8 Republic V Unabia

5/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 892

G.R. No. 213346. February 11, 2019.*

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.
MILLER OMANDAM UNABIA, respondent.
Remedial Law; Special Proceedings; Correction of Clerical

Errors; Correction of Entry; Administrative Correction of Date of
Birth or Sex; Administrative corrections or changes relating to the
date of birth or sex of individuals was authorized only with the
passage in 2012 of Republic Act (RA) No. 10172.—When Special
Proceeding No. 2009-018 was filed in 2009, the governing law
then was the original, unamended RA 9048. There was no
provision then for the administrative correction or change of
clerical or typographical errors or mistakes in the civil registry
entries of the day and month in the date of birth or sex of
individuals, but only clerical or typographical errors and change
of first names or nicknames. Administrative corrections or
changes relating to the date of birth or sex of individuals was
authorized only with the passage in 2012 of RA 10172. Even then,
the amendments under RA 10172 should still apply, the law being
remedial in nature. Moreover, under Section 11 of RA 9048,
retroactive application is allowed “insofar as it does not prejudice
or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil
Code and other laws.”
Same; Evidence; Public Documents; Under Section 23, Rule
132 of the Rules of Court, “[d]ocuments consisting of entries in
public records made in the performance of a duty by a public
officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.”—
Petitioner questions the Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Labis,
Medical Officer III of the Northern Mindanao Medical Center
under the Department of Health, claiming that it failed to include
a certification that respondent “has not undergone sex change or
sex transplant” as required by Section 5 of RA 9048, as amended,
and that Dr. Labis was not presented in court in order that his
qualifications may be established and so that he may identify and
authenticate the medical certificate. However, the said Medical
Certificate is a public document, the same having been issued by
a public officer in the performance of official
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017965b71bb4c3f6e2ec003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/29
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.

271
VOL. 892, FEBRUARY 11, 2019 271

Republic vs. Unabia
duty; as such, it constitutes prima facie evidence of the facts

therein stated. Under Section 23, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court,
“[d]ocuments consisting of entries in public records made in the
performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence
of the facts therein stated. All other public documents are
evidence, even against a third person, of the fact which gave rise
to their execution and of the date of the latter.”
Same; Same; Same; A public document, by virtue of its official
or sovereign character, or because it has been acknowledged before
a notary public (except a notarial will) or a competent public
official with the formalities required by law, or because it is a
public record of a private writing authorized by law, is self-
authenticating and requires no further authentication in order to
be presented as evidence in court.—There was therefore no need to
further identify and authenticate Dr. Labis’ Medical Certificate.
“A public document, by virtue of its official or sovereign character,
or because it has been acknowledged before a notary public
(except a notarial will) or a competent public official with the
formalities required by law, or because it is a public record of a
private writing authorized by law, is self-authenticating and
requires no further authentication in order to be presented as
evidence in court.” On the other hand, while the trial court did not
seem to make any material observation in its pronouncement
regarding respondent’s physical appearance or otherwise to
support its finding that the latter was male, the record will
support a finding that respondent was indeed male. In his
photograph attached to the record, it will be observed particularly
that respondent’s Adam’s apple — or, in medical terms, his
laryngeal prominence — was quite evident and prominent. This
can only indicate that respondent is male, because anatomically,
only men possess an Adam’s apple.
Phenotypically Male; Words and Phrases; Respondent is
“phenotypically male,” meaning that respondent’s entire physical,
physiological, and biochemical makeup — as determined both
genetically and environmentally — is male, which thus
presupposes that he did not undergo sex reassignment. In other

words, as determined genetically and environmentally, from
conception to birth, respondent’s entire being, from the physical, to
the physiological, to the biochemical — meaning that all the
chemical processes and substances occurring within respondent —
was undoubtedly male.—As for petitioner’s

272
272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Republic vs. Unabia
argument that the medical certificate failed to specifically

certify that respondent “has not undergone sex change or sex
transplant” as required by law, suffice it to state that this is no
longer required with the certification by Dr. Labis that
respondent is “phenotypically male,” meaning that respondent’s
entire physical, physiological and biochemical makeup — as
determined both genetically and environmentally — is male,
which thus presupposes that he did not undergo sex
reassignment. In other words, as determined genetically and
environmentally, from conception to birth, respondent’s entire
being, from the physical, to the physiological, to the biochemical
— meaning that all the chemical processes and substances
occurring within respondent — was undoubtedly male. He
was conceived and born male, he looks male and
he functions biologically as a male.

LEONEN, J., Separate Concurring Opinion:

Civil Law; “Sex” and “Gender,” Distinguished; View that the

terms “sex” and “gender” refer to two (2) different ideas having vast
differences.—The terms “sex” and “gender” refer to two (2)
different ideas having vast differences. These cannot be used
interchangeably. Sex is a biological concept, while gender is a
social concept. On one hand, sex “refers to the biological
distinctions between males and females,” and is based primarily
on a person’s capability to reproduce. It “encompasses those that
are biologically determined.” On the other hand, gender pertains
to the “social elaboration of biological sex.” It highlights “the
socially constructed differences between men and women”
influenced by the different norms and standards of societies,
varying from one society to the other.
Adam’s Apple; View that it is erroneous to conclude that only

men can possess an Adam’s apple. A woman has an Adam’s apple,
though generally less protruding than her male counterpart.—
Both men and women have Adam’s apple. It is not limited to men.
Granting that the Adam’s apple is more prominent in some men,
this is merely caused by differing hormonal levels. An Adam’s
apple “is the colloquial term used to describe what is officially
named the laryngeal prominence of the thyroid cartilage.” It is
caused by an increased amount of testosterone, a hormone
“involved in regulating secondary male characteristics” such as
the Adam’s apple. While testosterone is ordinarily associated with
men, “women . . . also have

