October 22, 2007
537 SCRA 473
Ponente: Justice
Corona
Facts: Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio filed a petition
for the change of his first name and sex in his birth certificate in the
Regional Trial Court of Manila. Petitioner alleged in his petition that he was
born in the City of Manila to the spouses Melecio Petines Silverio and Anita
Aquino Dantes on April 4, 1962. His name was registered as "Rommel Jacinto
Dantes Silverio" in his certificate of live birth (birth certificate). His
sex was registered as "male." He further alleged that he is a male
transsexual. He underwent psychological examination, hormone treatment and
breast augmentation. His attempts to transform himself to a "woman"
culminated on January 27, 2001 when he underwent sex reassignment surgery2 in Bangkok, Thailand.
Petitioner lived as a female and was in fact engaged to be married. An order
setting the case for initial hearing. On June 4, 2003, the trial court rendered
a decision4 in favor of
petitioner. On August 18, 2003, the Republic of the Philippines (Republic),
thru the OSG, filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals.6 It alleged that there
is no law allowing the change of entries in the birth certificate by reason of
sex alteration. February 23, 2006, the Court of Appeals7 rendered a decision in
favor of the Republic. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but it was denied.
Petitioner essentially claims that the change of his name and sex in his birth
certificate is allowed under Articles 407 to 413 of the Civil Code, Rules 103
and 108 of the Rules of Court and RA 9048.
Issues:
(Issue in the RTC and CA) sole issue here is whether or
not petitioner is entitled to the relief asked for.
Whether or not a person’s first name be change because of
sex reassignment?
Whether or not entries in the B.C. be change on the basis
of equity?
Held: Where the RTC affirms the petition filed by the
herein petitioner, through the OSG, the republic appealed the case in the Court
of Appeals, whereby the decision was set aside because there is no law that
provides for the change of first name because of a sex reassignment. The SC
rules out that the petition lacks merit where it was denied. The SC held that a
person’s first name cannot be change because of sex reassignment and RA 9048
deliberately expounded on how a name can be change and sex reassignment is not
one of them. Furthermore, the SC held No
Law Allows The Change of Entry In The Birth Certificate As To Sex On the Ground
of Sex Reassignment. It is but clear to state that a person’s status is
determined at birth and not by reassignment. "Status" refers to the
circumstances affecting the legal situation (that is, the sum total of
capacities and incapacities) of a person in view of his age, nationality and
his family membership.
No comments:
Post a Comment