Title of the Case Recit-Ready Digest Facts Issue(s) Ruling

The petitioner alleged Petitioner alleged Whether or not the The petition lacks merit.
Silverio v. Republic that his name was in his petition petitioner is allowed to
(Legal Capacity), registered as Rommel that he was born invoke his right to change A persons name
Jacinto Dantes Silverio in the City of his name and sex in his cannot be changed on
G.R. No. 174689; October in his birth certificate, Manila to the birth certificate through the ground of sex
22, 2007 while his sex was spouses Melecio Articles 407 to 413 of the reassignment:
registered as male. He Petines Silverio Civil Code, Rules 103 and The State has an
Ponente: Justice Corona further alleged that he and Anita Aquino 108 of the Rules of Court interest in the
is a male transsexual, on April 4, 1962; and R.A. 9048 No. names borne by
* A persons sex is an that is, anatomically his name was individuals and
essential factor in marriage male but feels, thinks registered as entities for
and family relations. It is a and acts as a female Rommel Jacinto purposes of
part of a persons legal and that he had always Dantes Silverio identification; a
capacity and civil status. identified himself with in his birth change of name
There is no special law in girls since childhood. certificate, and is a privilege,
the Philippines governing He also underwent sex his sex was and not a right;
sex reassignment and its reassignment surgery registered as petitions for
effects. in Bangkok, Thailand. male change of name
He then sought to have Petitioner further are controlled by
Doctrines to remember: his name in his birth alleged that he is statutes
1.) A change of name certificate changed a male Article 376 of
DOES NOT ALTER ONES from Rommel Jacinto transsexual, that the Civil Code
LEGAL CAPACITY OR to Mely, and his sex is, anatomically provides the
CIVIL STATUS; R.A. No. from male to male but feels, following: No
9048 does not sanction a female. The petition thinks, and acts person can change
change of first name on was granted by trial as a female and his name or
the ground of sex court, but was reversed that he had surname without
reassignment by the Court of Appeals. always judicial authority
identified R.A. No. 9048
2.) Under R.A. No. 9048, a The issue in this case is himself with governs the
correction in the civil whether or not the girls since change of first
registry involving the petitioner is allowed to childhood name; the intent
change of sex is not a invoke his right to He underwent and effect of the
mere clerical or change his name psychological law is to exclude
typographical error; it is through a special law examination after the change of
a substantial change for (R.A. 9048) due to his consulting a first name from
which the applicable gender reassignment. number of the coverage of
procedure is Rule 108 of The ruling of the doctors in the Rules 103 and
the Rules of Court Supreme Court is no. U.S., as well as 108 of the Rules
hormone of Court, until
3.) Under the Civil The Supreme Court treatment and and unless an
Register Law, a birth affirmed the CA. breast administrative
certificate is a historical augmentation petition for
record of facts as they Ruling of the SC: January 27, 2001 change of name
existed at the time of A persons name was the date is first filed and
birth; thus, the sex of the cannot be changed on when his subsequently
person is determined at the ground of sex attempts to denied
birth, by examining the reassignment: transform into a A change of
genitals of the infant The State has an woman name DOES NOT
interest in the culminated; he ALTER ONES
names borne by underwent LEGAL CAPACITY
individuals and reassignment OR CIVIL
entities for surgery in STATUS; R.A. No.
purposes of Bangkok, 9048 does not
 identification; a Thailand; he sanction a
change of name was thereafter change of first
is a privilege, examined by Dr. name on the
and not a right; Marcelino ground of sex
petitions for Reysio-Cruz, Jr., reassignment
change of name a plastic and Before a person
are controlled reconstruction can legally
by statutes surgeon in the change his given
Article 376 of Philippines, who name, he must
the Civil Code issued a medical present proper
provides the certificate or reasonable
following: No attesting that he cause or any
person can (the petitioner) compelling
change his name had in fact reason to justify
or surname undergone the such change; in
without judicial procedure addition, he
authority From then on, must show that
R.A. No. 9048 petitioner lived as he will be
governs the a female and was prejudiced by
change of first in fact engaged to the use of his
name; the be married; he true and official
intent and then sought to name
effect of the have his name in
law is to his birth No law allows the
exclude the certificate change of entry in the
change of first changed from birth certificate as to
name from the Rommel sex on the ground of
coverage of Jacinto to sex reassignment:
Rules 103 and Mely, and his Article 412 of
 108 of the sex from male the Civil Code
Rules of Court, to female provides the
until and An order setting following: No
unless an the case for initial entry in the civil
administrative hearing was register shall be
petition for published in the changed or
change of name Peoples Journal corrected without
is first filed and Tonight, a a judicial order
subsequently newspaper of Under R.A. No.
denied general 9048, a
A change of circulation in correction in the
name DOES Metro Manila, for civil registry
NOT ALTER three consecutive involving the
ONES LEGAL weeks; copies of change of sex is
CAPACITY OR the order were not a mere
CIVIL STATUS; sent to the Office clerical or
R.A. No. 9048 of the Solicitor typographical
does not General (OSG) error; it is a
sanction a and the civil substantial
change of first registrar of change for which
name on the Manila the applicable
ground of sex On the scheduled procedure is
reassignment hearing, judicial Rule 108 of the
Before a requirements Rules of Court
