Case Digest (G.R. No. 166676)
Facts:
Republic of the Philippines v. Jennifer B. Cagandahan, G.R. No. 166676, September 12, 2008, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.On December 11, 2003, Jennifer B. Cagandahan filed a Petition for Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 33, Siniloan, Laguna, seeking to change her registered name from "Jennifer Cagandahan" to "Jeff Cagandahan" and to change the gender entry from "female" to "male." She alleged she was born January 13, 1981, was registered female at birth, but developed secondary male characteristics and was medically diagnosed with Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH), producing excessive male hormones and resulting in ambiguous genitalia and lack of normal female secondary sexual development.
Respondent presented medical testimony, chiefly that of Dr. Michael Sionzon (Department of Psychiatry, UP-PGH), who testified that respondent is genetically XX but secretes high levels of androgens, has underdeveloped internal female structures, has no menses, and manifests phenotypic male features; he stated the condition is permanent and supported the requested gender change. The petition was published per court order and the sheriff posted notices; the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) entered an appearance and authorized the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor to appear on its behalf.
The RTC granted the petition in a Decision dated January 12, 2005, ordering correction of the birth certificate (name and sex) and directing amendment of school, voter, baptismal and other records. The Republic, through the OSG, filed a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging (1) alleged noncompliance with Rule 103 (change of name) and Rule 108 (correction/cancellation in the civil registry) — specifically that the Local Civil Registrar was not impleaded and that respondent failed to allege three years' residency required by Rule 103 — and (2) that Rule 108 does not permit change of sex/gender and that CAH does not make respondent a male.
The parties litigated whether procedural requirements were met and whether, as a substantive matter, ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the RTC proceed in violation of the procedural requirements of Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court (notably non‑impleader of the Local Civil Registrar and the three‑year residency requirement under Rule 103)?
- Whether Rule 108 permits correction of the sex/gender entry in the civil register based on respondent's medical condition (CAH) and mature self‑identification, and whether CAH renders respondent a male for purpose...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)