"Ignoratia legis non excusat."

Ignoratia legis non excusat.  

These case digests are for the personal consumption of the blogger and review of other law students who may also find use for it.  

It is also the opinion of the blogger to (sometimes) state the issue first as this helps narrow down the facts of the digest to essentials.

May this blog be of help to you.


Tuesday, August 9, 2011

REPUBLIC VS. CAGANDAHAN

REPUBLIC VS. CAGANDAHAN

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

Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines

Respondent: Jennifer B. Cagandahan

Ponente: J. Quisimbing

Facts:

The respondent’s petition was granted by the RTC on January 12, 2005.  The following facts were presented by the respondent to the RTC:

(a) She was born on January 13, 1981 and was registered as female in the Certificate of Live birth.

(b) While growing up, she developed secondary male characteristics because of CAH, which is a condition where persons thus afflicted possess both male and female characteristics.

(c) Respondent testified and presented the testimony of Dr. Michael Sionzon of the Department of Psychiatry, UP-PGH and the latter issued a medical certificate.  Such document testified respondent’s claim.

Thus, this petition by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) seeking a reversal of the abovementioned ruling had been filed.

Issue:

The issue raised in this petition is:

(1) Whether or not the trial court erred in ordering the correction of entries in the birth certificate of respondent to change her sex or gender, from female to male, on the ground of her medical condition knows as CAH, and her name from “Jennifer” to “Jeff”, under Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court.

Held:

(1) No.  The trial court did not err in ordering the correction of entries in the birth certificate of respondent.  The court considered the unique circumstance in this case where nature had taken its course.


“As for respondent's change of name under Rule 103, this Court has held that a change of name is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion, to be exercised in the light of the reasons adduced and the consequences that will follow. The trial court's grant of respondent's change of name from Jennifer to Jeff implies a change of a feminine name to a masculine name. Considering the consequence that respondent's change of name merely recognizes his preferred gender, we find merit in respondent's change of name. Such a change will conform with the change of the entry in his birth certificate from female to male.”

No comments:

Post a Comment