Republic vs Cagandahan

Republic vs. Cagandahan

GR. No. 166676, September 12, 2008
FACTS:

Jennifer Cagandahan was registered as a female in her Certificate of Live Birth. During her childhood years, she suffered
from clitoral hypertrophy and was later on diagnosed that her ovarian structures had minimized. She likewise has no
breast nor menstruation. Subsequently, she was diagnosed of having Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH), a condition
where those afflicted possess secondary male characteristics because of too much secretion of male hormones,
androgen. According to her, for all interests and appearances as well as in mind and emotion, she has become a male
person. She filed a petition at RTC Laguna for Correction of Entries in her Birth Certificate such that her gender or sex be
changed to male and her first name be changed to Jeff.

ISSUE: WON correction of entries in her birth certificate should be granted.

HELD:

The Court considered the compassionate calls for recognition of the various degrees of intersex as variations which
should not be subject to outright denial. SC is of the view that where the person is biologically or naturally intersex the
determining factor in his gender classification would be what the individual, having reached the age of majority, with
good reason thinks of his/her sex. As in this case, respondent, thinks of himself as a male and considering that his body
produces high levels of male hormones, there is preponderant biological support for considering him as being a male.
Sexual development in cases of intersex persons makes the gender classification at birth inconclusive. It is at maturity
that the gender of such persons, like respondent, is fixed.

REPUBLIC v. CAGANDAHAN
July 14, 2012 § Leave a comment

Republic v. Cagandahan
September 12, 2008 (G.R. No. 166676)

PARTIES:petitioner: Republic of the Philippinesrespondent: Jennifer B. Cagandahan

FACTS:On December 11, 2003, respondent Jennifer Cagandahan filed a petition for Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate

before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, of Siniloan, Laguna; such that, her name be changed to “Jeff” and her gender to

“male”.She was born in January 13, 1981, and was registered as female, having the name “Jennifer Cagandahan”. While

growing up, she was diagnosed to have Congenital Adrenal Hyperpplasia (CAH), a condition where the person thus

afflicted possesses both male and female characteristics. She was also diagnosed to have clitoral hypertrophy, small

ovaries, no breast, and menstrual development. She alleged that for all interests and appearances as well as in mind and

emotion, she has become a male person.

ISSUE:WON the correction of entries in her birth certificate be granted.

HELD:

Yes. The court considered the compassionate calls for recognition of the various degrees of intersex as variations which

should not be subject to outright denial. The Court views that where a person is biologically or naturally intersex, the

determining factor in his gender classification would be what the individual, having reached the age of maturity, with good

reason thinks of his/her sex. The respondent here thinks of himself as a male considering that his body produces high

levels of male hormones. There is preponderant biological support for considering him as a male.

REPUBLIC VS. CAGANDAHAN

REPUBLIC VS. CAGANDAHAN

G.R. No. 166676, September 12, 2008

Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines

Respondent: Jennifer B. Cagandahan

Ponente: J. Quisimbing

Facts:

The respondent’s petition was granted by the RTC on January 12, 2005. The following facts were presented by
the respondent to the RTC:

(a) She was born on January 13, 1981 and was registered as female in the Certificate of Live birth.

(b) While growing up, she developed secondary male characteristics because of CAH, which is a condition
where persons thus afflicted possess both male and female characteristics.

(c) Respondent testified and presented the testimony of Dr. Michael Sionzon of the Department of Psychiatry,
UP-PGH and the latter issued a medical certificate. Such document testified respondent’s claim.

Thus, this petition by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) seeking a reversal of the abovementioned ruling
had been filed.

Issue:

The issue raised in this petition is:

(1) Whether or not the trial court erred in ordering the correction of entries in the birth certificate of respondent
to change her sex or gender, from female to male, on the ground of her medical condition knows as CAH, and
her name from “Jennifer” to “Jeff”, under Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court.

Held:

(1) No. The trial court did not err in ordering the correction of entries in the birth certificate of respondent. The
court considered the unique circumstance in this case where nature had taken its course.