273
VOL. 892, FEBRUARY 11, 2019 273

Republic vs. Unabia
naturally occurring testosterone[.]” Despite men having a

higher amount of testosterone, the function of an Adam’s apple in
both women and men is just the same: to protect the vocal cords
immediately behind it. Accordingly, it is erroneous to conclude
that only men can possess an Adam’s apple. A woman has an
Adam’s apple, though generally less protruding than her male
counterpart. It is a logical fallacy to attach the category “male” to
the size and shape of the Adam’s apple. It is a false binary.
Procedural Rules and Technicalities; Retroactivity of Laws;
View that settled is the rule that procedural laws have a
retroactive effect, but may only be applied to cases or actions
pending and undetermined when they were enacted.—I, however,
agree with the majority that Republic Act No. 10172, being
remedial in nature, can retroactively apply here. Settled is the
rule that procedural laws have a retroactive effect, but may only
be applied to cases or actions pending and undetermined when
they were enacted. Remedial laws or procedural laws are statutes
concerning modes of procedure “designed to facilitate the
adjudication of cases.” These laws “do not create new or take away
vested rights, but only operate in furtherance of the remedy or
confirmation of such rights[.]” Thus, remedial laws do not fall
within the proscription against retroactive operation of statutes.
Remedial Law; Special Proceedings; Correction of Clerical
Errors; Administrative Correction of Date of Birth and Sex; View
that Republic Act (RA) No. 10172 amended RA No. 9048 in the
sense that clerical errors regarding one’s sex may now be
administratively corrected.—Republic Act No. 9048 was the

governing law when respondent filed his Petition. Under this law,
the concerned city or municipal civil registrar or consul general
may administratively correct or change clerical or typographical
errors, provided that it does not involve a change in the
nationality, age, status, or sex of the petitioner. While
respondent’s appeal was pending before the Court of Appeals,
Republic Act No. 10172 was enacted into law. Republic Act No.
10172 amended Republic Act No. 9048 in the sense that clerical
errors regarding one’s sex may now be administratively corrected.
In its Decision, the Court of Appeals applied Republic Act No.
10172 and ruled that respondent had presented all the necessary
documents to prove that there was a clerical error regarding his
sex.

274

Republic vs. Unabia
Same; Same; Same; Same; Retroactivity of Laws; View that

Republic Act (RA) No. 9048, as amended by RA No. 10172,
specifically states that its provisions shall have a retroactive effect
as long as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights
in accordance with the Civil Code and other laws.—Republic Act
No. 9048, as amended by Republic Act No. 10172, specifically
states that its provisions shall have a retroactive effect as long as
it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in
accordance with the Civil Code and other laws.
Same; Same; Same; View that to ensure that an individual’s
sex is aligned with his or her identity, one undergoes the process of
correcting his or her sex, as entered in his or her birth certificate.—
A review of the pertinent laws and rules would reveal that the
entries in a person’s birth certificate were never meant to be set
in stone. The procedure in changing the entries in a birth
certificate is not unprecedented. In several cases, this Court has
had the opportunity to decide on cases involving changes in the
entry of a person’s birth certificate. This fundamental desire to
change and correct one’s entry in his or her birth certificate is
born from the need to be identified as an individual. The entries
in one’s birth certificate separate him or her from others. The
entries, such as the name and sex, as indicated in one’s birth
certificate, are considered as markers of one’s identity. To ensure
that an individual’s sex is aligned with his or her identity, one
undergoes the process of correcting his or her sex, as entered in

his or her birth certificate.
Same; Same; Same; Administrative Correction of Date of
Birth and Sex; View that as more individuals undergo sex
reassignment, changing the sexes in their birth certificates is
inevitable. Thus, sex may cease to be believed as permanent and
immutable.—Sex reassignment or gender-affirming surgery “is a
medical treatment intended to effect change to a person’s sex. It
may include surgery and hormonal treatments designed to alter a
person’s gender.” As more individuals undergo sex reassignment,
changing the sexes in their birth certificates is inevitable. Thus,
sex may cease to be believed as permanent and immutable. It may
already be an impractical and obsolete marker of identity. Rather
than identify, it may become a forced category with all its
attendant burdens.

275
VOL. 892, FEBRUARY 11, 2019 275

Republic vs. Unabia
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
The Solicitor General for petitioner.
Public Attorney’s Office for respondent.

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assails the June
27, 2014 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) which
denied the appeal in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 02755-MIN and
affirmed the November 23, 2009 Decision3 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 17, in
Special Proceeding No. 2009-018.

Factual Antecedents

On February 11, 2009, respondent Miller Omandam
Unabia filed before the RTC Special Proceeding No. 2009-
018, which is a “Petition for Correction of Entries on the
Birth Certificate of Mellie Umandam Unabia,”4 claiming
that his Birth Certificate5 contained errors in that the
name entered therein was “Mellie Umandam Unabia,”
when it should properly have been written as “Miller

Omandam Unabia”; that the gender was erroneously
entered as “female” instead of “male”; and that his father’s
middle initial was erroneously indicated
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 9-25.

2 Id., at pp. 29-34; penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles, and
concurred in by Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Pablito A. Perez.
3 Id., at pp. 26-27; penned by Presiding Judge Florencia D. Sealana-
Abbu.
4 Id., at pp. 119-123.
5 Id., at p. 124.

276

Republic vs. Unabia
as “U” when it should have been “O.” In support of the

petition, respondent attached the following documentary
evidence to the petition:

1. Medical Certificate;
2. Police Clearance;
3. Voter’s Identification;
4. Baptismal Certificate;
5. National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Clearance;
6. Transcript of Records;
7. Mother’s Birth Certificate; and
8. Father’s Birth Certificate.

