Republic v.

Capote GR 157043 February 2, 2007

Facts: Respondent ward filed a petition for change of name of her ward from Giovanni N.
Gallamaso to Giovanni Nadores. Giovanni is the illegitimate natural child of his parents. Nadores being
the surname of his mother and Gallamaso being the surname of his father. Surname of the father was
used as his birth was prior to the effectivity of the FC but FC repealed Art 366 of the CC and is now
under Art 176 of the FC.

Doctrine: Summary proceedings do not extensively address the issues of a case since the reason for
their conduct is expediency; A proceeding is adversarial where the party seeking relief has given legal
warning to the other party and afforded the latter an opportunity to contest it.

Art. 366 CC. A natural child acknowledged by both parents shall principally use the surname of the
father. If recognized by only one of the parents, a natural child shall employ the surname of the
recognizing parent. (emphasis ours)

Based on this provision, Giovanni should have carried his mother’s surname from birth. The records
do not reveal any act or intention on the part of Giovanni’s putative father to actually recognize him.
Meanwhile, according to the Family Code which repealed, among others, Article 366 of the Civil Code:
Art. 176. Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of their
mother, and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this Code.

Applying these laws, an illegitimate child whose filiation is not recognized by the father bears only a
given name and his mother’ surname, and does not have a middle name. The name of the
unrecognized illegitimate child therefore identifies him as such.

In this regard, [appellee] Capote complied with the requirement for an adversarial proceeding by
posting in a newspaper of general circulation notice of the filing of the petition. The lower court also
furnished the OSG a copy thereof. Despite the notice, no one came forward to oppose the petition
including the OSG. The fact that no one opposed the petition did not deprive the court of its
jurisdiction to hear the same nor does it make the proceeding less adversarial in nature.
Silverio v. Republic, GR 174689 (2007)
Facts: The case of Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio vs. Republic of the Philippines revolves around the
petitioner's request to change their first name and sex in their birth certificate due to sex
reassignment surgery. Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio, born male, identifies as female following
gender reassignment. The petitioner argues that their sex and name should reflect their new gender
identity. The case addresses the legal implications of sex reassignment and its effect on civil registry
records.

The petitioner, Silverio, filed a petition for a change of name and sex in their birth certificate in a RTC
in Manila. The court initially granted the petition, reasoning that it would be in line with justice and
equity. However, the Republic of the Philippines filed an appeal, arguing that there is no legal basis for
changing the birth certificate entries based on sex reassignment. The Court of Appeals sided with the
Republic, asserting that there is no law explicitly allowing such changes. The court emphasized that
the determination of a person's sex in birth certificates is a legal issue, and sex reassignment lacks
legal recognition.

Doctrine: The decision affirms that sex reassignment is not recognized by Philippine law as a reason to
change one's birth certificate entries. The court stresses the importance of legislative action to
address changes related to sex reassignment and maintains that changing such entries is not within
the court's jurisdiction. The court also highlights that changing birth certificate entries based on sex
reassignment could have far-reaching legal and public policy implications, particularly in areas such as
marriage and legal rights specific to gender. As of this ruling, sex reassignment does not constitute
legal grounds for changing birth certificate entries in the Philippines.
 Republic v Cagandahan
Facts: In the case of Republic of the Philippines vs. Jennifer B. Cagandahan, the Supreme Court ruled
on a petition for correction of entries in a birth certificate. Jennifer B. Cagandahan, the respondent,
had been registered as a female at birth but developed male physical characteristics due to
Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH), a condition resulting in both male and female characteristics.
The respondent, now identifying as a male, petitioned to change the name on the birth certificate
from Jennifer to Jeff and to alter the gender from female to male. The Regional Trial Court granted
the petition, but the Republic of the Philippines, the petitioner, appealed the decision.

Doctrine: The Supreme Court addressed whether the correction of entries in the birth certificate to
change gender and name was justified. The court held that when a person is biologically intersex, the
determining factor for gender classification should be the individual's self-identification, particularly
after reaching adulthood. In this case, the respondent had developed male characteristics, identified
as a male, and did not undergo medical interventions to force a female identity. The court ruled in
favor of the respondent, affirming the decision of the lower court to change the name and gender in
the birth certificate.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court recognized the complexities of gender identity and affirmed the
right of an intersex person to self-identify their gender, as long as there is no evidence that such
classification would harm others. This case set a precedent for allowing individuals with intersex
conditions to have their gender identity recognized in legal documents.
Braza v. City Civil Registrar, GR 181174, Dec. 4, 2009
Facts: The allegations of the petition filed before the trial court clearly show that petitioners seek to
nullify the marriage between Pablo and Lucille on the ground that it is bigamous and impugn Patrick’s
filiation in connection with which they ask the court to order Patrick to be subjected to a DNA test.

Doctrine:
Dismissed the petition without prejudice, it holding that in a special proceeding for correction of
entry, the court, which is not acting as a family court under the Family Code, has no jurisdiction over
an action to annul the marriage of Lucille and Pablo, impugn the legitimacy of Patrick, and order
Patrick to be subjected to a DNA test, hence, the controversy should be ventilated in an ordinary
adversarial action. In a special proceeding for correction of entry under Rule 108 (Cancellation or
Correction of Entries in the Original Registry), the trial court has no jurisdiction to nullify marriages
and rule on legitimacy and filiation.

The proceeding contemplated therein may generally be used only to correct clerical, spelling,
typographical and other innocuous errors in the civil registry. A clerical error is one which is visible to
the eyes or obvious to the understanding; an error made by a clerk or a transcriber; a mistake in
copying or writing, or a harmless change such as a correction of name that is clearly misspelled or of a
misstatement of the occupation of the parent. Substantial or contentious alterations may be allowed
only in adversarial proceedings, in which all interested parties are impleaded and due process is
properly observed.

It is well to emphasize that, doctrinally, validity of marriages as well as legitimacy and filiation can be
questioned only in a direct action seasonably filed by the proper party, and not through collateral
attack such as the petition filed before the court a quo.
Republic v Mercadera, GR 186027, December 8, 2010
Facts: Petitioner sought the correction of her given name as it appeared in her Certificate of Live Birth
- from Marilyn L. Mercadera to Merlyn L. Mercadera before the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of
Dipolog City pursuant to Republic Act No. 9048 (R.A. No. 9048).

The Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Dipolog City, however, refused to effect the correction unless
a court order was obtained "because the Civil Registrar therein is not yet equipped with a permanent
appointment before he can validly act on petitions for corrections filed before their office as
mandated by Republic Act 9048.

In her elementary diploma issued by the Paaralang Sentral ng Estaka, Dipolog City; her high school
diploma issued by the Zamboanga del Norte School of Arts and Trades, Dipolog City; and college
diploma issued by the Silliman University, Dumaguete City, where she earned the degree of Bachelor
of Secondary Education, uniformly show her name as Merlyn L. Mercadera

Doctrine: The RTC ruled that the documentary evidence presented by Mercadera sufficiently
supported the circumstances alleged in her petition. Considering that she had used "Merlyn" as her
given name since childhood until she discovered the discrepancy in her Certificate of Live Birth, the
RTC was convinced that the correction was justified.

The publication and posting of the notice of hearing in a newspaper of general circulation and the
notices sent to the OSG and the Local Civil Registry are sufficient indicia of an adverse proceeding. The
fact that no one opposed the petition, including the OSG, did not deprive the court of its jurisdiction
to hear the same and did not make the proceeding less adversarial in nature. Considering that the
OSG did not oppose the petition and the motion to present its evidence ex parte when it had the
opportunity to do so, it cannot now complain that the proceedings in the lower court were
procedurally defective