FACTS:

Before the RTC, Cagandahan submitted a Petition for Correction of Entries in

Birth Certificate. She claimed that although she was registered as a female in
the Certificate of Live Birth when she was born on January 13, 1981, as she grew
older, she began to exhibit secondary male characteristics. This led doctors to
diagnose her with Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH), a condition that
causes sufferers to exhibit both male and female characteristics. She said that
she had changed into a man in terms of all of her hobbies, appearances, and
mental and emotional makeup. She prayed that her birth certificate would be
altered to reflect her new gender as a man and her new first name of Jeff rather
than Jennifer.

Respondent spoke in court and gave the testimony of Dr. Michael Sionzon from
the University of the Philippines-Philippine General Hospital's Department of
Psychiatry. A medical certificate from Dr. Sionzon identifies the respondent's
ailment as CAH. He stated that the respondent's uterus is not fully grown due to
a lack of female hormones, this condition is extremely uncommon, and she does
not have a monthly period. The respondent has made up her mind, has been
accustomed to her chosen role as a man, and the gender transition would be
helpful to her, he further testified, adding that the condition is permanent.

The RTC allowed the petition of the respondent.

Hence, the Office of the Solicitor General's (OSG) petition asking for the
overturning of the aforementioned decision. The OSG argues, among other
things, that Rule 108 forbids changing a person's birth certificate's gender or
sex, and that the respondent's alleged medical condition, CAH, does not
transform her into a man.
ISSUE

Whether the RTC erred in approving the petition based on the petitioner's
medical situation.

RULING:
No.
Identifying a person's sex based on information on his birth certificate is a legal
matter, so the court must consult the legislation. Only significant updates and
revisions to entries in the civil registry are now covered by Rule 108.

A repair to the civil record involving a change in sex is not merely a clerical or
typographical error, according to Rep. Act No. 9048. It is a significant alteration
for which Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is applicable.

The entries supplied in Articles 407 and 408 of the Civil Code are those that are
contemplated in Article 412 of the Civil Code and correctable under Rule 108 of
the Rules of Court. Even after birth, some behaviors, occurrences, or factual
inaccuracies are covered by Article 407 of the Civil Code.
Unquestionably, the respondent has CAH. It is one of numerous illnesses
involving the intersex anatomy. An intersex creature may possess biological
traits from both the male and female sexes.

In making our decision, we take into account the humane pleas for acceptance
of the varied degrees of intersex as variances that shouldn't be completely
denied. The current condition of Philippine law appears to require that people
be categorized as either male or female, but this Court is not bound by outward
appearances when nature fundamentally refutes such strict classification.
If we conclude that the respondent in this case is a woman, there is no
justification to amend the gender entry on the birth certificate. However, a
change to the subject's birth certificate entry is required if, as determined by
medical testimony and scientific advancement, the respondent is not female.

In the end, we believe that in cases where a person is physiologically or

naturally intersex, what the person, like responder, feels about his or her sex
with good reason after reaching the age of majority will determine how that
person is classified as to gender. The respondent in this case identifies as a man,
and there is strong biological evidence to support that notion given that his
body produces a lot of testosterone. In the case of intersex people, sexual
development renders the gender assigned at birth unclear. The gender of such
people, like the respondent, is fixed when they reach adulthood.

In this case, the respondent has only allowed nature to run its course without
intervening or stopping it in an unnatural way. And as a result, he has already
organized his life in a manly manner. In order to force his body into the
categorical mold of a female, the respondent may have undergone therapy and
taken actions, such as taking lifetime medication, but he chose not to. He
declined to do so. Instead, nature has allowed the respondent's development to
unfold naturally, revealing more of his masculine traits.

The Court will not order the respondent to undergo medical treatment to
reverse the male predisposition caused by CAH if there is no law governing the
matter because sexuality and lifestyle choices are inherently private. He is the
rightful owner of the pursuit of happiness and health. Thus, the initial decision
regarding the actions to be taken throughout the course of his sexual
development and maturation should belong to him. The Court upholds the
respondent's position and his personal judgment of being a male as valid and
justified in the absence of evidence that the respondent is a "incompetent" and
in the absence of evidence suggesting that classifying the respondent as a male
will harm other members of society who are equally entitled to legal protection.
We recognize the respondent's congenital condition as well as his wise choice
to identify as a man.

As for the respondent's name change under Rule 103, this Court has decided
that it is up to the judge to decide whether to make the change in light of the
arguments made and the likely outcomes. It is implied that a feminine name
was changed to a masculine name by the trial court's approval of the
respondent's name change from Jennifer to Jeff. We see merit in the
respondent's name change when we take into account the fact that it only
recognizes his preferred gender. Such a shift would be consistent with his
birth certificate's entry changing from female to male.

The Republic’s petition is denied.

REPUBLIC V CAGANDAHAN (DIGEST)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES V. JENNIFER B. CAGANDAHAN (CASE
DIGEST)

G.R. No. 166676

September 12, 2008

TOPIC: Change of Name, Change of Sex, Changes in Birth Certificate,

Intersex