After satisfying the jurisdictional requirements, trial
ensued. Respondent took the witness stand as the lone
witness. To support the claim for change of entry as to
gender, a Medical Certificate was presented which was
supposedly issued by a physician of the Northern
Mindanao Medical Center, Dr. Andresul A. Labis (Dr.
Labis), which certificate stated that respondent was
“phenotypically male”; however, the physician was not
presented in court to testify on his findings and identify the
document.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On November 23, 2009, the RTC issued its Decision,
decreeing as follows:
Petitioner Miller Omandam Unabia testified during the

hearing of the case as follows:
[T]hat he was born on August 11, 1980 in Claveria,
Misamis Oriental to Spouses Magno O. Unabia and Rica
Omandam Unabia. The fact of his birth [was] duly regis-

277
VOL. 892, FEBRUARY 11, 2019 277

Republic vs. Unabia
tered in the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Claveria,

Misamis Oriental.
When petitioner secured a copy of his Birth Certificate,
he was surprised that his name was registered as MELLIE
Umandam Unabia instead of Miller Omandam Unabia, the
sex as Female instead of Male, and the middle name of his
father which was entered as “O” instead of “U” (Exh. “A”-“A-
3”). That from the time the petitioner was born, he was
known as Miller Omandam Unabia, a Male and not a
Female. This can be shown from his dealings and
transactions. To prove such fact, petitioner presented his
Baptismal Certificate to show that he was christened as
Miller Omandam Unabia (Exh. “E”-“E-1”). Petitioner also
presented his Official Transcript of Records issued by the
Misamis Oriental State College of Agriculture and
Technology to show that he was known as Miller O. Unabia
(Exh. “G”-“G-1”). His voter’s identification showed that his
name was registered as Miller O. Unabia. There was no
instance that petitioner used the name Mellie Umandam
Unabia.
Likewise, to bolster his claim that he is a male and not a
female, petitioner subjected himself to a medical
examination with the Northern Mindanao Medical Center,
Cagayan de Oro City. The Medical Certificate showed that
petition [sic] is phenotypically male (Exh. “B”-“B-1”). Also[,]
petitioner presented clearances from the National Bureau of
Investigation and the Villanueva Police Station to show
that he has no derogatory record on file in said Offices,
(Exhs. “C”-“C-1”; “F”-“F-1”).
The Birth Certificate of petitioner’s mother Rica Guia

Omandam and that of his father Magno Olaybar Unabia
were presented to show proof that the spelling of the middle
name of petitioner is “O” and not “U.” It was also shown
that the middle name of his father is “O” from Olaybar and
not “U,” (Exhs. “H”[-]“H-1”; “I”[-]“I-1”).
The Court, after going over the pieces of evidence
presented by petitioner finds merit [with] the petition. It
has been clearly established by petitioner that there are
erroneous entries in his birth [certificate]. That since
petitioner was born, he was a ma[l]e. He is also known to

278

Republic vs. Unabia
his friends and relatives as Miller Omandam Unabia. His

middle name spelled as an ‘O’ and not a ‘U.’ As shown from
the birth certificate of the father indeed the latter’s middle
name is an ‘O.’
There is a need to correct the erroneous entries in the
birth certificate of petitioner to avoid confusion to his
person. The correction is also necessary to reveal his true
identity as not to create doubt [as] to his person.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Registrar of the
Office of the Local Civil Registry of Claveria, Misamis
Oriental is hereby ordered to correct the following
erroneous entries in the birth certificate of herein petitioner
Miller Omandam Unabia, to wit:

1) To change his name from Mel[l]ie [to]
MILLER;
2) To correct the first letter of his middle name
from ‘U’ to ‘O,’ so that the same be read as
OMANDAM;
3) To change his sex from Female to MALE;
4) To convert the middle initial of his father from
letter ‘U’ to letter ‘O.’
SO ORDERED6

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Petitioner appealed before the CA, arguing that

respondent failed to state a valid ground for change of
name; that the petition failed to state the aliases by which
respondent was known; that respondent failed to exhaust
administrative remedies; and that respondent failed to
present the physician who allegedly issued the medical
certificate stating that respondent was male.
On June 27, 2014, the CA issued the assailed Decision,
which contains the following pronouncement:
_______________
6 Id., at pp. 26-27.

279
VOL. 892, FEBRUARY 11, 2019 279

Republic vs. Unabia
Under Republic Act 10172, which amended R.A. 9048,

the city or municipal registrar or the consul general, as the
case may be, is now authorized to correct clerical or
typographical errors in the day and month, in the date of
birth or sex of a person appearing in the civil register
without need of a judicial order. Section 1 thereof provides:

SECTION 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or
Typographical Error and Change of First Name or
Nickname.—No entry in a civil register shall be
changed or corrected without a judicial order, except
for clerical or typographical errors and change of first
name or nickname, the day and month in the date of
birth or sex of a person where it is patently clear that
there was a clerical or typographical error or mistake
in the entry, which can be corrected or changed by the
concerned city or municipal civil registrar or consul
general in accordance with the provisions of this Act
and its implementing rules and regulations.

Accordingly, its implementing rules provide for the form
and content of the petition:

Rule 6. Form and content of the petition.

Insofar as applicable, Rule 8 of Administrative Order

No. 1, Series of 2001 shall be observed. In addition, as
supporting documents to the petition, the following
shall be submitted:
6.1. Earliest school record or earliest school
documents;
6.2. Medical records;
6.3. Baptismal certificate and other documents
issued by religious authorities;
6.4. A clearance or a certification that the owner of
the document has no pending administrative, civil or
criminal case, or no

280

Republic vs. Unabia
criminal record, which shall be obtained from the

following:

6.4.1. Employer, if employed;
6.4.2. National Bureau of Investigation; and
6.4.3. Philippine National Police.

6.5. The petition for the correction of sex and day
and/or month in the date of birth shall include the
affidavit of publication from the publisher and a copy
of the newspaper clipping; and
6.6. In case of correction of sex, the petition shall be
supported with a medical certification issued by an
accredited government physician that the petitioner
has not undergone sex change or sex transplant.

In this case, the appellee was able to present all the
necessary documents to support the allegations in his
petition. To prove that there was a clerical error in his
name, appellee formally offered as evidence the following:

a. Transcript of Records from Misamis Oriental School
of Agriculture and Technology;
b. Birth Certificate;
c. Baptismal Certificate;
d. Police Clearance;
e. NBI Clearance;
f. Voter’s ID;
g. Mother’s Birth Certificate;
h. Father’s Birth Certificate.

