Lex Rex Ph

Silverio v. Republic Digest


Petitioner Silverio underwent sex change CASE TAGS

Male and Female in MarriageHomosexuality CITATION 

Silverio vs Republic G.R. 174689 | October 22, 2007 ROMMEL JACINTO DANTES SILVERIO, petitioner,vs.REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent. FACTS

Petitioner filed to change his first name from “Rommel Jacinto” to “Mely” and sex from male to female in RTC of Manila. The petitioner underwent procedures to transform himself to a full-fledged “woman.” On June 2003, the trial court ruled in favor of Silverio for 3 reasons: (1) His body resembles female physique (2) no harm will happen to the Republic, (3) affirming his petition will make their side happy. On Aug 2003, the Republic, thru the OSG, filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, alleging that there is no law allowing a change of sex in birth certificate by reason of sex alteration. On Feb 2006, the CA ruled in favor of the Republic, reversing the trial court’s decision and denied the application for reconsideration. Petitioner claims that his petitions are supported by Articles 407 to 413 of the Civil Code, Rules 103 and 108 of the Rules of Court, and RA 9048. ISSUE

Can a person’s first name and sex be changed on the grounds of sex reassignment? RULING

No, there is no law that allows change of first name and sex on grounds of sex reassignment. The Petition for reconsideration is DENIED. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Court of Appeals. The laws mentioned provide grounds for change of first name but change due to sex reassignment was not implied. It’s not in the court’s jurisdiction to enact a new basis. Section 5 of Act 3753 (Civil Register Law) provides the immutable way to determine the sex of a person, that is, visually examining the genitals of the infant at birth. In addition, the Supreme Court disagrees against the “no harm” reasoning used by the trial court. Affirming Silverio’s petition will actually destroy the nation and produce serious consequences, serving as a “tip of the spear” and bringing in more elements that will destroy the morals guarded by the Constitution, such as, the sanctity of marriage and family. In foresight, the Court cites future problems, “Should transgenders be then allowed to officially marry in the country?” “Could this be considered a rampant sacrilege against the conscience of the people?” “Will those that performed sex reassignments also avail rights women’s rights under the law?”

Other Content You May Be Interested In:


These are surplus corporate profits (coming from unrestricted retained earnings) which are [SDD] set apart, declared, and ordered to be distributed to stockholders. Profits are

Read More »

Brown-Araneta vs. Araneta

Facts Juan and Michelle were married and had 2 minor children. They separated and the children remained in Michelle’s custody. Juan filed for a Petition

Read More »

Actions in personam

In actions in personam, the judgment is for or against a person directly. Jurisdiction over the parties is required in actions in personam because they

Read More »

Lim vs. CA Digest

January 24, 2000 Facts In 1994, Pastor Y. Lim died intestate. Surviving spouse Rufina filed a petition for administration of his estate. The properties of

Read More »