Case Digest

Rommel Silverio v. Republic

G.R. No. 174689, October 22, 2007
FACTS: On November 26, 2002, petitioner Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio
filed a petition for the change of his first name and sex in his birth certificate
in the RTC Branch 8 of Manila. His name was registered as Rommel
Jacinto Dantes Silverio in his certificate of live birth and his sex was
registered as male. Petitioner asserts that he is a transsexual, and had
always identified himself with girls since childhood. On SJanuary 27, 2001,
petitioner underwent sex reassignment surgery in Bangkok, Thailand. On
June 4, 2003, the trial court granted petitioners prayer to have his name
and sex entered in his certificate of live birth to conform with his present
sex. The Court of Appeals rendered a decision in favor of the Republic,
ruling that there is no law allowing change of name or sex in the birth
certificate on the basis of sex reassignment.
ISSUE: Can ones name or sex as it appears on the certificate of live birth
be changed on the ground of sex reassignment?
RULING: No, the Court ruled that the primary law governing change of
name is now RA 9048 (Clerical Error Law) and Section 1 hereof gives the
authority to change name to the city or municipal civil registrar or consul
general concerned. Such offices are given primary jurisdiction for name
change and the courts can only be sought when such actions are denied
therefrom. This was not followed in the case at bar. In addition, no law
allows the change of sex in the birth certificate on the basis of sex
reassignment, Sec. 2 (c) of RA 9048states that no correction must involve
the change of nationality, age, status or sex of petitioner. Furthermore,
change of name or sex on the ground of equity is not tenable in case at bar
since it would have far ranging implications and policy consequences such
as provisions in the penal and civil code that deals specifically for women
such as marriage, family relations and survivorship in calamities among
others.

Case Analyis

Identification of the Parties

The petitioner is ROMMEL JACINTO DANTES SILVERIO, while the
respondent is the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES.

Prior Proceedings

On November 26, 2002, petitioner Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio

filed a petition for the change of his first name and sex in his birth certificate
in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 8. The trial court ruled in favor
of petitioner. He appealed the case before the Court of Appeals which
rendered a decision in favor of the Republic.Hence the instant petition.

Theories of the Parties

The Republic of the Philippines (respondent), alleged that there is

no law allowing the change of entries in the birth certificate by reason of
sex alteration. On the other hand, Petitioner asserts that he is a
transsexual, and had always identified himself with girls since childhood.
On SJanuary 27, 2001, petitioner underwent sex reassignment surgery in
Bangkok, Thailand. On June 4, 2003, the trial court granted petitioners

prayer to have his name and sex entered in his certificate of live birth to
conform with his present sex

Objectives of the Parties

Petitioner essentially claims that the change of his name and sex in
his birth certificate is allowed under Articles 407 to 413 of the Civil Code,
Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court and RA 9048. The respondent
seeks for the rejection of the petitioners claim because prior to the
enactment of RA 9048, changing a persons sex to reflect his or her gender
identity and gender expression has been impossible.
The objective of both parties are both procedural but respondents side is
merely indispensable because it is supported with legal principles.

Key Facts

RTC gave due course to his petition, ruling based on equity, that
petitioners misfortune to be trapped in a mans body is not his own doing
and should not be taken against him and that no harm, injury or prejudice
will be caused to anybody if the petition were to be granted. His name was
thus changed to Mely, and sex to female.
The Republic appealed the case in the Court of Appeals, whereby
the decision was set aside because there is no law that provides for the
change of first name because of a sex reassignment.

Issues

(Issue in the RTC and CA) sole issue here is whether or not petitioner is
entitled to the relief asked for:

Whether or not a persons first name be changed because of sex

reassignment?

Whether or not entries in the Birth Certificate (B.C) be changed on

the basis of equity?

Holding and Finding

The SC held that a persons first name cannot be change because

of sex reassignment and RA 9048 deliberately expounded on how a name
can be change and sex reassignment is not one of them.

The SC held that No Law Allows The Change of Entry In The Birth
Certificate As To Sex On the Ground of Sex Reassignment. It is but clear to
state that a persons status is determined at birth and not by reassignment.
"Status" refers to the circumstances affecting the legal situation (that is, the
sum total of capacities and incapacities) of a person in view of his age,
nationality and his family membership.

Ratio Decidendi

Change of Name, primarily Administrative in nature: Section 1 of RA

9048 provides in essence that no entry in a civil register shall be changed
or corrected without a judicial order, except for clerical or typographical
errors, which can be changed by concerned city or municipal civil registrar
or consul general. The jurisdiction therefore is primarily lodged with these
officers. The intent and effect of the law is to exclude the change of first
name from the coverage of Rules 103 (Change of Name) and 108
(Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) of the Rules of
Court, until and unless an administrative petition for change of name is first
filed and subsequently denied.
In sum, the remedy and the proceedings regulating change of first
name are primarily administrative in nature, not judicial. Hence, the venue
to which petitioner filed is improper.

Grounds for change of name: RA 9048 provides the grounds for

which change of first name may be allowed: 1) petitioner finds the first
name or nickname to be ridiculous, tainted with dishonor or extremely
difficult to write or pronounce; 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; or 3) The change
will avoid confusion.
From these grounds, it can be gleaned that RA 9048 does not
sanction a change of first name on the ground of sex reassignment. Rather
than avoiding confusion, changing petitioners name for his declared
purpose may only create grave complication


No Law Allows The Change of Entry In The Birth Certificate As To
Sex On the Ground of Sex Reassignment: By virtue of RA 9048, Rule 108
now applies only to substantial changes and corrections in entries in the
civil register, excluding the clerical or typographical error. Section 2 of RA
9048 provides expressly that no correction must involve the change
of nationality, age, status or sex of the petitioner.
The entries envisaged in Article 412 of the Civil Code and
correctable under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court are those provided in
Articles 407 and 408 of the Civil Code (*please see the codal provisions).
The acts, events or factual errors contemplated under Article 407 of the
Civil Code include even those that occur after birth. However, no
reasonable interpretation of the provision can justify the conclusion that it
covers the correction on the ground of sex reassignment.
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.

Disposition

The Court of Appeals rendered a decision in favor of the Republic. It

has been expounded in the grounds given above that sex reassignment is
unreasonable. The Court ruled that the primary law governing change of
name is now RA 9048 (Clerical Error Law) and Section 1 hereof gives the
authority to change name to the city or municipal civil registrar or consul
general concerned. Such offices are given primary jurisdiction for name
change and the courts can only be sought when such actions are denied
therefrom.