Meanwhile, to prove that there was a clerical error in his
gender, appellee presented a medical certificate issued by
Dr. Andresul A. Labis of the Northern Mindanao Medical
Center.

281
VOL. 892, FEBRUARY 11, 2019 281

Republic vs. Unabia
A scrutiny of the foregoing evidence reveals that appellee

was actually using the name Miller Omandam Unabia and
not Millie [sic] Umandam Unabia, as that reflected in his
birth certificate. The similarity between “Miller” and
“Millie” [sic] and “Omandam” and “Umandam” undoubtedly
caused confusion in its entry in the birth certificate of the
appellee. Moreover, a reading of the medical certificate
shows that appellee is phenotypically male. Evidently, it
can readily be deduced that there were clerical errors in the
aforesaid entries necessitating its rectification. Section 2(3)
of R.A. 10172 defines ‘clerical of [sic] typographical error’ as:

(3) ‘Clerical or typographical error’ refers to a
mistake committed in the performance of clerical
work in writing, copying, transcribing or typing an
entry in the civil register that is harmless and
innocuous, such as misspelled name or misspelled
place of birth, mistake in the entry of day and month
in the date of birth or the sex of the person or the like,
which is visible to the eyes or obvious to the
understanding, and can be corrected or changed only
by reference to other existing record or
records: Provided, however, That no correction must
involve the change of nationality, age, or status of the
petitioner.’

All told, the Court finds that the court a quo committed
no reversible error in ordering the correction of entries in
the birth certificate of herein appellee.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal
is DENIED. The Decision dated November 23, 2009 of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, Cagayan de Oro City, in

Special Proceeding No. 2009-018 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED7
_______________
7 Id., at pp. 32-34.

282

Republic vs. Unabia
Thus, the instant Petition.

Issues

In a November 14, 2016 Resolution,8 this Court resolved
to give due course to the Petition, which contains the
following sole assignment of error:
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION

OF LAW WHEN IT AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT GRANTING UNABIA’S
PETITION FOR CORRECTION OF ENTRIES.9

Petitioner's Arguements

In praying that the assailed RTC and CA dispositions be
set aside and that, instead, the case be dismissed for lack of
merit, petitioner pleads in its Petition and Reply:10 (1) that
the CA erred in ruling for respondent and applying
Republic Act No. 904811 (RA 9048), as amended by
Republic Act No. 1017212 (RA 10172), since said laws apply
only to administra-
_______________
8 Id., at pp. 89-90.

9 Id., at p. 13.
10 Id., at pp. 81-87.
11 AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE CITY OR MUNICIPAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OR THE
CONSUL GENERAL TO CORRECT A CLERICAL OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN AN
ENTRY AND/OR CHANGE OF FIRST NAME OR NICKNAME IN THE CIVIL REGISTER

WITHOUT NEED OF A JUDICIAL ORDER, AMENDING FOR THIS PURPOSE ARTICLES
376 AND 412 OF THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES. Approved March 22,
2001.
12 AN ACT FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY OR MUNICIPAL CIVIL REGISTRAR
OR THE CONSUL GENERAL TO CORRECT CLERICAL OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS IN
THE DAY AND MONTH IN THE DATE OF BIRTH OR SEX OF A PERSON APPEARING IN
THE CIVIL REGISTER WITHOUT NEED OF A JUDICIAL ORDER, AMENDING FOR THIS
PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED NINETY FORTY-EIGHT. Approved August 15,

2012.

283
VOL. 892, FEBRUARY 11, 2019 283

Republic vs. Unabia
tive corrections of entries, and not to judicial correction of

entries in the civil registry, the latter being covered by Rule
108 of the Rules of Court;13 (2) that even assuming that RA
9048, as amended, applied in respondent’s case, still
respondent failed to comply with its provisions, in that the
medical certificate submitted did not specifically certify
that respondent “has not undergone sex change or sex
transplant” as required by Section 514 of the law and the
physician who sup-

_______________
13 CANCELLATION OR CORRECTION OF ENTRIES IN THE CIVIL REGISTRY.

14 SEC. 5. Form and Contents of the Petition.—The petition for
correction of a clerical or typographical error, or for change of first name
or nickname, as the case may be, shall be in the form of an affidavit,
subscribed and sworn to before any person authorized by law to
administer oaths. The affidavit shall set forth facts necessary to establish
the merits of the petition and shall show affirmatively that the petitioner
is competent to testify to the matters stated. The petitioner shall state the
particular erroneous entry or entries, which are sought to be corrected
and/or the change sought to be made.
The petition shall be supported with the following documents:
(1) A certified true machine copy of the certificate or of the page of the
registry book containing the entry or entries sought to be corrected or
changed;
(2) At least two (2) public or private documents showing the correct
entry or entries upon which the correction or change shall be based; and
(3) Other documents which the petitioner or the city or municipal civil
registrar or the consul general may consider relevant and necessary for
the approval of the petition.

No petition for correction of erroneous entry concerning the date of
birth or the sex of a person shall be entertained except if the petition is
accompanied by earliest school record or earliest school documents such
as, but not limited to, medical records, baptismal certificate and other
documents issued by religious authorities; nor shall any entry
involving change of gender corrected except if the petition is
accompanied by a certification issued by an

