Republic of the Philippines

Court of Appeals
Manila
SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION
IN RE: PETITION TO CORRECT
ENTRY IN THE RECORD OF
BIRTH/CERTIFICATE OF LIVE
BIRTH; CHANGE OF GENDER/
SEX OF KENNY APODACA
TAN FROM "F" (FEMALE) TO
"M" (MALE)

CA-G.R. CV NO. 85207

KENNY APODACA TAN,

Petitioner-Appellee,

Members:
VASQUEZ, JR., Chairman
DE GUIA-SALVADOR,* and
VELOSO, JJ.

-versusLOCAL/CITY CIVIL REGISTRAR

OF LEGAZPI CITY,
Respondent,

Promulgated:

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, ________________

Oppositor-Appellant.
x ----------------------------------------------- x

DECISION
VELOSO, J.:
The essential requisite for allowing substantial corrections of
entries in the civil registry is that the true facts be established in an
appropriate adversarial proceeding.1

Per Office Order No. 201-06 RTR dated August 9, 2006.

Barco vs. Court of Appeals, 420 SCRA 162, 172 (2004).

CA-G.R. CV NO. 85207

DECISION
==================

The Case
On appeal by the Republic of the Philippines, through the Office
of the Solicitor General (OSG), is the Order2 dated March 9, 2005 of
the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City3 in Spec. Proc. No. 1988, the
dispositive portion of which reads:
"ACCORDINGLY, the Local Civil Registrar of the City of
Legazpi is hereby ordered to correct the entry 'Female' to Male in
the record of birth of Kenny Apodaca Tan.
Serve a copy of this order to the Local Civil Registrar of
Legazpi City.
SO ORDERED."

The Facts
Kenny Apodaca Tan is a legitimate child of Nestor Tan and
Marilyn Apodaca. Born on July 3, 1977 in the City of Legazpi, his
Certificate of Live Birth4 reveals a "Female (F)" gender.

On

February 17, 2004, he filed a Petition5 with the Regional Trial Court of
Legazpi City praying that the Local Civil Registrar be directed to
correct the entry appearing in his birth certificate, such that his
gender/sex shall appear as "Male (M)" instead of "Female (F)".

Rollo, page 39.

Branch 3.
4
Records, page 3.
5
Ibid, pages 1-2.
3

CA-G.R. CV NO. 85207

DECISION
==================

In an Order6 dated February 18, 2004, the trial court, taking

cognizance of the case, set it for hearing on May 26, 2004. The Civil
Registrar and all those claiming to have interest in the case were
directed to file their opposition within 15 days from notice of the
petition, or from the last day of publication of said notice. Finally, the
court directed petitioner to cause the publication of said Order and to
send a copy of the petition, with its annexes, to the Solicitor General.
On the day set for hearing, no opposition was recorded by the
court. Petitioner thus presented the following documents to establish
the jurisdictional facts:

"Exhibit 'A'
Exhibit 'B'

- Petition
- Legal Fees Form showing payment of
docket/filing fees
Exhibit 'C'
- Order dated February 18, 2004
Exhibit 'D'
- Notice of hearing
Exhibit 'E'
- Certificate of Posting
Exhibit 'F'
- Notice of Appearance of the Solicitor General
Exhibit 'G'
- Authorization of the Solicitor General to the
City Prosecutor to appear in this case.
Exhibit 'H'
- Issue of the Bicol Regional Weekly Digest
dated February 29, 2004
Exhibit 'I'
- Issue of the Bicol Regional Weekly Digest
dated March 7, 2004
Exhibit 'J'
Issue of the Bicol Regional Weekly Digest
Exhibit 'K'
- Affidavit of Publication"7

Trial ensued with the presentation of the testimonies of

petitioner himself, his mother Marilyn Apodeca Tan, and Dr. Sarah
Bongao-Vasquez. To prove that he is a male, petitioner adduced his
6
7

Records, page 9.
Ibid.,page 18.

