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 persons 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 respondents position and his personal judgment of being a male.
Silverio vs. Republic , GR No. 174689
Posted: October 5, 2011 in Case Digests
FACTS: On November 22, 2003, Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio filed a petition for the change
of his first name from Rommel Jacinto to Melly and sex of birth from male to female
in his birth certificate in the Regional Trial Court of Manila. On June 4, 2003, the trial court
rendered in favor of petitioner as it would be more in consonance with the principle of justice
and equity. That grating the petitioner would bring much awaited happiness on the part of the
petitioner and her fianc and the realization of their dreams. ON August 18, 2003, the
Republic of the Philippines, thru the office of the Solicitor General, 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.
ISSUE: Whether or not a person born male would be entitled to change of gender on the civil
registrar and afterwards be legally capacitated to entered into marriage with another man.
HELD: No. Sex reassignment is not a ground for change of gender. There is no law present
that allows such in our country. Neither may entries in the birth certificate as to first name or
sex be changed on the ground of equity. The remedies petitioner seeks involve questions of
public policy to be addressed solely by the legislature, not by the courts. As to contracting
marriage, our law allows only male and female with the main reason of procreation. Sex
reassignment scientifically has not yet made one completely into female, with the complete
function for reproduction.

EDUARDO P. MANUEL, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent

G.R. No. 165842
November 29, 2005

FACTS:

This case is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of Court of Appeals affirming
the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, convicting the petitioner for the crime
of bigamy.

Eduardo P. Manuel, herein petitioner, was first married to Rubylus Gaa on July 18, 1975,
who, according to the former, was charged with estafa in 1975 and thereafter imprisoned and
was never seen again by him after his last visit. Manuel met Tina B. Gandalera in January 1996
when the latter was only 21 years old. Three months after their meeting, the two got married
through a civil wedding in Baguio City without Gandaleras knowledge of Manuels first
marriage. In the course of their marriage, things got rocky and Gandalera learned that
Eduardo was in fact already married when he married him. She then filed a criminal case of
bigamy against Eduardo Manuel. The latters defense being that his declaration of single in
his marriage contract with Gandalera was done because he believed in good faith that his first
marriage was invalid and that he did not know that he had to go to court to seek for the
nullification of his first marriage before marrying Tina. The Regional Trial Court ruled against
him sentencing him of imprisonment of from 6 years and 10 months to ten years, and an
amount 0f P200,000.00 for moral damages.

Eduardo appealed the decision to the CA where he alleged that he was not criminally liable
for bigamy because when he married the private complainant, he did so in good faith and
without any malicious intent. The CA ruled against the petitioner but with modification on the
RTCs decision. Imprisonment was from 2 years, months and 1 day to ten years. Pecuniary
reward for moral damages was affirmed.

Hence, this petition.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed reversible error of law when it ruled that
petitioners wife cannot be legally presumed dead under Article 390 of the Civil Code as there
was no judicial declaration of presumptive death as provided for under Article 41 of the
Family Code.

2. Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed reversible error of law when it affirmed
the award of Php200,000.00 as moral damages as it has no basis in fact and in law.

HELD:

1. The petition is denied for lack of merit. The petitioner is presumed to have acted with
malice or evil intent when he married the private complainant. As a general rule, mistake of
fact or good faith of the accused is a valid defense in a prosecution for a felony by dolo; such
defense negates malice or criminal intent. However, ignorance of the law is not an excuse
because everyone is presumed to know the law. Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. Where a
spouse is absent for the requisite period, the present spouse may contract a subsequent
marriage only after securing a judgment declaring the presumptive death of the absent
spouse to avoid being charged and convicted of bigamy; the present spouse will have to
adduce evidence that he had a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead.
Such judgment is proof of the good faith of the present spouse who contracted a subsequent
marriage; thus, even if the present spouse is later charged with bigamy if the absentee
spouse reappears, he cannot be convicted of the crime.

The court ruled against the petitioner.

2. The Court rules that the petitioners collective acts of fraud and deceit before, during and
after his marriage with the private complainant were willful, deliberate and with malice and
caused injury to the latter. The Court thus declares that the petitioners acts are against
public policy as they undermine and subvert the family as a social institution, good morals
and the interest and general welfare of society. Because the private complainant was an
innocent victim of the petitioners perfidy, she is not barred from claiming moral damages.
Considering the attendant circumstances of the case, the Court finds the award of
P200,000.00 for moral damages to be just and reasonable.