14.

REPUBLIC VS CAGANDAHAN

Jennifer Cagandahan filed a Petition for Correction

FACTS:
of Entries in Birth Certificate[In her petition, she
alleged that she was born on January 13, 1981 and
Jennifer Cagandahan filed before the Regional Trial
was registered as a female in the Certificate of Live
Court Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna a Petition
Birth but while growing up, she developed
for Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate of her
secondary male characteristics and was diagnosed
name from Jennifer B. Cagandahan to
to have Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) which
Jeff Cagandahan and her gender from female to
is a condition where persons thus afflicted possess
male. It appearing that Jennifer Cagandahan is
both male and female characteristics. She further
sufferingfrom Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia which
alleged that she was diagnosed to have clitoral
is a rare medical condition where afflicted persons
hyperthropy in her early years and at age six,
possess both male and female characteristics.
underwent an ultrasound where it was discovered
Jennifer Cagandahan grew up with secondary male
that she has small ovaries. At age thirteen, tests
characteristics. To further her petition, Cagandahan
revealed that her ovarian structures had minimized,
presented in court the medical
she has stopped growing and she has no breast or
certificate evidencing that she is suffering from
menstrual development. She then alleged that for
Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia which certificate is
all interests and appearances as well as in mind and
issued by Dr. Michael Sionzon of the Department of
emotion, she has become a male person. Thus, she
Psychiatry, University of the Philippines-Philippine
prayed that her birth certificate be corrected such
General Hospital, who, in addition, explained that
that her gender be changed from female to male and
“Cagandahan genetically is female but because her
her first name be changed from Jennifer to Jeff.
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 The RTC granted respondents petition in a Decision
local civil registrar. dated January 12, 2005.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Cagandahan’s sex as appearing in

her birth certificate be changed.
ISSUE:
RULING:

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the
lower court. It held that, in deciding the case, the
Supreme Court considered “the compassionate calls
for recognition of the various degrees of intersex as
variations which should not be subject to
outright denial.” The Supreme Court made use of
the availale evidence presented in court including
the fact that private respondent thinks of himself as
a male and as to the statement made by the doctor
that Cagandahan’s body produces high levels of
male hormones (androgen), which is preponderant
biological support for considering him as being
male.”
The Supreme Court further held that they give
respect to (1) the diversity of nature; and (2) how
an individual deals with what nature has handed out.
That is, the Supreme Court respects the
respondent’s congenital condition and his
mature decision to be a male. Life is already difficult
for the ordinary person. The Court added that
a change of name is not a matter of right but of
judicial discretion, to be exercised in the light of the
reasons and the consequences that will follow.
FACTS:
Whether the trial court erred in ordering the
correction of entries in the birth certificate of
respondent to change her sex or gender, from
female to male, on the ground of her medical
condition known as CAH, and her name from
Jennifer to Jeff, under Rules 103 and 108 of the
Rules of Court.
RULING:
Ultimately, we are of the view 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.
Respondent here thinks of himself as a male and
considering that his body produces high levels of
male hormones (androgen) there is preponderant
biological support for considering him as being male.
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 change of name. Such a change will conform with
respondent, is fixed. the change of the entry in his birth certificate from
female to male.