284

Republic vs. Unabia
posedly issued it was not presented in court in order that

his qualifications may be established and so that he may
identify the medical certificate itself; (3) that an
individual’s true gender is not determinable by simple
visual observation and examination; (4) that the State’s
failure to object to the admissibility of the medical
certificate does not automatically give the same evidentiary
or probative weight, as admissibility is different from
weight; (5) that respondent’s medical certificate cannot
stand on its own as it was not established and proved as a
public document; (6) that without the required proof, it
cannot simply be assumed that respondent is male; (7) that
the correction of respondent’s name from “Mellie” to
“Miller” does not involve a simple clerical error
contemplated by Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, as said
rule refers only to changes or corrections of clerical,
typographical, and other innocuous errors and obviously
misspelled names; (8) that the change of name sought by
respondent is a substantial one, as the name “Mellie” is not
a misspelling of “Miller,” and the two names are entirely
different from each other; (9) that there is no compelling
reason to change respondent’s name, as was laid down
in Republic v. Mercadera15
_______________
accredited government physician attesting to the fact that the

petitioner has not undergone sex change or sex transplant. The
petition for change of first name or nickname, or for correction of
erroneous entry concerning the day and month in the date of birth or the
sex of a person, as the case may be, shall be published at least once a week
for two (2) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation.
Furthermore, the petitioner shall submit a certification from the
appropriate law [enforcements agencies] that he has no pending case or no
criminal record.
The petition and its supporting papers shall be filed in three (3) copies
to be distributed as follows: first copy to the concerned city or municipal
civil registrar, or the consul general; second copy to the Office of the Civil
Registrar General; and third copy to the petitioner. (Emphasis supplied)
15 652 Phil. 195; 637 SCRA 654 (2010).

285
VOL. 892, FEBRUARY 11, 2019 285

Republic vs. Unabia
and Republic v. Coseteng-Magpayo;16 and, (10) that

respondent likewise failed to comply with the requirement
of stating the petitioner’s real name and known aliases in
the petition for correction of entries filed with the trial
court.

Respondent's Arguments

Respondent, on the other hand, simply counters in the
Comment17 that the CA was correct in its pronouncements;
that the errors sought to be corrected were simple
typographical and spelling errors; that the evidence on
record supported the pronouncements of the RTC and the
CA; that the trial court was in the best position to observe
the true gender of respondent; that together with the
medical certificate submitted, there was no doubt as to
respondent’s gender; and that petitioner was deemed to
have waived its objections to the admissibility of the said
medical certificate, as it failed to object to the same when it
was offered in evidence below.

Our Ruling

The Court DENIES the petition.
When Special Proceeding No. 2009-018 was filed in
2009, the governing law then was the original, unamended
RA 9048. There was no provision then for the
administrative correction or change of clerical or
typographical errors or mistakes in the civil registry
entries of the day and month in the date of birth or sex of

individuals, but only clerical or typographical errors and
change of first names or nicknames. Administrative
corrections or changes relating to the date of birth or sex of
individuals was authorized only with the passage in 2012
of RA 10172. Even then, the amendments under RA 10172
should still apply, the law being remedial in nature.
_______________
16 656 Phil. 550; 641 SCRA 533 (2011).
17 Rollo, pp. 72-78.

286

Republic vs. Unabia
Moreover, under Section 11 of RA 9048, retroactive

application is allowed “insofar as it does not prejudice or
impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the
Civil Code and other laws.”
Petitioner questions the Medical Certificate issued by
Dr. Labis, Medical Officer III of the Northern Mindanao
Medical Center under the Department of Health, claiming
that it failed to include a certification that respondent “has
not undergone sex change or sex transplant” as required by
Section 5 of RA 9048, as amended, and that Dr. Labis was
not presented in court in order that his qualifications may
be established and so that he may identify and
authenticate the medical certificate. However, the said
Medical Certificate is a public document, the same having
been issued by a public officer in the performance of official
duty; as such, it constitutes prima facie evidence of the
facts therein stated. Under Section 23, Rule 132 of the
Rules of Court, “[d]ocuments consisting of entries in public
records made in the performance of a duty by a public
officer are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
All other public documents are evidence, even against a
third person, of the fact which gave rise to their execution
and of the date of the latter.”
There was therefore no need to further identify and
authenticate Dr. Labis’ Medical Certificate. “A public
document, by virtue of its official or sovereign character, or
because it has been acknowledged before a notary public
(except a notarial will) or a competent public official with

the formalities required by law, or because it is a public
record of a private writing authorized by law, is self-
authenticating and requires no further authentication in
order to be presented as evidence in court.”18
On the other hand, while the trial court did not seem to
make any material observation in its pronouncement
regard-
_______________
18 Patula v. People, 685 Phil. 376, 397; 669 SCRA 135, 156 (2012).

287
VOL. 892, FEBRUARY 11, 2019 287

Republic vs. Unabia
ing respondent’s physical appearance or otherwise to

support its finding that the latter was male, the record will
support a finding that respondent was indeed male. In his
photograph attached to the record, it will be observed
particularly that respondent’s Adam’s apple — or, in
medical terms, his laryngeal prominence — was quite
evident and prominent. This can only indicate that
respondent is male, because anatomically, only men
possess an Adam’s apple.
As for petitioner’s argument that the medical certificate
failed to specifically certify that respondent “has not
undergone sex change or sex transplant” as required by
law, suffice it to state that this is no longer required with
the certification by Dr. Labis that respondent is
“phenotypically male,” meaning that respondent’s
entire physical, physiological and biochemical makeup
— as determined both genetically and environmentally — is
male, which thus presupposes that he did not undergo sex
reassignment. In other words, as determined genetically
and environmentally, from conception to birth,
respondent’s entire being, from the physical, to the
physiological, to the biochemical — meaning that all the
chemical processes and substances occurring within
respondent — was undoubtedly male. He
was conceived and born male, he looks male, and
he functions biologically as a male.
Thus, in respondent’s case, the Court must do away with

the requirement of no-sex change certification. The same is
true with respondent’s failure to include his
known aliases in his petition, simply because there appear
to be none at all; the bottom line issue is his gender as
entered in the public record, not really his name.
Nonetheless, it must be laid down as a rule that when
there is a medical finding that the petitioner in a case for
correction of erroneous entry as to gender is phenotypically
male or female, the no-sex change or transplant
certification becomes mere surplusage.

