(Labaya, Paolo Bernabe E.
)
Silverio v. Republic
October 19, 2007 | Corona, J. | Gender
PETITIONERS: Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio
RESPONDENTS: Republic of the Philippines
DOCTRINE/s: Gender reassignment surgery is not a ground for the
change in entries in the Civil Registry.
FACTS:
1. Born as Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio, he sought to have his name
and sex in his birth certificate changed after undergoing several
procedures, including a sex reassignment surgery, by filling a
petition with the RTC of Manila. Silverio impleaded the civil
registrar of Manila as respondent.
2. The petition came after he was engaged to be married to an
American citizen Richard Edel. Since he cannott marry another male,
he asked the court for the change of his name and sex in his birth
certificate
3. The RTC held that granting of the petition would be more in
consonance with justice and equity. Furthermore, no harm, injury or
prejudice will be caused to anybody or the community in granting
the petition. Finally, no evidence was presented to show any cause or
ground to deny the present petition. Hence, the RTC granted
Silverio’s petition.
4. A petition for certiorari challenging the lower court’s ruling was
filed by the Republic through the OSG. It alleged that there is no law
allowing the change of entries in the birth certificate by reason of sex
alteration.
5. Thereafter, the CA held in favor of the Republic; that the trial court’s
decision had no legal basis and that there is no law allowing the
change of either name or sex in the certificate of birth on the ground
of sex reassignment through surgery. Thus, the CA set aside the
RTC’s ruling
6. Silverio then elevated the matter to the SC arguing that the change of
his name and sex in the birth certificate is allowed under A 407-413
of the Civil Code, and Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court, and
RA 9048
ISSUE/s:
1. Whether entries in the birth certificate may be changed on the ground
of gender reassignment - NO
RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED
RATIO:
Silverio believed that after having acquired the physical features of a female,
he became entitled to the civil registry changes sought.
1. The State has an interest in the names borne by individuals and
entities for purposes of identification. A change of name is a
privilege not a right. Such petitions for change of name are
controlled by statutes.
2. Under RA 9048, the power and authority to entertain petitions for
change of first name. The jurisdiction over applications for change of
first name is now primarily lodged with city or municipal registrar,
or consul general. Under said law, the grounds are provided for the
change of first names.
a. The first name or nickname is ridiculous, tainted with
dishonor, or extremely difficult to write or pronounce
b. 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
c. The change will avoid confusion
3. Silverio’s basis for change in name was his sex reassignment.
However, the change of name does not alter one’s legal capacity or
civil status. Furthermore, RA 9048 does not sanction a change of
first name on the ground of sex reassignment.
4. On the issue of sex, the SC held that there is no law that allows
change of sex in the birth certificate on the ground of sex
reassignment.
5. The issue of a person’s sex appearing in his birth certificate is legal
issue and the Court must look to the statutes. Article 412 of the Civl
Code provides that no entry in the civil register shall be change or
corrected without a judicial order. This was amended under RA 9048
as well insofar as clerical or typographical errors are involved. Under
RA 9048, such clerical or typographical error corrections are
administrative proceedings merely and will not require judicial order.
On the same law, RA 9048 defines typographical or clerical error as
merely a mistake committed in the performance of clerical work in
writing, copying transcribing an entry in the civil register that is
harmless and innocuous. Provided, however, that no correction must
involve the change of nationality, age, status, or sex or petitioner.
 (Labaya, Paolo Bernabe E.)
Article 407 and 408 of the Civil Code enunciates those that can be
covered by typographical errors. It even includes those events that
may happen after birth such as naturalization, marriage, dissolution
of marriage, adoption, acknowledgement among others. But among
those mentioned is not sex reassignment.
6. A person’s sex is an essential factor in marriage and family relations.
It is part of a person’s legal capacity and civil status. 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 law in the Philippines that provides for sex
reassignment and its effects.
7. Moreover, under Civil register Law, a birth certificate records the
facts as they existed at the time of birth. Thus, the sex of a person is
determined at birth. Considering that there is no law legally
recognizing sex reassignment, the determination of a person’s sex
made at the time of birth, if not attended by error, is immutable.
8. Lastly, the Civil Register Law was enacted in the early 1900s. Such
law used the words male and female in its common sense. As such, it
cannot be argued that the term sex as used then is something
alterable through surgery or something that allows a post-operative
male-to-female transsexual to be included in the category female,