Respondent here has simply let nature take its

course and has not taken unnatural steps to arrest
or interfere with what he was born with. And
15. REPUBLIC VS SILVERIO
accordingly, he has already ordered his life to that of
a male. Respondent could have undergone FACTS:
treatment and taken steps, like taking lifelong
medication, to force his body into the categorical
mold of a female but he did not. He chose not to do On November 26, 2002, Silverio field a petition for
so. Nature has instead taken its due course in the change of his first name “Rommel Jacinto” to
respondents development to reveal more fully his “Mely” and his sex from male to female in his birth
male characteristics. certificate in the RTC of Manila, Branch 8, for reason
of his sex reassignment. He alleged that he is a male
transsexual, he is anatomically male but thinks and
acts like a female. The Regional Trial Court ruled in
In the absence of a law on the matter, the Court will
favor of him, explaining that it is consonance with
not dictate on respondent concerning a matter so
the principle of justice and equality.
innately private as ones sexuality and lifestyle
preferences, much less on whether or not to
undergo medical treatment to reverse the male The Republic, through the OSG, filed a petition for
tendency due to CAH. The Court will not consider certiorari in the Court of Appeals alleging that there
respondent as having erred in not choosing to is no law allowing change of name by reason of sex
undergo treatment in order to become or remain as alteration. Petitioner filed a reconsideration but was
a female. Neither will the Court force respondent to denied. Hence, this petition.
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. ISSUE:
Respondent is the one who has to live with his
intersex anatomy. To him belongs the human right
WON change in name and sex in birth certificate are
to the pursuit of happiness and of health. Thus, to
allowed by reason of sex reassignment.
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 HELD:
evidence that respondent is an incompetent and in
the absence of evidence to show that classifying
No. A change of name is a privilege and not a right.
respondent as a male will harm other members of
It may be allowed in cases where the name is
society who are equally entitled to protection under
ridiculous, tainted with dishonor, or difficult to
the law, the Court affirms as valid and justified the
pronounce or write; a nickname is habitually used;
respondents position and his personal judgment of
or if the change will avoid confusion. The petitioner’s
being a male.
basis of the change of his name is that he intends his
first name compatible with the sex he thought he
transformed himself into thru surgery. The Court
In so ruling we do no more than give respect to (1)
says that his true name does not prejudice him at all,
the diversity of nature; and (2) how an individual
and no law allows the change of entry in the birth
deals with what nature has handed out. In other
certificate as to sex on the ground of sex
words, we respect respondents congenital condition
reassignment. The Court denied the petition.
and his mature decision to be a male. Life is already
difficult for the ordinary person. We cannot but
respect how respondent deals with his unordinary FACTS:
state and thus help make his life easier, considering Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio having undergone a
the unique circumstances in this case. sex reassignment surgery, sought to have his first
name changed from Rommel to Mely, and his sex
from male to female. Trial court granted his petition.
As for respondents change of name under Rule 103, CA, however, upon appeal filed by the Republic of
this Court has held that a change of name is not a the Philippines thru the OSG, reversed the trial court
matter of right but of judicial discretion, to be decision, holding that there is no law allowing the
exercised in the light of the reasons adduced and the change of entries of either name or sex in the birth
consequences that will follow. The trial courts grant certificate by reason of sex alteration.
of respondents change of name from Jennifer to Jeff
implies a change of a feminine name to a masculine ISSUE:
name. Considering the consequence that Whether or not Rommel's first name and sex be
respondents change of name merely recognizes his changed on the ground of sex reassignment.
preferred gender, we find merit in respondents
RULING: No. There is no law authorizes the
change of entry as of sex and first name through the
intervention of sex reassignment surgery. Article
376 of the Civil Code as amended by RA 9048
(Clerical Error Law), together with Article 412 of the
same Code, change of name or sex in the birth
certificate is allowed by the courts so long as clerical
or typographical errors are involved.
Changes sought by Silverio will have serious legal
and public policy consequences. To grant this
petition filed by Silverio will greatly alter the laws on
marriage and family relations. Second, there will be
major changes in statutes that underscore the
public policy in relation to women.
16. KHO VS REPUBLIC
Facts:
Petitioner’s parents summoned a clerk to
arrange necessary papers on one afternoon of May
31, 1972 for the intended marriage of parties herein
on the midnight as to exclude the public from
witnessing the marriage ceremony. They were only
able to fulfill such ceremony at 3AM of June 1, 1972
for reason that there was a public dance held in town
plaza that was adjacent to the church and such
dance only finished at 2AM. Due to the shortness of
period, said clerk was not able to secure them a
marriage license. RTC declared their marriage null
and void. CA reversed it stating that the marriage
was valid and subsisting.
Issue: W/N CA erred to give due
credence to petitioner’s evidence which
established the absence or lack of marriage
license when the marriage was solemnized.
Held:
Marriage is void. Art 58 and Art 80 (3) of
the Civil Code explicitly provides that no marriage
shall be solemnized without a license first issued by
the LCR (Art. 58). Marriage performed without the
corresponding marriage license is void (Art. 80 (3)).
Court favors petitioner.
17. RENE RONULO VS PEOPLE
FACTS:
Joey Umadac and Claire Bingayen were scheduled to
marry on 29 March 2003 at the Sta. Rosa Catholic
Parish Church in Ilocos Norte. But on the day of the
wedding, the church's officiating priest refused to
solemnize the marriage because of lack of a
