Republic v. Cagandahan

Republic v. Cagandahan

PARTIES

- Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines (represented by the Office of the Solicitor General)

- Respondent: Jennifer B. Cagandahan

FACTS:

·       Dec. 11, 2003 – Cagandahan filed a petition for Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate before the RTC (Laguna), claiming:

·       She was born on January 13, 1981

·       She was regstired female on her birth certificate

·       Growing up, she developed secondary male characteristics and was diagnose with Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) – a condition where persons affected both have male and female characteristics

·       Caganadahan claims that she was diagnosed to have clitoral hypertrophy at the age of six, underwent ultrasound where it was discovered that she had small ovaries, has no breast or menstrual period.

·       The petition was published in a newspaper of general circulation for 3 consecutive weeks

·       Dr. Michael Sionzon of the UPGH presented his testimony regarding Cagandahan’s condition: that Cagandahan is genetically female but her body excretes male hormones; says Cagandahan’s condition is permanent and recommended a change of gender would be advantageous for Cagandahan since she had already identified as male.

·       January 12, 2005: RTC granted petition in favor of Cagandahan.

- Petitioner presented clear and convincing proofs; medically proven condition

- Granted the changing of name from Jennifer Cagandahan to Jeff Cagandahan; and changing his sex from female to male (Civil Register of Pakil, Laguna)

·       OSG assailed this decision claiming that the RTC erred in granting the petition considering that Rules 103 (Change of Name) and 108 (Cancellation or correction of entries in the civil registry) of the Rules of Court have not been complied with, and that the petition did not implead the local civil registrar.

·       It must be stressed that respondent furnished the local civil registrar a copy of the petition, the order to publish on Dec. 16, 2003 all pleadings, orders, or processes in the course of the proceedings. (SC says there is substantial compliance of the provisions of Rule 103 and 108.)

ISSUE: W/N the change of sex and name of respondent as ruled by the lower court is valid.

HOLDING:

·       YES. “In deciding this case, we consider the compassionate calls for the recognition of the various degrees of intersex.”

·       The current state of the PH statues apparently compels the person to be classified as either male or female, but this court is not controlled by mere appearances when nature itself fundamentally negates such rigid classifications.

·       Where a person is biologically or naturally intersex the determining favor in his gender classification would be what the individual having reached the age of majority, with good reason, thinks of his sex.

·       Respondent has simply let nature take its course and has not taken unnatural steps to interfere with what he was born with.

·       He has already ordered his life to that of a male.

·       Nature has taken its due course in the respondent’s development to reveal more fully his characteristics.

·       In this ruling, we do no more than to give respect to (1) the diversity of nature; (2)

·       RE: Name change under Rule 103, the court held that a change of name is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion.

JUDGMENT:

- Republic’s petition is DENIED.

- RTC decision AFFIRMED.