“As for respondent's change of name under Rule 103, this Court has held that a change of name is not
a matter of right but of judicial discretion, to be exercised in the light of the reasons adduced and the
consequences that will follow. The trial court's grant of respondent's change of name from Jennifer to
Jeff implies a change of a feminine name to a masculine name. Considering the consequence that
respondent's change of name merely recognizes his preferred gender, we find merit in respondent's
change of name. Such a change will conform with the change of the entry in his birth certificate from
female to male.”
Republic v. Jennifer B. Cagandahan case brief summary

G.R. No. 166676, September 12, 2008

FACTS: Jennifer Cagandahan alleged that she was born on January 13, 1981, registered as a female in the Certificate of
Live Birth but while growing up developed secondary male characteristics and eventually diagnosed with Congenital
Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH). On December 11, 2003, respondent filed a Petition for Correction of Entries in Birth
Certificate before the RTC, Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna.

Respondent alleges that she had clitoral hypertrophy in her early years, at age six, after an ultrasound, it was discovered
that she had small ovaries but at 13 years old, tests revealed that her ovarian structures had diminished, stopped
growing and had no breast or menses. For al intents and purposes, as well as in disposition, considered herself male. To
prove her claim, respondent presented Dr. Michael Sionzon of the Department of Psychiatry, UP-PGH, who issued a
medical certificate stating that respondent is genetically female but her body secretes male hormones, has two organs
of which the female part is undeveloped.

RTC granted respondent’s petition.

ISSUE: Can a genetically female but predominantly male person request for change of name and gender?

RULING: The Court ruled that the governing law with respect to change of name and gender is RA 9048. Respondent,
indisputably, has CAH, as such, is characterized by inappropriate manifestations of male characteristics, although are
genetically female. CAH people also have ambiguous private parts, appearing more male than female but have internal
female reproductive organs which may become undeveloped. These individual’s are commonly referred to as inters ex,
and respondent, having reached the age of majority, and having decided to be male, considering that his body produces
high levels of male hormones is a preponderant biological support for considering him male.

Republic’s petition is denied. RTC Branch 33 decision is affirmed.

Republic vs. Cagandahan, GR No. 166676

Posted: October 5, 2011 in Case Digests

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: The issue in this case is the validity of the change of sex or gender and name of respondent as ruled by the lower
court.

HELD: The contention of the Office of the Solicitor General that the petition is fatally defective because it failed to
implead the local civil registrar as well as all persons who have or claim any interest therein is not without merit.
However, it must be stressed that private respondent furnished the local civil registrar a copy of the petition, the order
to publish on December 16, 2003 and all pleadings, orders or processes in the course of the proceedings. In which case,
the Supreme Court ruled that there is substantial compliance of the provisions of Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of
Court. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that the determination of a person’s sex appearing in his birth certificate is
a legal issue which in this case should be dealt with utmost care in view of the delicate facts present in this case.
In deciding the case, the Supreme Court brings forth the need to elaborate the term “intersexuality” which is the
condition or let us say a disorder that respondent is undergoing. INTERSEXUALITY applies to human beings who cannot
be classified as either male or female. It is the state of a living thing of a gonochoristic species whose sex chromosomes,
genitalia, and/or secondary sex characteristics are determined to be neither exclusively male nor female. It is said that
an organism with intersex may have biological characteristics of both male and female sexes. In view of the foregoing,
the highest tribunal of the land consider the compassionate calls for recognition of the various degrees of intersex as
variations which should not be subject to outright denial.

The current state of Philippine statutes apparently compels that a person be classified either as a male or as a female,
but this Court is not controlled by mere appearances when nature itself fundamentally negates such rigid classification.
That is, Philippine courts must render judgment based on law and the evidence presented. In the instant case, there is
no denying that evidence points that respondent is male. In determining respondent to be a female, there is no basis for
a change in the birth certificate entry for gender. The Supreme Court held that where the person is biologically or
naturally intersex the determining factor in his gender classification would be what the individual, like respondent,
having reached the age of majority, with good reason thinks of his/her sex. Sexual development in cases of intersex
persons makes the gender classification at birth inconclusive. It is at maturity that the gender of such persons, like
respondent, is fixed. The Court will not consider respondent as having erred in not choosing to undergo treatment in
order to become or remain as a female. Neither will the Court force respondent to undergo treatment and to take
medication in order to fit the mold of a female, as society commonly currently knows this gender of the human species.
Respondent is the one who has to live with his intersex anatomy. To him belongs the human right to the pursuit of
happiness and of health. Thus, to him should belong the primordial choice of what courses of action to take along the
path of his sexual development and maturation. In the absence of evidence that respondent is an “incompetent” and in
the absence of evidence to show that classifying respondent as a male will harm other members of society who are
equally entitled to protection under the law, the Supreme Court affirmed as valid and justified the respondent’s position
and his personal judgment of being a male.