marriage license.
With the couple and the guests already dressed for
the wedding, they headed to an Aglipayan Church.
The Aglipayan priest, herein petitioner Ronulo,
conducted a ceremony on the same day where the
couple took each other as husband and wife in front
of the guests. This was despite Petitioner's
knowledge of the couple's lack of marriage license.
Petitioner was eventually charged of violating Article
352 of the RPC for performing an illegal marriage
ceremony.
The MTC did not believe Petitioner's defense that
what he did was an act of blessing and was not
tantamount to solemnization of marriage and was
found guilty.
The decision was affirmed by both the RTC and the
CA.
ISSUE: W/N Petitioner committed an illegal
marriage.
RULING: Yes.
Article 352 of the RPC penalizes an authorized
solemnizing officer who shall perform or authorize
any illegal marriage ceremony. The elements of this
crime are:
1. authority of the solemnizing officer;
and
2. his performance of an illegal marriage
ceremony.
The first element is present since Petitioner himself
admitted that he has authority to solemnize a
marriage.
The second element is present since the alleged
"blessing" by Petitioner is tantamount to the
performance of an illegal marriage ceremony.
There is no prescribed form or rite for the
solemnization of a marriage. However, Article 6 of
the Family Code provides that it shall be necessary:
1. for the contracting parties to appear
personally before the solemnizing officer;
and
2. declare in the presence of not less than
two witnesses of legal age that they take
each other as husband and wife.
The first requirement is present since petitioner
admitted to it. The second requirement is likewise
present since the prosecution, through the
testimony of its witnesses, proved that the
contracting parties personally declared that they
take each other as husband and wife.
The penalty for violating Article 352 of the RPC is in
accordance with the provision of the Marriage Law,
specifically Article 44, which states that:
Section 44. General Penal Clause –
Any violation of any provision of this
Act not specifically penalized, or of
the regulations to be promulgated by
the proper authorities, shall be
punished by a fine of not more than
two hundred pesos or by
imprisonment for not more than one
month, or both, in the discretion of
the court.
As such, Petitioner was held guilty of violating Article
352 and was fined P200 as penalty.
Facts:
Joey and Claire were scheduled to marry each other
at a Catholic Church in Ilocos Norte. However, on
the day of wedding, the supposed officiating priest
refused to solemnize the marriage upon learning
that the couple failed to secure a marriage license.
As recourse, Joey and Claire, together with their
parents, sponsors and guests, proceeded to the
Aglipayan Church. They requested petitioner Ronulo,
an Aglipayan priest, to perform a ceremony to which
the latter agreed despite having been informed by
the couple that they have no marriage license.
Ronulo was eventually charged of violating Article
352 of the RPC for performing an illegal marriage
ceremony. Florida, the mother of Joey, testified that
she heard the couple declare during the ceremony
that they take each other as husband and wife. Mary
Anne, the cord sponsor in the wedding, testified that
she saw the bride walk down the aisle and the
couple exchange their wedding rings, kiss each
other, and sign a document.
Ronulo contend that he was merely blessing the
couple and his act of blessing does not tantamount
to a solemnization of the marriage as contemplated
by law.
Issues:
1. Did Ronulo violated Article 352 of the RPC on
solemnizing illegal marriage?
2. Does the non-filing of a criminal complaint
against the couple negate criminal liability of the
petitioner?
3. What is the penalty for the crime?
Held:
1. Yes. Article 352 of the RPC penalizes an
authorized solemnizing officer who shall perform or
authorize any illegal marriage ceremony. The
elements of this crime are:
1. authority of the solemnizing officer;
and
2. his performance of an illegal marriage
ceremony.
The first element is present since petitioner himself
admitted that he has authority to solemnize a
marriage.
The second element is present since the alleged
"blessing" by petitioner is tantamount to the
performance of an illegal marriage ceremony.
Article 6 of the Family Code provides that "[n]o
prescribed form or religious rite for the
solemnization of the marriage is required. It shall be
necessary, however, for the contracting parties to
appear personally before the solemnizing officer and
declare in the presence of not less than two
witnesses of legal age that they take each other as
husband and wife."
As to the first requirement, the petitioner admitted
that the parties appeared before him and this fact
was testified to by witnesses. On the second
requirement, the prosecution has proven, through
the testimony of Florida, that the contracting parties
personally declared that they take each other as
husband and wife. It is clear that what the petitioner
conducted was a marriage ceremony, as the
minimum requirements set by law were complied
with.
Under Article 3(3) of the Family Code, one of the
essential requisites of marriage is the presence of a
valid marriage certificate. In the present case, the
petitioner admitted that he knew that the couple
had no marriage license, yet he conducted the
"blessing" of their relationship.
Undoubtedly, the petitioner conducted the marriage
ceremony despite knowledge that the essential and
formal requirements of marriage set by law were
lacking. The marriage ceremony, therefore, was
illegal. The petitioner’s knowledge of the absence of
these requirements negates his defense of good
faith.
2. The non-filing of a criminal complaint against the
couple does not negate criminal liability of the
petitioner. Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, does
not make this an element of the crime.

3. The penalty for violating Article 352 of the RPC is

in accordance with the provision of the Marriage Law,
specifically Article 44, which states that:

Section 44. General Penal Clause –

Any violation of any provision of this
Act not specifically penalized, or of
the regulations to be promulgated by
the proper authorities, shall be
punished by a fine of not more than
two hundred pesos or by
imprisonment for not more than one
month, or both, in the discretion of
the court. (Ronulo vs. People, G.R.
No. 182438, 2 July 2014)