288

Republic vs. Unabia
Finally, suffice it to state that, as correctly declared by

the CA, respondent was actually using the name Miller
Omandam Unabia; that “Miller” and “Mellie” and
“Omandam” and “Umandam” were confusingly similar; and
that respondent’s medical certificate shows that he is
phenotypically male. The CA thus properly held that
respondent’s birth certificate contained clerical errors in its
entries necessitating its rectification.19
Having disposed of the case in the foregoing manner, the
other issues raised by the parties are deemed irrelevant
and need not be passed upon. As far as the Court is
concerned, it has been satisfactorily shown that indeed,
there have been serious errors with respect to specific
entries in respondent’s birth record — errors that urgently
need to be rectified with alacrity, if justice is to be served.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The June 27,
2014 Decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No.
02755-MIN is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Bersamin (CJ.), Gesmundo and Carandang, JJ.,

concur.
Leonen,** J., See Separate Concurring Opinion.
_______________
19 Rollo, pp. 33-34.

** Designated additional member per Raffle dated November 26, 2018.

289
VOL. 892, FEBRUARY 11, 2019 289

Republic vs. Unabia
SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION

LEONEN, J.:

I concur in the result that the Petition should be denied.
The erroneous entries in respondent Miller Omandam
Unabia’s birth certificate must be rectified.

I.

There is no iota of doubt that respondent
was conceived and born male.1 However, to prevent
confusion, certain clarifications must be made.
The terms “sex” and “gender” refer to two (2) different
ideas having vast differences. These cannot be used
interchangeably. Sex is a biological concept, while gender is
a social concept.2
On one hand, sex “refers to the biological distinctions
between males and females,”3 and is based primarily on a
person’s capability to reproduce.4 It “encompasses those
that are biologically determined.”5 On the other hand,
gender pertains
_______________
1 Ponencia, p. 288.
2 Short, Susan E., Yang, Yang Claire and Jenkins, Tania M., Sex,
Gender, Genetics, and Health, American Journal of Public Health (2013),
available at <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3786754/?
fbclid=IwAR3xZYKIGNkbta5wkVelbutQOW9rNg2AFCzeBAb5TArMmtPO_7Sht-
IIaDs> Accessed February 19, 2019.
3 Id.
4 Eckert, Penelope and Ginet, Sally M., Language and Gender (2013),
available at <https://web.stanford.edu/-eckert/PDF/Chap1. pdf, 2>
Accessed February 19, 2019.
5 Gender and Genetics, World Health Organization, available at
<https://www.who.int/genomics/gender/en/> Accessed February 19, 2019.


290

Republic vs. Unabia
to the “social elaboration of biological sex.”6 It highlights

“the socially constructed differences between men and
women”7 influenced by the different norms and standards
of societies, varying from one society to the other.8
Determining a person’s sex mainly depends on “a
combination of anatomical, endocrinal[,] and chromosomal
features.”9 “Chromosomes are the structures that carry
genes which in turn transmit hereditary characteristics
from parents to offspring.”10
Ordinarily, humans are born with 46
chromosomes,11 broken down into 22 pairs of autosomal
chromosomes and another pair called the sex
chromosomes.12 In most women, the combination of their
chromosomes usually comprises 46XX; in most men, their
chromosomes usually consist of 46XY.13
However, research suggests that the dichotomy of the
chromosomal combinations of men and women are not the
same in all individuals.14 Some individuals are born with
only one (1) sex chromosome (45X or 45Y), while some are
born with three (3) or more sex chromosomes (47XXX,
47XYY, or 47XXY).15
The chromosomal combinations of men and women,
which are used as basis to determine one’s sex, are
different in some individuals.16 One may be born with
46XX chromosomes but
_______________
6 Eckert, Penelope and Ginet, Sally M., supra note 4.

7 Short, Susan E., supra note 2.
8 Supra note 5.
10 Supra note 5.
11 Id.
12 Short, Susan E., supra note 2.
13 Supra note 5.
15 Supra note 5.

291
VOL. 892, FEBRUARY 11, 2019 291

Republic vs. Unabia
is considered male. Another may have 46XY chromosomes

but is born female. One’s sex is not limited to a customary
combination but is subject to a range of chromosome
complements and phenotypic variations.17
Conversely, gender is the result of the norms and
standards imposed by society. It is a changing concept that
differs in every society. While most individuals are
biologically born as male or female, the behavioral
standard enforced in a given society affects one’s gender
identity.18 Exactly how one is taught how to interact with
others of the same or opposite sex usually defines one’s
gender identity.19
In its Petition, the Republic of the Philippines assailed
the Decisions of the Regional Trial Court and the Court of
Appeals, which ordered the correction of respondent’s sex
from male to female. It argued that an individual’s
Additional member per is not determined by a simple
visual observation and examination.20
Respondent countered that the evidence on record
supported the findings of the Regional Trial Court and the
Court of Appeals. In support of his contention, he
submitted a Medical Certificate,21 which certified him to be
“phenotypically male.”22
The majority noted that based on respondent’s
photograph attached to the record, his Adam’s apple was
quite evident and prominent, which can only mean that
respondent is male, because anatomically, only men
possess an Adam’s apple.23
_______________
17 Supra note 5.
18 Id.
19 Id.
20 Ponencia, pp. 284-285
21 Id.
22 Id., at p. 288
23 Id.