person can were Status refers to
legally change established, and the
his given name, no opposition to circumstances
he must the petition was affecting the
present proper made; and legal situation
 or reasonable during the trial, (the sum total of
cause or any the petitioner capacities and
compelling testified for incapacities) of a
reason to himself, and also person in view of
justify such presented his his age,
change; in American fianc nationality and
addition, he and Dr. Reysio- his family
must show that Cruz membership
he will be June 4, 2003: the A persons sex is
prejudiced by RTC of Manila an essential
the use of his rendered a factor in
true and decision, which marriage and
official name was in favour of family relations;
the petitioner; it is a part of a
No law allows the the RTC persons legal
change of entry in the mentioned that capacity and
birth certificate as to granting the civil status
sex on the ground of petition would (Article 413 of
sex reassignment: be more in the Civil Code)
Article 412 of consonance with Although, there
the Civil Code the principles of is no special law
provides the justice and in the
following: No equity, since Philippines
entry in the civil petitioners governing sex
register shall be misfortune to be reassignment
changed or trapped in a and its effects
corrected mans body is Under the Civil
without a not his own Register Law, a
judicial order doing and birth certificate
 Under R.A. No. should not be in is a historical
9048, a any way taken record of facts as
correction in against him; the they existed at
the civil court also ruled the time of birth;
registry that the thus, the sex of
involving the petitioners the person is
change of sex is happiness does determined at
not a mere not injure or birth, by
clerical or prejudice examining the
typographical society; and no genitals of the
error; it is a evidence was infant
substantial presented to While petitioner
change for show cause or may have
which the ground to deny succeeded in
applicable the petition altering his body
procedure is despite due and appearance
Rule 108 of the notice and through the
Rules of Court publication intervention of
Status refers modern surgery,
to the August 18, 2003: no law
circumstances the Republic of authorizes the
affecting the the Philippines, change of entry
legal situation through the as to sex in the
(the sum total Office of the civil registry for
of capacities Solicitor General that reason;
and (OSG), filed a thus, there is no
incapacities) of petition for legal basis for
a person in certiorari in the his petition for
view of his age, Court of Appeals the correction or
 nationality and (C.A.); it alleged change of the
his family that there is no entries in his
membership law allowing the birth certificate
A persons sex change of
is an essential entries in the Neither may entries in
factor in birth certificate the birth certificate as
marriage and by reason of sex to first name or sex be
family alteration changed on the ground
relations; it is a of equity:
part of a February 23, The changes
persons legal 2006: The Court sought by the
capacity and of Appeals petitioner will
civil status rendered a have serious and
(Article 413 of decision in wide-ranging
the Civil Code) favour of the legal and public
Although, there Republic; it policy
is no special ruled that the consequences;
law in the trial courts first, even the
Philippines decision lacked RTC itself found
governing sex legal basis, since that the petition
reassignment there is no law was but
and its effects allowing the petitioners first
Under the Civil change of either step towards his
Register Law, a name or sex in eventual
birth the certificate of marriage to his
certificate is a birth on the male fianc.
historical ground of sex However,
record of facts reassignment marriage, one of
as they existed through surgery the most sacred
 at the time of social
birth; thus, the Petitioner prayed institutions, is a
sex of the for a motion for special contract
person is reconsideration, of a permanent
determined at but was denied. union between a
birth, by Hence, this man and a
examining the petition woman; one of
genitals of the the essential
infant requisites is the
While legal capacity of
petitioner may the contracting
have parties who
succeeded in must be a male
altering his and a female
body and To grant the
appearance changes sought
through the by petition will
intervention of substantially
modern reconfigure and
surgery, no law greatly alter the
authorizes the laws on
change of entry marriage and
as to sex in the family relations
civil registry To reiterate, the
for that reason; statutes define
thus, there is who may file
no legal basis petitions for
for his petition change of first
for the name and for
 correction or correction or
change of the change of entries
entries in his in the civil
birth registry, where
certificate they may be
filed, what
Neither may entries grounds may be
in the birth certificate invoked, what
as to first name or sex proof must be
be changed on the presented and
ground of equity: what procedures
The changes shall be
sought by the observed. If the
petitioner will legislature
have serious intends to confer
and wide- on a person who
ranging legal has undergone
and public sex
policy reassignment
consequences; the privilege to
first, even the change his name
RTC itself and sex to
found that the conform with his
petition was reassigned sex, it
but petitioners has to enact
first step legislation laying
towards his down the
eventual guidelines in
marriage to his turn governing
 male fianc. the conferment
However, of that privilege
marriage, one Petition is hereby
of the most DENIED
sacred social
institutions, is
a special
contract of a
permanent
union between
a man and a
woman; one of
the essential
requisites is
the legal
capacity of the
contracting
parties who
must be a male
and a female
To grant the
changes sought
by petition will
substantially
reconfigure
and greatly
alter the laws
on marriage
and family
 relations

