Republic vs Cagandahan Case Digest G.R. No. 166676, September 12, 2008

Republic vs Cagandahan Case Digest 

G.R. No. 166676 ;September 12, 2008

 PRINCIPLE/S:

Special Proceedings

a) Rule 108 no longer covers clerical or typographical errors.

- Republic Act No. 9048, which amended Article 376 and 412 of the Civil Code, provides that correction or change of clerical or typographical errors can now be made through administrative proceedings and without the need for a judicial order.

Effect:

- Rep. Act No. 9048 removed from the ambit of Rule 108 of the Rules of Court the correction of clerical or typographical errors.

- Rule 108 now applies only to substantial changes and corrections in entries in the civil register.

b) Change of Sex is under Rule 108

Rep. Act No. 9048 provides 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.

FACTS: Respondent Jennifer Cagandahan filed a Petition for Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate before the RTC. She prayed to have her first name changed from Jennifer to Jeff and her gender from female to male. She alleged that is suffering from Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia which is a rare medical condition where afflicted persons possess both male and female characteristics. The lower court decided in her favor but the OSG appealed before the Supreme Court through a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court raising purely questions of law. The OSG contends that the petition is fatally defective for non-compliance with Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court because the said petition did not implead the local civil registrar.

ISSUE/S:

1) WON Cagandahan’s sex as appearing in her birth certificate can be changed.

2) WON Cagandahan’s first name as appearing in her birth certificate can be changed.

HELD:

1) YES. Where the person is biologically or naturally intersex the determining factor in his gender classification would be what the individual, like respondent, having reached the age of majority, with good reason thinks of his/her sex. Respondent here thinks of himself as a male and considering that his body produces high levels of male hormones (androgen) there is preponderant biological support for considering him as being male. It is at maturity that the gender of such persons, like respondent, is fixed. Furthermore, in the absence of a law on the matter, the Court will not dictate on respondent concerning a matter so innately private as one's sexuality and lifestyle preferences. Hence Cagandahan’s sex as appearing in her birth certificate can be changed.

2)  YES. Respondent's change of name from Jennifer to Jeff implies a change of a feminine name to a masculine name. This is proper since respondent's change of name merely recognizes his preferred gender.