CASE DIGEST on Persons & Family Relations
Case Title:
Republic vs. Cagandahan
G.R. No. 166676
September 12, 2008
Ponente:
Quisumbing, J.:
Doctrine Stated by the Supreme Court: 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.
Facts of the Case:
Republic of the Philippines, petitioner VS. Jeniffer Cagandahan, respondent
I. Originating Court: 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
A. Arguments:
Petitioner/Plaintiff Respondent/Defendant
The petitioner alleged that she was born No opposition to the petition was
on January 13, 1981 and was registered made.
as a female in the Certificate of Live Birth
but while growing up, she developed
secondary male characteristics and was
diagnosed to have Congenital Adrenal
Hyperplasia (CAH).
She prayed that her gender be changed
from female to male and her first name be
changed from Jennifer to Jeff as for all
interests and appearances as well as in
mind and emotion, she has become a
male person.
B. Decision of the Court: After presenting clear and convincing proofs for the granting of this
petition, the Court is convinced that petitioner has satisfactorily shown that he is entitled to the
reliefs prayed for. The Civil Register of Pakil, Laguna is hereby ordered to make the following
corrections in the birth certificate of Jennifer Cagandahan upon payment of the prescribed
fees.
II. Appellate Court: The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), petitioner, seek a reversal of the ruling
dated January 12, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna.
A. Arguments:
Petitioner/Plaintiff Respondent/Defendant
1. The requirements of rules 103 and 108 1. Respondent, invoked Section 6, Rule
of the rules of court have not been 1 of the Rules of Court which states that
complied with; and, courts shall construe the Rules liberally
to promote their objectives of securing to
2. Correction of entry under rule 108 does the parties a just, speedy and
not allow change of "sex" or "gender" in inexpensive disposition of the matters
the birth certificate, while respondent’s brought before it.
medical condition, i.e., Congenital Adrenal
2. There is substantial compliance with
Hyperplasia does not make her a "male." Rule 108 when respondent furnished a
copy of the petition to the local civil
registrar.
3. The respondent with CAH should
have the primordial choice of what
courses of action to take along the path
of his sexual development and
maturation.
B. Decision of the Appellate Court: The Republic’s petition is DENIED.
Issues:
The current state of Philippine statutes apparently compels that a person be classified either as a
male or as a female, however, in case of Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia, a “disorder” that involves
intersex anatomy, nature itself fundamentally negates such rigid classification.
Ruling:
The Decision dated January 12, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna,
is AFFIRMED.
In the case of intersex individuals or those with CAH, the respondent is undisputedly has Congenital
Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH). If the respondent was determined to be a female, then there is no basis
for a change in the birth certificate entry for gender. But if determined otherwise, based on medical
testimony and scientific development showing the respondent to be other than male, then a change in
the subject’s birth certificate entry is in order. In ruling, the court respected respondent’s congenital
condition and his mature decision to be a male.
As for respondent’s change of name, the 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, the court found 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.
Catu Jr., Marcos V.
JD-1B
