SILVERIO V.
REPUBLIC insofar as his first name is concerned is
Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio is a male
transsexual. He’s a biological male who feels
trapped in a male body. Being that, he sought
gender re-assignment in Bangkok, Thailand. The
procedure was successful – he (she) now has a
female body. Thereafter, in 2002, he filed a
petition for the change of his first name (from
Rommel to Mely) and his sex (male to female)
in his birth certificate. He filed the petition
before the Manila RTC. He wanted to make
these changes, among others, so that he can
marry his American fiancé.
The RTC granted Silverio’s petition. The RTC
ruled that it should be granted based on equity;
that Silverio’s misfortune to be trapped in a
man’s body is not his own doing and should not
be in any way taken against him; that there was
no opposition to his petition (even the OSG did
not make any basis for opposition at this point);
that no harm, injury or prejudice will be caused
to anybody or the community in granting the
petition. On the contrary, granting the petition
would bring the much-awaited happiness on the
part of Silverio and [her] fiancé and the
realization of their dreams.
Later, a petition for certiorari was filed by the
OSG before the CA. The CA reversed the
decision of the RTC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the entries pertaining to
sex and first name in the birth certificate may be
changed on the ground of gender re-assignment.
HELD: No. The Supreme Court ruled that the
change of such entries finds no support in
existing legislation.
Issue on the change of first name
In 2001, Republic Act 9048 (AN ACT
AUTHORIZING THE CITY OR MUNICIPAL
CIVIL REGISTRAR OR THE CONSUL
GENERAL TO CORRECT A CLERICAL OR
TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN AN ENTRY
AND/OR CHANGE OF FIRST NAME OR
NICKNAME IN THE CIVIL REGISTER
WITHOUT NEED OF A JUDICIAL ORDER)
was passed. This law provides that it should be
the local civil registrar that has jurisdiction in
petitions for the change of first names and not
the regular courts. Hence, the petition of Silverio
procedurally infirm. Even assuming that the
petition filed properly, it cannot be granted still
because the ground upon which it is
based(gender re-assignment) is not one of those
provided for by the law. Under the law, a change
of name may only be grounded on the following:
(1) The 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.
Unfortunately, Silverio did not allege any of the
above, he merely alleged gender re-assignment
as the basis.
Issue on the change of sex
This entry cannot be changed either via a
petition before the regular courts or a petition for
the local civil registry. Not with the courts
because there is no law to support it. And not
with the civil registry because there is no clerical
error involved. Silverio was born a male hence it
was just but right that the entry written in his
birth certificate is that he is a male. The sex of a
person is determined at birth, visually done by
the birth attendant (the physician or midwife) by
examining the genitals of the infant. Considering
that there is no law legally recognizing sex
reassignment, the determination of a person’s
sex made at the time of his or her birth, if not
attended by error, is immutable.
But what about equity, as ruled by the RTC?
No. According to the SC, this amounts to
judicial legislation. To grant the changes sought
by Silverio will substantially reconfigure and
greatly alter the laws on marriage and family
relations. It will allow the union of a man with
another man who has undergone sex
reassignment (a male-to-female post-operative
transsexual). Second, there are various laws
which apply particularly to women such as the
provisions of the Labor Code on employment of
women, certain felonies under the Revised
1.) Yes. Emilio Tuason failed to present
Penal Code and the presumption of survivorship
witnesses or evidences that would prove
in case of calamities under Rule 131 of the Rules
his innocence that led to the courts’
of Court, among others. These laws underscore
decision to declare their marriage void
the public policy in relation to women which
under Article 36 of the Family Code
could be substantially affected if Silverio’s
based on the evidences presented by
petition were to be granted.
Maria Tuason.2.) No because his failure
to inform or to notify the court about his
confinement and medical treatment
But the SC emphasized: “If the legislature
therefrom is negligence which is not
intends to confer on a person who has undergone
excusable that led the court to deny his
sex reassignment the privilege to change his
petition.
name and sex to conform with his reassigned
sex, it has to enact legislation laying down the
guidelines in turn governing the conferment of
that privilege.” ----------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------
TUAZON VS. CA

FACTS:
In 1989, private respondent Maria Victoria L.
Tuason filed with the Regional Trial Court,
branch 149 of Makati a petition for annulment or
declaration of nullity of her marriage to
petitioner Emilio Tuason. In her complaint
Maria alleged that she and Emilio were married
on June 3, 1972 and as a result begot two
children and at the time of the marriage Emilio
Tuason was already Psychologically
Incapacitated to comply with his essential
marital obligation which became manifest
afterward and resulted in violent fights between
them. Maria also alleged that Emilio is a drug
user and a womanizer that in 1984 he left the
conjugal home and cohabitated with three
women in succession. After he left the conjugal
dwelling he gave minimal support to the family
and even refused to pay for the tuition of his
children compelling Maria to accept donations
and dole-outs from her family and friends.
Emilio likewise become spendrift and abused his
administration of the conjugal partnership.

ISSUES:
1.) whether or not Maria’s claim that Emilio was
already psychologically incapacitated at the time
of the marriage and becomes manifest only after
their marriage is a valid ground for the nullity of
their marriage.
2.) whether or not Emilio Tuason’s claim that he
was deprived of due process is correct.

HELD: