Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio vs. Republic of The Philippines

Digested by: Rona Mae O Canoy
ROMMEL JACINTO DANTES SILVERIO VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 174689. October 19, 2007
Ponente: CORONA, J
Topic: Civil Register Law
Principle:
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.
Facts:
Petitioner 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,
Branch 8.
He alleged that he is a male transsexual, that is, "anatomically male but
feels, thinks and acts as a female" and that he had always identified himself with
girls since childhood. Feeling trapped in a man's body, he consulted several
doctors in the United States. 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
surgery 2 in Bangkok, Thailand. He was thereafter examined by Dr. Marcelino
Reysio-Cruz, Jr.,a plastic and reconstruction surgeon in the Philippines, who
issued a medical certificate attesting that he (petitioner) had in fact undergone the
procedure.
From then on, petitioner lived as a female and was in fact engaged to be
married. He then sought to have his name in his birth certificate changed from
"Rommel Jacinto" to "Mely," and his sex from "male" to "female."
RTC Ruling:
RTC rendered a decision in favor of petitioner.
Firstly, the court is of the opinion that granting the petition would be more in
consonance with the principles of justice and equity. With his sexual [re-
assignment],petitioner, who has always felt, thought and acted like a woman, now
possesses the physique of a female. Petitioner's misfortune to be trapped in a man's
body is not his own doing and should not be in any way taken against him.
Likewise, the court believes that no harm, injury or prejudice will be caused to
anybody or the community in granting the petition. On the contrary, granting the
petition would bring the much-awaited happiness on the part of the petitioner and her
[fiancé] and the realization of their dreams.
Finally, no evidence was presented to show any cause or ground to deny the
present petition despite due notice and publication thereof. Even the State, through
the [OSG] has not seen fit to interpose any [o]pposition.
CA Ruling:
CA rendered a decision in favor of the Republic. It ruled that the trial court's decision
lacked legal basis. 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. Thus, the Court
of Appeals granted the Republic's petition, set aside the decision of the trial court and
ordered the dismissal of SP Case No. 02-105207. Petitioner moved for
reconsideration but it was denied.
Arguments of the Petitioner:

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.
Arguments of the Solicitor General:

Republic of the Philippines (Republic),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.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner is entitled to the relief asked for.
SC Ruling:
Under the Civil Register Law, a birth certificate is a historical record of the
facts as they existed at the time of birth. Thus, the sex of a person is determined at
birth,visually done by the birth attendant (the physician or midwife) by examining
the genitals of the infant. Considering that there is no law legally recognizing sex
reassignment, the determination of a person's sex made at the time of his or her
birth, if not attended by error, is immutable.
When words are not defined in a statute they are to be given their common
and ordinary meaning in the absence of a contrary legislative intent. The words
"sex," "male" and "female" as used in the Civil Register Law and laws concerning
the civil registry (and even all other laws) should therefore be understood in their
common and ordinary usage, there being no legislative intent to the contrary. In
this connection, sex is defined as "the sum of peculiarities of structure and function
that distinguish a male from a female" or "the distinction between male and
female."Female is "the sex that produces ova or bears young" and male is "the sex
that has organs to produce spermatozoa for fertilizing ova."Thus, the words "male"
and "female" in everyday understanding do not include persons who have
undergone sex reassignment. Furthermore, "words that are employed in a statute
which had at the time a well-known meaning are presumed to have been used in
that sense unless the context compels to the contrary."Since the statutory
language of the Civil Register Law was enacted in the early 1900s and remains
unchanged, it cannot be argued that the term "sex" as used then is something
alterable through surgery or something that allows a post-operative male-to-female
transsexual to be included in the category "female."

Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio vs. Republic of The Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio vs. Republic of The Philippines

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

Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio vs. Republic of The Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digested by: Rona Mae O Canoy

ROMMEL JACINTO DANTES SILVERIO VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Arguments of the Petitioner:

Arguments of the Solicitor General:

You might also like