292

Republic vs. Unabia
I regret that I cannot agree with the factual premise for

determining the biological sex of respondent.
Both men and women have Adam’s apple. It is not
limited to men. Granting that the Adam’s apple is more
prominent in some men, this is merely caused by differing
hormonal levels.24
An Adam’s apple “is the colloquial term used to describe
what is officially named the laryngeal prominence of the
thyroid cartilage.”25 It is caused by an increased amount of
testosterone,26 a hormone “involved in regulating
secondary male characteristics”27 such as the Adam’s
apple.28 While testosterone is ordinarily associated with
men,29 “women . . . also have naturally occurring
testosterone[.]”30 Despite men having a
_______________
24 Fitzpatrick, Thomas H., Siccardi, Marco A., Anatomy, Head and
Neck, Adam’s Apple, National Center for Biotechnology Information
(2018), available at <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/ NBK535354/>
25 Id.
26 Kumar, KVS Hari, Chandra, N.S., Ajai, Garg, Anurag, Singh, S.P.
and Datta, Rakesh, Voice and endocrinology, Indian Journal of
Endocrinology and Metabolism (2016), available at
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5040035/> Access- ed
February 19, 2019.
27 Nassar, George N., Leslie, Stephen W., Physiology, Testosterone,
National Center for Biotechnology Information (2018), available at
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK526128/> Accessed February 19,
2019.
28 Fitzpatrick, Thomas H., Siccardi, Marco A., supra.
29 Tyagi, Vineet, MD, Scordo, Michael, MD, Yoon, Richard S., MD,
Liporace, Frank A., MD, and Greene, Loren W., MD, MA, Revisiting the
Role of Testosterone: Are we Missing Something? Reviews on Urology,
available at <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC5434832/>
30 Anders, Van, Sari M., Steiger, Jeffrey, and Goldey, Katherine
L., Effects of gendered behavior on testosterone in women and men,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United

293
VOL. 892, FEBRUARY 11, 2019 293

Republic vs. Unabia
higher amount of testosterone, the function of an Adam’s

apple in both women and men is just the same: to protect
the vocal cords immediately behind it.31
Accordingly, it is erroneous to conclude that only men
can possess an Adam’s apple. A woman has an Adam’s
apple, though generally less protruding than her male
counterpart.32 It is a logical fallacy to attach the category
“male” to the size and shape of the Adam’s apple. It is a
false binary.

II.

I, however, agree with the majority that Republic Act
No. 10172, being remedial in nature, can retroactively
apply here.
Settled is the rule that procedural laws have a
retroactive effect, but may only be applied to cases or
actions pending and undetermined when they were
enacted.33
Remedial laws or procedural laws are statutes
concerning modes of procedure34 “designed to facilitate the
adjudication of cases.”35 These laws “do not create new or
take away vested rights, but only operate in furtherance of
the remedy or confirmation of such rights[.]”36 Thus,
remedial laws do not fall
_______________
States of America (2015), available at

<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4653185/> Accessed
February 19, 2019.
31 Fitzpatrick, Thomas H., Siccardi, Marco A., supra note 24.
32 Id.
33 Zulueta v. Asia Brewery, Inc., 406 Phil. 543; 354 SCRA 100 (2001)
[Per J. Panganiban, Third Division].
34 Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections, 327 Phil. 521; 257 SCRA 727
(1996) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc].
35 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad, 497 Phil. 737, 744; 458
SCRA 441, 449 (2005) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
36 Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections, supra at p. 557; p. 754.

294

Republic vs. Unabia
within the proscription against retroactive operation of

statutes.37
Republic Act No. 9048 was the governing law when
respondent filed his Petition.38 Under this law, the
concerned city or municipal civil registrar or consul general
may administratively correct or change clerical or
typographical errors,39 provided that it does not involve a
change in the nationality, age, status, or sex of the
petitioner.40
While respondent’s appeal was pending before the Court
of Appeals, Republic Act No. 10172 was enacted into law.
Republic Act No. 10172 amended Republic Act No. 9048 in
the sense that clerical errors regarding one’s sex may now
be administratively corrected.41
_______________
37 Heirs of Santiago C. Divinagracia v. Ruiz, 638 Phil. 639; 624 SCRA

655 (2010) [Per J. Carpio, Second Division].
38 Ponencia, p. 286.
39 Rep. Act No. 9048 (2001), Sec. 1 provides:
SECTION 1. Authority to Correct Clerical or Typographical Error and
Change of First Name or Nickname.—No entry in a civil register shall be
changed or corrected without a judicial order, except for clerical or
typographical errors and change of first name or nickname which can be
corrected or changed by the concerned city or municipal civil registrar or
consul general in accordance with the provisions of this Act and its
implementing rules and regulations.
40 Rep. Act No. 9048 (2001), Sec. 2(3) provides:
SECTION 2. Definition of Terms.—As used in this Act, the following
terms shall mean:
....
(3) “Clerical or typographical error” refers to a mistake committed in
the performance of clerical work in writing, copying, transcribing or typing
an entry in the civil register that is harmless and innocuous, such as
misspelled name or misspelled place of birth or the like, which is visible to
the eyes or obvious to the understanding, and can be corrected or changed
only by reference to other existing record or records: Provided, however,
That no correction must involve the change of nationality, age, status or
sex of the petitioner.
41 Republic Act No. 10172 (2012), Sec. 2 provides:

295
VOL. 892, FEBRUARY 11, 2019 295

Republic vs. Unabia
In its Decision, the Court of Appeals applied Republic

Act No. 10172 and ruled that respondent had presented all
the necessary documents to prove that there was a clerical
error regarding his sex.42
The Court of Appeals correctly applied Republic Act No.
10172. As a procedural law, it neither creates nor
eliminates vested rights. Instead, it merely reinforces and
confirms people’s right to have the entries in their birth
certificates corrected. It reaffirms their right to remove any
cloud of doubt on their identity.
Moreover, Republic Act No. 9048, as amended by
Republic Act No. 10172, specifically states that its
provisions shall have a retroactive effect as long as it does
not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in
accordance with the Civil Code and other laws.43
_______________
SECTION 2. Section 2, paragraph (3) of the Act is likewise amended

to read as follows:
SEC. 2. Definition of Terms.—As used in this Act, the following terms
shall mean:
....
(3) ‘Clerical or typographical error’ refers to a mistake committed in
the performance of clerical work in writing, copying, transcribing or typing
an entry in the civil register that is harmless and innocuous, such as
misspelled name or misspelled place of birth, mistake in the entry of day
and month in the date of birth or the sex of the person or the like, which is
visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding, and can be corrected or
changed only by reference to other existing record or records: Provided,
however, That no correction must involve the change of nationality, age, or
status of the petitioner.
42 Ponencia, pp. 279-281.
43 Rep. Act No. 9048 (2001), as amended by Rep. Act No. 10172 (2012),
Sec. 11, provides:
SECTION 11. Retroactivity Clause.—This Act shall have retroactive
effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in
accordance with the Civil Code and other laws.

