REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

JENNIFER CAGANDAHAN
GR No. 166676,       September 12, 2008

FACTS:

Jennifer Cagandahan filed before the Regional Trial Court Branch 33 of Siniloan, Laguna a Petition for
Correction of Entries in Birth Certificate of her name from Jennifer B. Cagandahan to Jeff Cagandahan
and her gender from female to male. It appearing that Jennifer Cagandahan is sufferingfrom Congenital
Adrenal Hyperplasia which is a rare medical condition where afflicted persons possess both male and
female characteristics. Jennifer Cagandahan grew up with secondary male characteristics. To further her
petition, Cagandahan presented in court the medical certificate evidencing that she is suffering from
Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia which certificate is issued by Dr. Michael Sionzon of the Department of
Psychiatry, University of the Philippines-Philippine General Hospital, who, in addition, explained that
“Cagandahan genetically is female but because her body secretes male hormones, her female organs did
not develop normally, thus has organs of both male and female.” The lower court decided in her favor but
the Office of the Solicitor General appealed before the Supreme Court invoking that the same was a
violation of Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court because the said petition did not implead the
local civil registrar.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Cagandahan’s sex as appearing in her birth certificate be changed.

RULING:

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court. It held that, in deciding the case,  the
Supreme Court considered “the compassionate calls for recognition of the various degrees of intersex as
variations which should not be subject to outright denial.” The Supreme Court made use of the availale
evidence presented in court including the fact that private respondent thinks of himself as a male and as to
the statement made by the doctor that Cagandahan’s body produces high levels of male hormones
(androgen), which is preponderant biological support for considering him as being male.”

The Supreme Court further held that they give respect to (1) the diversity of nature; and (2) how
an individual deals with what nature has handed out. That is, the Supreme Court respects the
respondent’s congenital condition and his mature decision to be a male. Life is already difficult for the
ordinary person. The Court added that a change of name is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion,
to be exercised in the light of the reasons and the consequences that will follow.