Silverio Vs Republic Case Digest
Silverio Vs Republic Case Digest
Silverio Vs Republic Case Digest
Silverio
vs
Republic
Submitted by:
RAJE PAUL F. ARTUZ
J.D. – IV
Submitted to:
JUDGE ESPERANZA ISABEL POCO-DESLATE
Professor
ROMMEL JACINTO DANTES SILVERIO, Petitioner,
v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. NO. 174689, October 22, 2007
FACTS:
Petitioner began his attempts to transform himself to a "woman" on
January 27, 2001 when he underwent sex reassignment surgery in Bangkok,
Thailand. From then on, he lived as a female and was in fact engaged to be
married. On November 26, 2002, he filed a petition in RTC Manila Branch 8
for the change of his first name from "Rommel Jacinto" to "Mely," and sex
from "male" to "female."
Since no opposition to the petition was made, the trial court rendered
a decision on June 4, 2003 in favor of petitioner. It ruled that granting the
petition would be more in consonance with the principles of justice and
equity, and that no harm, injury or prejudice will be caused to anybody or
the community in granting the petition.
On August 18, 2003, the Republic of the Philippines, thru the OSG,
filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals. It alleged that there is
no law allowing the change of entries in the birth certificate by reason of sex
alteration.
On February 23, 2006, the Court of Appeals rendered a decision in
favor of the Republic. It ruled that the trial court's decision lacked legal
basis, that there is no law allowing the change of either name or sex in the
certificate of birth on the ground of sex reassignment through surgery.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration but it was denied. Hence, he filed
a petition before the Supreme Court claiming 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.
ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is entitled to change his First Name and Sex
on the ground of Sex Reassignment?
RULING:
The Supreme Court ruled in the negative. The Petition lacks merit.
RA 9048 now governs the change of first name. It vests the power and
authority to entertain petitions for change of first name to the city or
municipal civil registrar or consul general concerned. The remedy and the
proceedings regulating change of first name are primarily administrative in
nature, not judicial.
RA 9048 likewise provides the grounds for which change of first name
may be allowed:
Petitioner praying for the change of his first name on the basis of his
sex reassignment is not sanctioned by RA 9048. Before a person can legally
change his given name, he must present proper or reasonable cause or any
compelling reason justifying such change. Also, he must show that he will be
prejudiced by the use of his true and official name. In this case, he failed to
show, or even allege, any prejudice that he might suffer as a result of using
his true and official name. Moreover, the petition in the trial court was not
within that court's primary jurisdiction as the petition should have been filed
with the local civil registrar concerned, assuming it could be legally done. For
all these reasons, the Supreme Court upheld the CA’s dismissal of the
petition in so far as the change of the first name was concerned.
Under RA 9048, a correction in the civil registry involving the change of sex
is not a mere clerical or typographical error. It is a substantial change for
which the applicable procedure is Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
The entries correctable under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court are those
provided in Articles 407 and 408 of the Civil Code:
ART. 407. Acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the civil status
of persons shall be recorded in the civil register.
(1) Births; (2) marriages; (3) deaths; (4) legal separations; (5)
annulments of marriage; (6) judgments declaring marriages void from
the beginning; (7) legitimations; (8) adoptions; (9) acknowledgments
of natural children; (10) naturalization; (11) loss, or (12) recovery of
citizenship; (13) civil interdiction; (14) judicial determination of
filiation; (15) voluntary emancipation of a minor; and (16) changes of
name.
For these reasons, while petitioner may have succeeded in altering his
body and appearance through the intervention of modern surgery, no law
authorizes the change of entry as to sex in the civil registry for that reason.
Thus, there is no legal basis for his petition for the correction or change of
the entries in his birth certificate.