296

Republic vs. Unabia
III.

As a final note, a review of the pertinent laws and rules
would reveal that the entries in a person’s birth certificate
were never meant to be set in stone. The procedure in
changing the entries in a birth certificate is not
unprecedented. In several cases, this Court has had the
opportunity to decide on cases involving changes in the
entry of a person’s birth certificate.44
This fundamental desire to change and correct one’s
entry in his or her birth certificate is born from the need to
be identified as an individual. The entries in one’s birth
certificate separate him or her from others. The entries,
such as the name and sex, as indicated in one’s birth
certificate, are considered as markers of one’s identity. To
ensure that an individual’s sex is aligned with his or her
identity, one undergoes the process of correcting his or her
sex, as entered in his or her birth certificate.
Perhaps in the nearest future, when our society, as
represented by our constitutional organs, may become more
enlightened, the binary male or female may be reassessed.
Understanding that sex may be a continuum interacting
with gender as another continuum may assist to identify
ourselves better, devoid of the stereotypes imposed by a
patriarchal society.
Even the objective of being identified as regards to
biological sex may become superseded with the changing of
times. For instance, there has been a steady rise of sex
reassignment surgeries being performed all across the
globe.
_______________
44 See Silverio v. Republic, 562 Phil. 953; 537 SCRA 373 (2007)
[Per J. Corona, First Division], and Republic v. Cagandahan, 586 Phil.
637; 565 SCRA 72 (2008) [Per J. Quisimbing, Second Division].

297
VOL. 892, FEBRUARY 11, 2019 297

Republic vs. Unabia
Sex reassignment or gender-affirming surgery45 “is a

medical treatment intended to effect change to a person’s
sex. It may include surgery and hormonal treatments
designed to alter a person’s gender.”46 As more individuals
undergo sex reassignment, changing the sexes in their
birth certificates is inevitable. Thus, sex may cease to be
believed as permanent and immutable. It may already be
an impractical and obsolete marker of identity. Rather
than identify, it may become a forced category with all its
attendant burdens.
Accordingly, I vote to DENY the Petition.
Petition denied, judgment affirmed in toto.
Notes.—A petition for correction or cancellation of an

entry in the civil registry cannot substitute for an action to
invalidate a marriage. A direct action is necessary to
prevent circumvention of the substantive and procedural
safeguards of marriage under the Family Code, A.M. No.
02-11-10-SC and other related laws. (Fujiki vs.
Marinay, 700 SCRA 69 [2013])
Even substantial errors in a civil registry may be
corrected and the true facts established provided the
parties aggrieved by the error avail themselves of the
appropriate adversary proceeding. (Republic vs. Uy, 703
SCRA 425 [2013])

——o0o——
_______________
45 JD, Frey, Chiodo, Poudrier G., MV, Hazen A., An Update on Genital
Reconstruction Options for the Female-to-Male Transgender Patient: A
Review of the Literature, National Center for Biotechnology Information
(2017), available at <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pubmed/28234856>
46 Black’s Law Dictionary, West Publishing Co., p. 1498, 9th ed. (2009).
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

8 Republic V Unabia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8 Republic V Unabia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

8 Republic V Unabia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5/13/2021 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 892

G.R. No. 213346. February 11, 2019.*

Remedial Law; Special Proceedings; Correction of Clerical

VOL. 892, FEBRUARY 11, 2019 271

duty; as such, it constitutes prima facie evidence of the facts

presupposes that he did not undergo sex reassignment. In other

272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

argument that the medical certificate failed to specifically

Civil Law; “Sex” and “Gender,” Distinguished; View that the

Adam’s Apple; View that it is erroneous to conclude that only

VOL. 892, FEBRUARY 11, 2019 273

naturally occurring testosterone[.]” Despite men having a

administratively corrected.—Republic Act No. 9048 was the

274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Same; Same; Same; Same; Retroactivity of Laws; View that

undergoes the process of correcting his or her sex, as entered in

VOL. 892, FEBRUARY 11, 2019 275

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

when it should properly have been written as “Miller

1 Rollo, pp. 9-25.

276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

as “U” when it should have been “O.” In support of the

Petitioner Miller Omandam Unabia testified during the

VOL. 892, FEBRUARY 11, 2019 277

tered in the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Claveria,

The Birth Certificate of petitioner’s mother Rica Guia

278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

his friends and relatives as Miller Omandam Unabia. His

Petitioner appealed before the CA, arguing that

6 Id., at pp. 26-27.

VOL. 892, FEBRUARY 11, 2019 279

Under Republic Act 10172, which amended R.A. 9048,

Insofar as applicable, Rule 8 of Administrative Order

280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

criminal record, which shall be obtained from the

VOL. 892, FEBRUARY 11, 2019 281

A scrutiny of the foregoing evidence reveals that appellee

Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, Cagayan de Oro City, in

7 Id., at pp. 32-34.

282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Thus, the instant Petition.

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON A QUESTION

8 Id., at pp. 89-90.

CONSUL GENERAL TO CORRECT A CLERICAL OR TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN AN

ENTRY AND/OR CHANGE OF FIRST NAME OR NICKNAME IN THE CIVIL REGISTER

PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT NUMBERED NINETY FORTY-EIGHT. Approved August 15,

VOL. 892, FEBRUARY 11, 2019 283

tive corrections of entries, and not to judicial correction of

13 CANCELLATION OR CORRECTION OF ENTRIES IN THE CIVIL REGISTRY.

the approval of the petition.

284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

posedly issued it was not presented in court in order that

accredited government physician attesting to the fact that the

VOL. 892, FEBRUARY 11, 2019 285

and Republic v. Coseteng-Magpayo;16 and, (10) that

entries of the day and month in the date of birth or sex of

16 656 Phil. 550; 641 SCRA 533 (2011).

17 Rollo, pp. 72-78.

286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED