics. Jennifer Cagandahan grew up with secondary male characteristics. To
further her petition, Cagandahan presented in court the medical certificate evidencing
that she is suffering from Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia which certificate is issued by
Dr. Michael Sionzon of the Department of Psychiatry, University of the Philippines-
Philippine General Hospital, who, in addition, explained that “Cagandahan genetically is
female but because her body secretes male hormones, her female organs did not
develop normally, thus has organs of both male and female.” The lower court decided
in her favor but the Office of the Solicitor General appealed before the Supreme Court
invoking that the same was a violation of Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court
because the said petition did not implead the local civil registrar.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Cagandahan’s sex as appearing in her birth certificate be changed.

RULING:

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. It held that, in deciding the
case, 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 made use of the available evidence presented in court including the
fact that private respondent thinks of himself as a male and as to the statement made
by the doctor that Cagandahan’s body produces high levels of male hormones
(androgen), which is preponderant biological support for considering him as being
male.”

The Supreme Court further held that they give respect to (1) the diversity of nature; and
(2) how an individual deals with what nature has handed out. That is, the Supreme
Court respects the respondent’s congenital condition and his mature decision to be a
male. Life is already difficult for the ordinary person. The Court added that a  change of
name is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion, to be exercised in the light of the
reasons and the consequences that will follow.