Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Silverio Vs RP (Sex Reassignment)
Silverio Vs RP (Sex Reassignment)
Issue:
Whether or not a change of name and sex in the birth cert. is allowed under Articles 407 to 413 of the
Civil Code, Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court and RA 9048, as petitioner claims.
Ruling:
The petition lacks merit. For these reasons:
Change of name is a privilege, not a right (even after acquiring physical change)
The petition was filed in the wrong place (it should have been filed with the local civil registrar
concerned, not the RTC)
R.A. 9048 is now the governing law, and removes name change from the coverage of 103
(change of name) and 108 (cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry)
R.A 9048 only allows name change when:
1. Name is ridiculous, w/ dishonor, hard to pronounce
2. Name is publicly known in community
3. Change of Name will avoid confusion
Art. 407 of the Civil Code only allows for correction of error, not change. (there was no error
in birth cert.), even then, Art. 407 does not cover correction on grounds of sex reassignment.
It has been established that sex falls under special laws since it is part of a status that
affects legal situation (such as in marriage and family). However, there is no special law in the
Philippines governing sex reassignment and its effects.
Sex is determined at birth by the people present, only male and female in their ordinary sense
as it was understood in the early 1900s, and sexual assignment is not recognized.
To change the birth cert. is in fact not in line with equity.
1. The approval of the RTC, with the open intention of the petitioner to marry after the birth
cert. change will alter the laws on marriage and family relations to include people who
have undergone sexual reassignment.
2. The laws pertaining to women only will be affected
Only the legislature can set the guidelines who may apply for such changes, not the courts.
The courts can only implement the law.