SILVERIO V.

REPUBLIC
G.R. No. 174689
October 22, 2007

Facts:
On November 26, 2002, petitioner Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio filed a petition to
change his first name and sex in his birth certificate in the Regional Trial Court of Manila. He
argued that ever since he was a child, he always feels, thinks and acts as a female which pushed
him to undergo some medical procedures in the United States to modify his body. His body
modification was then fully accomplished when he went to Bangkok, Thailand, wherein he
undergone a sex reassignment surgery (altering his penis in to a vagina), who was then
examined by a plastic and reconstruction surgeon in the Philippines, who issued a medical
certificate attesting that he (petitioner) had in fact undergone the procedure. Hence, he then
sought to have his name in his birth certificate changed from "Rommel Jacinto" to "Mely," and
his sex from "male" to "female."

The petioner was granted by the trial court, insisting that there is no harm manifested due
to the action of the petitioner and that no evidence was presented to show any cause or ground to
deny the present petition despite due notice and publication thereof. However, the Republic of
the Philippines (Republic), thru the OSG, filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals. It
alleged that there is no law allowing the change of entries in the birth certificate by reason of sex
alteration.

Issues
Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to change his name in his birth certificate;
Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to change his sex in his birth certificate

Ruling/Resolution:

a) NO. A person’s first name cannot be changed on the ground of sex reassignment. RA
9048 likewise provides the grounds for which change of first name may be allowed:
SECTION 4. Grounds for Change of First Name or Nickname. – The petition for
c hange of first name or nickname may be allowed in any of the following cases:
(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.

In the case of Silverio, his reason to change his first name was due to his sex
reassignment so that it will compatible with the sex he thought he transformed himself
into through surgery, which does not fall with the requirements of the RA 9048.

b) NO. There is no law allowing change of sex in the birth certificate on the ground of
sex reassignment. Article 376 of the Civil Code, this provision was amended by RA
9048 in so far as clerical or typographical errors are involved. This law provides that
a change of sex can only materialize if there is a clerical or typographical error made
which is different from the petition of Silverio of sex change through only a matter of
sex reassignment.
 REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES V. CAGANDAHAN
G.R. No. 166676
September 12, 2008

Facts:
On December 11, 2003, respondent Jennifer Cagandahan filed a Petition for Correction
of Entries in Birth Certificate before the RTC, Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna, to change her
name and sex in her birth certificate. She stated in her petition that she developed a secondary
male characteristics and was diagnosed to have Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) which is
a condition where persons thus afflicted possess both male and female characteristics. She sought
before the court to change her name from Jenifer to Jeff, and her sex from female to male.

She then proved her claim through Dr. Michael Sionzon of the Department of Psychiatry,
University of the Philippines-Philippine General Hospital. Dr. Sionzon who issued a medical
certificate stating that respondent’s condition is known as CAH.

The RTC was satisfied and hereby granted the respondent in her petition. However, a
petition by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) was raised seeking a reversal of the ruling
of the RTC.

Issues:
Whether or not the requirements of rules 103 and 108 of the rules of court have not been
complied with;
Whether or not correction of entry under rule 108 does not allow change of "sex" or
"gender" in the birth certificate, while respondent’s medical condition, i.e., congenital
adrenal hyperplasia does not make her a "male."

Ruling/Resolution:
Both yes. It is provided in RA 9048 the grounds for which change of first name may be
allowed:
SECTION 4. Grounds for Change of First Name or Nickname. – The petition for
c hange of first name or nickname may be allowed in any of the following cases:
(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.
Moreover, petition for change sex can only be entertained if there is a clerical or
typographical errors present in the situation.These grounds has not been met by the situation of
the respondent due to her condition which constitute an intersex identity, a nature of natural
phenomenon. However, the Court is not controlled by mere appearances when nature itself
fundamentally negates such rigid classification. The Court added that in ruling the case, they do
no more than give respect to (1) the diversity of nature; and (2) how an individual deals with
what nature has handed out. In other words, the court respect respondent’s congenital condition
and his mature decision to be a male. 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.