CA-G.R. CV NO. 85207

DECISION
==================

SSS Personal Record, Voter's Registration Record, Community Tax

Certificate, Passport Application and the Medical Certificate issued by
Dr. Vasquez.8

Afterwhich, petitioner made his formal offer of

evidence and rested his case. When asked by the court if it intends
to present any controverting evidence, the State, through the
deputized City Prosecutor of Legazpi City, answered in the negative.

The Ruling of the Trial Court

Finding the petition for correction of gender to be in order, the
trial court granted said petition on March 9, 2005. Thus:
"After hearing, having complied with the notice required by
law (Exhs. C, D, E, H, I, J and K) and finding the evidence
presented clear and convincing that petitioner's sex is MALE and
the entry 'female' in his record of birth is erroneous (Exhs. L, M, N,
O, P and Q; TSN of Kenny Apodaca Tan, August 24, 2004; TSN of
Marilyn Apodaca Tan, October 5, 2004; TSN of Dr. Sarah BongaoVasquez, January 25, 2005), and there being --1) No opposition was entered by any person or party;
2) No objection on the part of the Local Civil Registrar;
and
3) No contrary evidence was presented by the state
the Petition is GRANTED."9

Hence, this appeal.10

See: Folder of Documentary Exhibits, pages 54-58.

Rollo, page 39.
10
Ibid., 20-38.
9

CA-G.R. CV NO. 85207

DECISION
==================

Issue:
In fine, We shall resolve the sole issue of:
WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING
THE PETITION FOR CORRECTION OF GENDER.

OUR RULING
Claiming that it was not served a copy of the petition and its
annexes, appellant posits that the State was deprived of opportunity
to oppose Kenny Apodaca Tan's petition for correction of entry of
gender in his birth certificate. Appellant likewise assails the Order
granting the instant petition, for it failed to state the facts and law
upon which the trial court's conclusions were based.
We do not agree.
The essential requisite for allowing substantial corrections of
entries in the civil registry is that the true facts be established in an
appropriate adversarial proceeding.11 Rule 108 of the Revised Rules
of Court provides the procedure for cancellation or correction of
entries in the civil registry, viz.:
"SEC. 4. Notice and publication. - Upon the filing of the
petition, the court shall, by an order, fix the time and place for the
hearing of the same, and cause reasonable notice thereof to be
given to the persons named in the petition. The court shall also
cause the order to be published once a week for three (3)
11

Note 1, supra.

CA-G.R. CV NO. 85207

DECISION
==================

consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the

province.
SEC. 5. Opposition. - The civil registrar and any person
having or claiming any interest under the entry whose cancellation
or correction is sought may, within fifteen (15) days from notice of
the petition, or from the last date of publication or such notice, file
his opposition thereto."

Hence, upon the filing of the petition, it becomes the duty of the court
to: (1) issue an order fixing the time and place for the hearing of the
petition, and (2) cause the order for hearing to be published once a
week, for three (3) consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general
circulation in the province.12
In this case, the foregoing procedures were complied with
thereby justifying the trial court's grant of the petition. Records show
that upon receipt of the petition, the trial court issued a notice of
hearing13 setting the hearing on May 26, 2004 at 8:30 o'clock in the
morning.

Said notice of hearing was published on February 29,

March 7 and 14, 2004 issues of "The Bicol Regional Weekly Digest,"
a newspaper edited and issued at Legazpi City and of general
circulation in the Bicol Region, the Samar Provinces and the
Philippines.14

A copy of the notice of hearing was likewise posted in

three conspicuous places at the City Hall, Legazpi City, Provincial

Capitol of Albay, Legazpi City and OCC Bulletin Board, Rawis,
Legazpi City on March 31, 2004.15 The notice of hearing stated that
12

Eleosida vs. Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City, 382 SCRA 22, 28 (2002).
Records, page 10.
14
See: Affidavit of Publication, Folder of Documentary Exhibits, page 49.
15
See: Certificate of Posting, Records, page 11.
13

CA-G.R. CV NO. 85207

DECISION
==================

"any person having or claiming any interest under which correction is

sought may, within 15 days from notice of the petition or from the last
day of publication of such notice, file an opposition to the petition." 16
The Solicitor General and the Local Civil Registrar of Legazpi City
were furnished a copy of the notice of hearing.

