Facts:
In 2002, petitioner Silverio field a petition for the change of his first name “Rommel” to “Mely” and his sex from male to female in his birth certificate before the RTC of Manila. He alleged that he is a male transsexual (anatomically male but feels, thinks and acts as a female), that he had always identified himself with girls since childhood and that he underwent a several medical procedures (hormone treatment, breast augmentation, psychological examination and sex reassignment surgery) to transform himself to a woman. Petitioner believes that after having acquired the physical features of a female, he became entitled to the civil registry changes sought.
In 2002, petitioner Silverio field a petition for the change of his first name “Rommel” to “Mely” and his sex from male to female in his birth certificate before the RTC of Manila. He alleged that he is a male transsexual (anatomically male but feels, thinks and acts as a female), that he had always identified himself with girls since childhood and that he underwent a several medical procedures (hormone treatment, breast augmentation, psychological examination and sex reassignment surgery) to transform himself to a woman. Petitioner believes that after having acquired the physical features of a female, he became entitled to the civil registry changes sought.
The RTC ruled in his favor, explaining that it is consonance with the principle of justice and equality. The OSG filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals alleging that there is no law allowing change of name by reason of sex alteration. The CA reversed the decision; hence, Silverio appealed.
Issues:
1. Can sex reassignment surgery be a ground for a change in name and sex in the birth certificate?
2. May the entries in the birth certificate as to first name or sex be changed on the ground of equity?
2. May the entries in the birth certificate as to first name or sex be changed on the ground of equity?
Held:
1. No.
A Person’s First Name Cannot Be Changed On the Ground of Sex Reassignment
The State has an interest in the names borne by individuals and entities for purposes of identification. A change of name is a privilege, not a right. Petitions for change of name are controlled by statutes. In this connection, Article 376 of the Civil Code provides: "ART. 376. No person can change his name or surname without judicial authority." This Civil Code provision was amended by RA 9048.
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. Under the law, therefore, jurisdiction over applications for change of first name is now primarily lodged with the aforementioned administrative officers. The intent and effect of the law is to exclude the change of first name from the coverage of Rules 103 (Change of Name) and 108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) of the Rules of Court, until and unless an administrative petition for change of name is first filed and subsequently denied. It likewise lays down the corresponding venue, form and procedure. In sum, 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. RA 9048 does not sanction a change of first name on the ground of sex reassignment.
Before a person can legally change his given name, he must present proper or reasonable cause or any compelling reason justifying such change. In addition, 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.
In sum, the petition in the trial court in so far as it prayed for the change of petitioner’s first name 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. It was an improper remedy because the proper remedy was administrative, that is, that provided under RA 9048. It was also filed in the wrong venue as the proper venue was in the Office of the Civil Registrar of Manila where his birth certificate is kept. More importantly, it had no merit since the use of his true and official name does not prejudice him at all. For all these reasons, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed petitioner’s petition in so far as the change of his first name was concerned.
No Law Allows The Change of Entry In The Birth Certificate As To Sex On the Ground of Sex Reassignment
The SC said that considering that there is no law recognizing sex re-assignment, the determination of a person’s sex at the time of birth, if not attended by error, is immutable. It held that “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. There is no special law in the country governing sex reassignment and its effect.
2. Neither may entries in the birth certificate as to first name or sex be changed on the ground of equity.
The changes sought by petitioner will have serious and wide-ranging legal and public policy consequences. First, even the trial court itself found that the petition was but petitioner’s first step towards his eventual marriage to his male fiancé. However, marriage, one of the most sacred social institutions, is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman. One of its essential requisites is the legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female. To grant the changes sought by petitioner will substantially reconfigure and greatly alter the laws on marriage and family relations. It will allow the union of a man with another man who has undergone sex reassignment (a male-to-female post-operative transsexual). Second, there are various laws which apply particularly to women such as the provisions of the Labor Code on employment of women, certain felonies under the Revised Penal Code and the presumption of survivorship in case of calamities under Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, among others. These laws underscore the public policy in relation to women which could be substantially affected if petitioner’s petition were to be granted. (Silverio vs. Republic, G.R. No. 174689, October 22 2007)
A Person’s First Name Cannot Be Changed On the Ground of Sex Reassignment
The State has an interest in the names borne by individuals and entities for purposes of identification. A change of name is a privilege, not a right. Petitions for change of name are controlled by statutes. In this connection, Article 376 of the Civil Code provides: "ART. 376. No person can change his name or surname without judicial authority." This Civil Code provision was amended by RA 9048.
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. Under the law, therefore, jurisdiction over applications for change of first name is now primarily lodged with the aforementioned administrative officers. The intent and effect of the law is to exclude the change of first name from the coverage of Rules 103 (Change of Name) and 108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry) of the Rules of Court, until and unless an administrative petition for change of name is first filed and subsequently denied. It likewise lays down the corresponding venue, form and procedure. In sum, 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. RA 9048 does not sanction a change of first name on the ground of sex reassignment.
Before a person can legally change his given name, he must present proper or reasonable cause or any compelling reason justifying such change. In addition, 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.
In sum, the petition in the trial court in so far as it prayed for the change of petitioner’s first name 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. It was an improper remedy because the proper remedy was administrative, that is, that provided under RA 9048. It was also filed in the wrong venue as the proper venue was in the Office of the Civil Registrar of Manila where his birth certificate is kept. More importantly, it had no merit since the use of his true and official name does not prejudice him at all. For all these reasons, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed petitioner’s petition in so far as the change of his first name was concerned.
No Law Allows The Change of Entry In The Birth Certificate As To Sex On the Ground of Sex Reassignment
The SC said that considering that there is no law recognizing sex re-assignment, the determination of a person’s sex at the time of birth, if not attended by error, is immutable. It held that “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. There is no special law in the country governing sex reassignment and its effect.
2. Neither may entries in the birth certificate as to first name or sex be changed on the ground of equity.
The changes sought by petitioner will have serious and wide-ranging legal and public policy consequences. First, even the trial court itself found that the petition was but petitioner’s first step towards his eventual marriage to his male fiancé. However, marriage, one of the most sacred social institutions, is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman. One of its essential requisites is the legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female. To grant the changes sought by petitioner will substantially reconfigure and greatly alter the laws on marriage and family relations. It will allow the union of a man with another man who has undergone sex reassignment (a male-to-female post-operative transsexual). Second, there are various laws which apply particularly to women such as the provisions of the Labor Code on employment of women, certain felonies under the Revised Penal Code and the presumption of survivorship in case of calamities under Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, among others. These laws underscore the public policy in relation to women which could be substantially affected if petitioner’s petition were to be granted. (Silverio vs. Republic, G.R. No. 174689, October 22 2007)
0 Comments
Post a Comment