Baksh v. Court of Appeals Private respondent, October 27, 1987: Whether or not Article 21 Breach of promise
(Breach of Promise to Marilou Gonzales, filed private of the Civil Code applies to marry is not an
Marry), a complaint dated respondent, to the case at bar Yes. actionable wrong
October 27, 1987 for without the Article 21 is applicable The New Civil
G.R. No. 97336; February damages against the assistance of a to the case at bar. Code contains a
19, 1993 petitioner for the counsel, filed provision, Article
alleged breach of their with the 21, which is
Ponente: Justice Davide agreement to get aforesaid trial designed to
Jr. married. She met the court a expand the
petitioner in Dagupan complaint for concept of torts
*Where a mans promise to where the latter was an damages gainst or quasi-delict in
marry is not an actionable Iranian medical the petition for this jurisdiction
wrong. But to formally set exchange student who the alleged by granting
a wedding and go through later courted her and violation of their adequate legal
all the preparation and proposed marriage. agreement to remedy for the
publicity, only to walk out The petitioner even get married untold number
of it when the matrimony went to Marilous Petitioner, is an of moral wrongs
is about to be solemnized, house to secure Iranian citizen, which is
is palpably and approval of her and is an impossible for
unjustifiably contrary to parents. The petitioner exchange student human foresight
good customs for which then forced the taking a medical to specifically
defendant must be held respondent to leave course in enumerate and
answerable in damages with him in his Dagupan City punish in the
according to Article 21 apartment. Marilou Before August 20, statute books
was a virgin before she 198: petitioner Article 2176 of
Doctrines to remember:
1.) The New Civil Code
contains a provision,
Article 21, which is
designed to expand the
concept of torts or quasi-
delict in this jurisdiction
by granting adequate
legal remedy for the
untold number of moral
wrongs which is
impossible for human
foresight to specifically
enumerate and punish in
the statute books
2.) Article 2176 of the
Civil Code defines a
quasi-delict: whoever by
act or omission causes
damage to another, there
being fault or negligence,
is obliged to pay for the
damage done. Such fault
or negligence, if there is
no pre-existing relation
between the parties, is
called a quasi-delict and
is governed by the
lived with him. After a courted the Civil Code
week, she filed a respondent, and defines a quasi-
complaint because the proposed to delict: whoever
petitioner started marry her; she by act or
maltreating and accepted his love omission causes
threatening her. He on the condition damage to
even tied the that they would another, there
respondent in the get married. They being fault or
apartment while he agreed to get negligence, is
was in school and married after the obliged to pay for
drugged her. Marilou end of the school the damage
at one time became semester, which done. Such fault
pregnant but the was October of or negligence, if
petitioner administered that year there is no pre-
a drug to abort the Sometime in existing relation
baby. August 20, 1987: between the
petitioner forced parties, is called
Petitioner repudiated her to live with a quasi-delict
the marriage him in the Lozano and is governed
agreement and told Apartments; and by the provisions
Marilou to not live with a week before of this Chapter
him since he is already filing the
married to someone in complaint, Torts is much
Bacolod. He claimed petitioners broader than
that he never proposed attitude towards quasi-delict,
marriage or agreed to respondent because it
be married neither started to includes not only
sought consent and change he negligence, but
approval of Marlious maltreated and intentional
provisions of this Chapter
3.) Article 21 fills in the
vacuum between Article
2176 and torts
4.) Buenaventura case
(for seduction to exist):
To constitute seduction,
there must be in all cases
be some sufficient
promise or inducement
and the woman must
yield because of the
promise or other
inducement; if she
consents merely from
carnal lust and the
intercourse is from
mutual desire, there is
no seduction
parents. He claimed threatened to
that he asked Marilou kill her, and
to stay out of his because of this,
apartment since the respondent
latter deceived him by sustained
stealing money and his injuries and
passport. The private reported it to
respondent prayed for the barangay
damages and Petitioner
reimbursements of refused to
actual expenses. accept their
marriage
The single issue in this agreement and
case is whether or not asked her not to
Article 21 applies to the live with him
case at bar. The SC anymore, and
ruled in the affirmative. petitioner is
already married
The existing rule is that to someone
breach of promise to living in Bacolod
marry per se is not an City
actionable wrong. The
court held that when a Response of Petitioner:
man uses his promise He claimed that
of marriage to deceive he never
a woman to consent to proposed
his malicious desires, marriage to or
he commits fraud and agreed to be
willfully injures the married with the
criminal acts as
well such as
assault and
battery, false
imprisonment
and deceit
Intentional and
malicious acts,
with certain