The foregoing,

therefore, satisfy all the requirements of Rule 108.

Appellant's claim that the State was deprived of an opportunity
to oppose the petition is without merit. A petition for correction is an
action in rem, an action against a thing and not against a person. An
in rem proceeding is validated essentially through publication.17
When the notice of hearing was ordered published by the trial court,
it contained a directive for all interested parties to file their opposition
within a prescribed period.

Interestingly, the Solicitor General

deputized Prosecutor Solon Sison to assist and represent the State

in the hearing for this case.

Prosecutor Sison, in fact, actively

participated in the proceedings below by asking appellee and his

witnesses questions during cross-examination.18

It is clearly

incorrect for one to claim that appellant was deprived of an

opportunity to oppose the petition.

Instead, what We have is a

situation where appellant failed to show controverting evidence

needed to prove that the correction of entry from "female" to "male" is
unwarranted and will prejudice the government. Verily, the trial court
committed no reversible error in granting the instant petition.
16

See: 3rd WHEREAS clause, Folder of Documentary Exhibits, page 10.

Note 1, ibid., at page 173.
18
TSN, August 24, 2004, pages 11-15; TSN, October 5, 2004, pages 9-11.
17

CA-G.R. CV NO. 85207

DECISION
==================

Also, appellant's assertion that the decision failed to state the

facts and the law upon which the decision was based, is untrue. All
that is required of the judiciary is that the decision rendered makes
clear why either party prevailed under the law as applied to the facts
that have been established.19 There is no rigid formula on the
language that may be employed to satisfy the requirements of clarity
and distinctness. The discretion of the particular judge in this respect,
while not unlimited, is necessarily broad. There is no sacramental
form of words which he must use under pain of being considered as
having failed to abide by what the Constitution directs.20
The present case is a simple action for correction of entry in
Kenny Apodaca Tan's Certificate of Live Birth. After considering the
oral and documentary evidence adduced by appellee, the trial court
found that the gender of Kenny Apodaca Tan is "male" and not
"female," as erroneously indicated in his birth certificate. As the fact
of being a "male" was competently established by appellee through
the presentation of documentary evidence (SSS Personal Record,
Voter's Registration Record, Community Tax Certificate, Passport
Application and the Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Vasquez) and
testimonies of witnesses (Marilyn Apodaca Tan and Dr. Sarah
Bongao-Vasquez), the Order dated March 9, 2005, viz.:
"After hearing, having complied with the notice required by
law (Exhs. C, D, E, H, I, J and K) and finding the evidence
presented clear and convincing that petitioner's sex is MALE and
19
20

Jose vs. Santos, 35 SCRA 538, 543 [1970].

Mendoza vs. CFI of Quezon, 51 SCRA 369, 375 [1973].

CA-G.R. CV NO. 85207

DECISION
==================

the entry 'female' in his record of birth is erroneous (Exhs. L, M, N,

O, P and Q; TSN of Kenny Apodaca Tan, August 24, 2004; TSN of
Marilyn Apodaca Tan, October 5, 2004; TSN of Dr. Sarah BongaoVasquez, January 25, 2005), and there being --1) No opposition was entered by any person or party;
2) No objection on the part of the Local Civil Registrar;
and
3) No contrary evidence was presented by the state
the Petition is GRANTED."21,

could have therefore only been proper.

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed
Order dated March 9, 2005 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

VICENTE S.E. VELOSO

Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:

CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, JR.

Associate Justice

21

Rollo, page 39.

REBECCA DE-GUIA SALVADOR

Associate Justice

CA-G.R. CV NO. 85207

DECISION
==================

10

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, it is
hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court.

CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, JR.

Associate Justice
Chairman, Special Third Division