SILVERIO VS.

REPUBLIC CASE DIGEST

FACTS:
 November 26, 2002: Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio filed a petition for the
change of his first name and sex in his birth certificate – from “Rommel Jacinto”
to “Mely,” and from “male” to “female.”
 The petitioner alleged that he is a male transsexual: “anatomically male but feels,
thinks and acts as a female.”
 He underwent psychological examination, hormone treatment, and breast
augmentation.
 January 27, 2001: culmination of his transformation to become a “woman,” as he
underwent sex reassignment surgery in Bangkok, Thailand.
 American fiancé: Richard P. Edel
 June 4, 2003: the RTC granted Silverio’s petition. The RTC ruled that it should be
granted based on equity; that the petitioner’s misfortune to be trapped in a man’s
body is not his own doing and should not be any way taken against him; that no
harm, injury or prejudice will be caused to anybody or the community in granting
the petition; that there was no opposition to his petition (even the OSG did not
make any basis for opposition at this point).
 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.
 February 23, 2006: the Court of Appeals rendered a decision in favor of the
Republic; it ruled the trial court’s decision lacked legal basis.
ISSUE/S:
 Whether or not changing the name and sex on the birth certificate is allowed on
the ground of sex reassignment.
HOLDING:
 No. The Supreme Court ruled that the change of such entries finds no support in
existing legislation.
o Issue on change of first name and change of sex: RA 9048 only authorizes
the city or municipal civil registrar or the Consul General to correct
clerical or typographical error in an entry and/or change of first name or
nickname in the Civil Register without need of judicial order. Section 2(c)
of RA 9048 defines “clerical or typographical error” as: a mistake
committed in the performance of clerical work in writing, copying,
transcribing or typing an entry in the civil register… Provided, however,
that no correction must involve the change of nationality, age status, or sex
of the petitioner.
 To correct simply means “to make or set aright; to remove the faults or
error from,” while to change means “to replace something with something
else of the same kind or with something that serves as a substitute. The
birth certificate of petitioner contained no error. No correction is
necessary.

Section 5 of Act 3753 (the Civil Register Law) states that “the declaration
of the physician or midwife in attendance at the birth or, in default thereof,
the declaration of either parent of the newborn child, shall be sufficient for
the registration of a birth in the civil register.” 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.

o Issue on equity: According to the SC, to grant the changes sought by the
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). Moreover, there will be major changes in statutes
that underscore the public policy in relation to women.

RULING: Denied. The petitioner is not allowed by the existing laws to change his first
name and sex due only to the ground of sex reassignment procedure.