Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 15

REPUBLIC vs. JENNIFER B.

CAGANDAHAN
GR No. 166676, September 12, 2008

DOCTRINE:

To the person with Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) belongs the


human right to the pursuit of happiness and of health, and to him
should belong the primordial choice of what courses of action to take
along the path of his sexual development and maturation.
FACTS:
On December 11, 2003, Jennifer Cagandahan filed a Petition for
Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate before the RTC of Laguna.
In the petition, he alleged that he was born on January 13, 1981 and
was registered as a female in the Certificate of Live Birth. However, while
growing up, he developed secondary male characteristics and was
diagnosed to have Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH).
He alleged that, for all interests and appearances as well as in mind
and emotion, he has become a male person. Thus, he prayed that his birth
certificate be corrected such that his gender be changed from female to male
and his first name be changed from Jennifer to Jeff.
The RTC granted the petition. The Office of the Solicitor General filed
a petition for review under Rule 45 seeking a reversal of the ruling of the
RTC.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the trial court erred in ordering the correction of entries in
the birth certificate of Cagandahan to change her sex or gender from female
to male on the ground of her medical condition known as Congenital Adrenal
Hyperplasia (CAH), and her name from Jennifer to Jeff.
RULING:

No. Citing the doctrine abovegiven, the Supreme Court held that in
the absence of evidence that respondent is an incompetent and in the
absence of evidence to show that classifying respondent as male will harm
other members of society who are equally entitled to protection under the
law, the Court affirms as valid and justified the respondent’s position and his
personal judgment of being a male.

Where the person is is biologically or naturally intersex, the


determining factor in his gender classification would be what the individual,
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.
As for respondent’s change of name under Rule 103, it was 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 change of name in this case implies a
change of name of a feminine name to a masculine name. Considering the
consequences that respondent’s change of name merely recognizes his
preferred gender, there is merit in respondent’s change of name. Such a
change of name will conform with the change of the entry in his birth
certificate from female to male.
There is merit in the change of name of a person with CAH where the
same is the consequence of his preferred gender.
Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia
This condition causes early or “inappropriate” appearance of male
characteristics. A person, like Cagandahan, with this condition produces too
much androgen, a male hormone. A newborn who has XX chromosomes
coupled with CAH usually has:
1. a swollen clitoris with the urethral opening at the base, an ambiguous
genitalia often appearing more male than female;
2. a normal internal structures of the female reproductive tract such as the
ovaries, uterus and fallopian tubes but as the child grows older, some
features start to appear male, such as deepening of the voice, facial hair and
failure to menstruate at puberty.
Medicine adopted the term “intersexuality” to human beings who
cannot be classified as either male or female. The term is now of
widespread use. According to Wikipedia: intersexuality is the state of
living thing of a gonochoristic species whose sex chromosomes,
genitalia, and/or secondary sex characteristics are determined to be
neither exclusively male nor female.
May a Petition for Recognition of a Foreign
Judgment be made under Rule 108?
Yes. Since the recognition of a foreign judgment only requires proof of fact
of the judgment, it may be made in a special proceeding for cancellation or
correction of entries in the civil registry under Rule 108. Rule 108 is a
remedy to rectify facts of a person’s life which are recorded by the State
pursuant to the Civil Register Law or Act No. 3753.
In the case of Minoru Fujiki vs. Maria Paz Marinay, et. al., it was held that the
filing of a petition for recognition of a foreign judgment under Rule 108
when it recognized that there is no doubt that the prior spouse 1 has a
personal and material interest in maintaining the integrity of the contracted
marriage and the property relations arising from it. Related therewith is his
interest in the cancellation of an entry of a bigamous marriage in the civil
registry, which compromises the public record of his marriage.

1. GR No. 196049, June 26, 2013


The Concept of “Substantial Errors”
In Ramon Corpuz Tan vs. Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Manila and NSO,
the Court explained that when said correction would entail not only a
substantial change in the surname of the petitioner-appellant but it would
also affect the identity of his father, a summary proceeding for the said
petition would not suffice.

There must be an adversarial proceeding, wherein the petitioner-appellant,


should present clear and convincing evidence to prove his claim.
REPUBLIC vs. LABRADOR
GR No. 132980, March 25, 1999
FACTS:

A Petition for Review on Certiorari seeking to set aside the decision


of the RTC of Cebu City in a special proceeding granting the petition filed
by respondent to have the name appearing on the birth certificate of
Sarah Zita Canon Erasmo changed from “Sarah Zita Erasmo” to “Sarah Zita
Canon” and that the name of Sarah Zita’s mother which appeared as
“Rosemarie B. Canon” in the child’s birth record, be changed to “Maria
Rosario Canon.”
Petitioner contended that the summary proceedings under Rule 108
and Article 412 of the Civil Code may be used only to correct or change
clerical or innocuous errors. It argued that Rule 108 cannot be used to
modify, alter or increase substantive rights, such as those involving
legitimacy or illegitimacy of the child, which the respondent desired to. The
change sought will result not only in substantial correction in the child’s
record of birth but also in the child’s rights which cannot be effected in a
summary action.

ISSUE:

Whether or not a change in the entry of birth certificate regarding the


filiation of a child falls under summary proceedings.
RULING:

Summary proceedings provided under Rule 108 and Article 412 of the
Civil Code maybe used only to correct clerical, spelling, typographical and
other innocuous errors in the Civil Registry. Substantial or contentious
alterations may be allowed only in adversarial proceedings, in which all
interested parties are impleaded and due process is observed.
Where the effect of a correction of an entry in a civil registry will
change the status of a person from “legitimate” to “illegitimate,” the same
cannot be granted in summary proceedings. The changes sought by
respondent were substantial, thus, an adversarial proceeding is essential in
order to fully thresh out the allegations in respondent’s petition. Sarah Zita
and her purported parents should have been parties to the proceeding.
After all, it would affect her legitimacy as well as her successional and other
rights.

Вам также может понравиться