exceptions, are to
be governed by
the Revised Penal
Code while
negligent acts or
omissions are to
be covered by
Article 2176 of
the Civil Code
Article 21 fills in
the vacuum
between Article
2176 and torts
In the light of the
above laudable
purpose of Article
21, We are of the
opinion, and so
hold, that where a
man's promise to
woman. In that
instance, the court
found that petitioners
deceptive promise to
marry led Marilou to
surrender her virtue
and womanhood.
Moral damages can be
claimed when such
promise to marry was a
deceptive ploy to have
carnal knowledge with
the woman and actual
damages should be
paid for the wedding
preparation expenses.
Petitioner even
committed deplorable
acts in disregard of the
laws of the country.
private marry is in fact
respondent; he the proximate
neither sought cause of the
the consent and acceptance of his
approval of her love by a woman
parents nor and his
forced to live in representation to
his apartment; he fulfill that
did not maltreat promise
her, but only told thereafter
her to stop becomes the
coming to his proximate cause
place because he of the giving of
discovered that herself unto him
she had deceived in a sexual
him by stealing congress, proof
his money and that he had, in
passport; and reality, no
finally, no intention of
confrontation marrying her and
took place with a that the promise
representative of was only a subtle
the barangay scheme or
captain deceptive device
After trial on the to entice or
merits, the RTC, inveigle her to
applying Article accept him and to
21 of the Civil obtain her
Code, rendered consent to the
 on October 16, sexual act, could
1989 a decision justify the award
favouring the of damages
private pursuant to
respondent Article 21 not
Petitioner because of such
appealed to the promise to marry
RTCs decision to but because of the
the Court of fraud and deceit
Appeals, although behind it and the
the Court of willful injury to
Appeals her honor and
reaffirmed in toto reputation which
the ruling of the followed
RTC. Hence this thereafter. It is
petition. essential,
however, that
such injury should
have been
committed in a
manner contrary
to morals, good
customs or public
policy
In the instant
case, respondent
Court found that it
was the
petitioner's
"fraudulent and
deceptive
protestations of
love for and
promise to marry
plaintiff that made
her surrender her
virtue and
womanhood to
him and to live
with him on the
honest and
sincere belief that
he would keep
said promise, and
it was likewise
these fraud and
deception on
appellant's part
that made
plaintiff's parents
agree to their
daughter's living-
in with him
preparatory to
their supposed
marriage."[24] In
short, the private
respondent
surrendered her
virginity, the
cherished
possession of
every single
Filipina, not
because of lust
but because of
moral seduction --
the kind
illustrated by the
Code Commission
in its example
earlier adverted
to. The petitioner
could not be held
liable for criminal
seduction
punished under
either Article 337
or Article 338 of
the Revised Penal
Code because the
private
respondent was
above eighteen
(18) years of age
at the time of the
seduction
Jurisprudence:
Hermosisima v.
C.A.: the Court
denied recovery
of damages to the
woman because
they were unable
to say that
petition is morally
guilty of
seduction,
because there was
consent
Tanjanco v. C.A.:
recovery was
denied because
the Court was not
convinced that
seduction existed
Buenaventura
case (for
seduction to
exist): To
constitute
seduction, there
must be in all
cases be some
sufficient
promise or
 inducement and
the woman must
yield because of
the promise or
other
inducement; if
she consents
merely from
carnal lust and
the intercourse
is from mutual
desire, there is
no seduction
Aurora and Whether or not the non-
Anaya v. Palaroan (Effect defendant disclosure to a wife by
of Fraud), Fernando were her husband of his pre-
married on marital relationship with
G.R. No. L-27930; December 4, another woman is a
November 26, 1970 1953; defendant ground for annulment of
filed an action marriage No, it is not.
Ponenete: Justice J.B.L. for annulment of
Reyes the marriage on
January 7, 1954
*The enumeration on the ground
constituting fraud is that his consent
exclusive and that non- was obtained
disclosure of a husbands through force
pre-marital relationship is and
not one of the enumerated intimidation
circumstances that would Judgement was
constitute a ground for rendered on
annulment September 23,
1959, dismissing
Doctrines to remember: the complaint of
Fernando,
upholding the
validity of the
marriage and
granting
Auroras
counterclaim;
that while the
amount of the
counterclaim
was being
negotiated to
settle the
judgment,
Fernando had
divulged to
Aurora that
several months
prior to their
marriage he had
pre-marital
relationship
with a close
relative of his;
and that the
non-
divulgement to
her of the
aforementioned
pre-marital
secret on the
part of
defendant that
definitely
wrecked their
marriage, which
apparently
doomed to fail
even before it
had hardly
commenced . . .
frank discosure
of which,
certitude
precisely
precluded her,
the Plaintiff
herein from
going thru the
marriage that
was solemnized
between them
constituted
 fraud in
obtaining her
consent
(contemplating
No. 4 of Article
85 of the Civil
Code); she
prayed for
annulment of
marriage and
for moral
damages

Defendant
Fernando, in his
answer, denied
the allegation of
the complainant
and denied
having had a pre-
marital
relationship with
a close relative

Failing in its
attempt to have
the parties
reconciled, the
court set the case
 for trial on
August 26, 1966
but it was
postponed;
thereafter, while
reviewing the
expendiente, the
court realized
that Auroras
allegation of the
fraud was legally
sufficient to
invalidate her
marriage

People v. Borromeo
(Issuance of Marriage
Certificatee)

G.R. No. L-61873;

October 31, 1984

Ponente: Justice Relova

*There is no better proof of

marriage than the
admission of the accused of
the existence of such
marriage. Persons living
together in apparent
matrimony are presumed,
in the absence of any
counter presumption or
evidence to the case, to be
in fact married. The reason
is that such is the common
order of society, and if the
parties were not what they
thus hold themselves out
as being, they would be
living in constant violation
of decency and law. The
presumption in favour of
matrimony is on of the
strongest known in law.
The law presumes
morality, and not
immorality; marriage and
not concubinage;
legitimacy and not
bastardy.

Doctrines to remember:

Hernandez v. Court of
Appeals (Psychological
Incapacity under Family
Code, Article 36),

G.R. No. 126010;

December 8, 1999

*Expert testimony should

have been presented to
establish the precise cause
of private respondents
psychological incapacity, if
any, in order to show that
it existed at the inception
of the marriage.

Doctrines to remember:

Villarica v. Villarica (In

general, Family Code,
Articles 50-54, but see
Family Code, Articles 147-
148)

G.R. No. 210764, April 15,

2015

*The parties were first

married in a civil ceremony
and six days later, in a
church wedding using the
same marriage license. The
marriages were registered
with two different local
civil registrars. A nullity
petition was granted,
however, the civil registrar
refused to register the
decision as the first
marriage still existed and
was not subject of the
court decision. The Court
allowed amendment of the
decision so as to include
the first marriage.

*Indeed, it would be the

height of absurdity to
consider the respondent,
on one hand, as
psychologically
incapacitated to perform
the duties of a married
man insofar as his second
marriage to petitioner is
concerned while, on the
other hand, consider him
capable of doing so if we
take into account their first
marriage, which was
celebrated a mere 16 days
earlier.

Doctrines to remember: