Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1939 > September 1939 Decisions > G.R. No. 46451 September 30, 1939 - PAZ CHUA v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

068 Phil 649:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 46451. September 30, 1939.]

PAZ CHUA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. THE SECRETARY OF LABOR, Respondent-Appellee.

Jesus Paredes for Appellant.

Solicitor-General Ozaeta and Assistant Attorney Camzares for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


NATIONALITY; CASE AT BAR. — As C. U. is of Chinese parentage and has the same nationality as her parents on the ground that she was then a minor, there is no doubt that when she went to China at the age of 13 years, which must have been in 1927 she continued to be a Chinese citizen (art. 2, par. 2, Chap. 11, of the Revised National Laws of China, edited by Flournoy-Hudson and published by Carnegie Endowment of International Peace, cited on page 9 of the brief of the Solicitor-General). When four years later she married Y. T., another citizen of the Chinese Republic, she, granting that she had a different nationality, followed that of her husband, in accordance with paragraph 1 of said Compilation of Laws of China. C. U. cannot invoke Filipino nationality merely because of the fact that she was born in this country, inasmuch as she does not come within the provisions of section 2 of the Jones Law, Act of Congress of the United States of August 29, 1916, not having been a Spanish subject on April 11, 1899.


D E C I S I O N


IMPERIAL, J.:


Chua Uang was born in Aparri, Province of Cagayan, Philippines, on October 6, 1914, her parents being citizens of the Chinese Republic. At the age of 13 years, she left this country for China and at the age of 17 years she was married, in said republic, to a Chinese named Yao Tian. The latter died during the Sino-Japanese war. On March 4, 1938, Chua Uang returned to Manila on the boat Angking with her two minor children named Yao Hua and Yao Ching had with her husband. Upon her arrival, the board of special inquiry of the Immigration Division of the Department of Labor subjected them to the necessary investigation to determine whether or not they were en- titled to land and reside in this country. After the hearing, the board denied entry to the three on the ground that Chua Uang is a citizen of the Chinese Republic having preserved the nationality of her husband which she had acquired by her marriage to him and having failed to acquire Philippine citizenship by means of the formalities prescribed by law. As to her minor children, the board held that both were Chinese because they follow the nationality of their mother. Chua Uang and her children appealed from the decision of the board to the Secretary of Labor but this official upheld the decision of the former. Paz Chua, in behalf of the three immigrants, then filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of First Instance of the City of Manila and said court, after due hearing, affirmed the decision of the Secretary of Labor, denied the application and held that the applicants are not entitled to enter into nor reside in the country. From this decision of the court, the applicants appealed to this court.

In their two assignments of error, the appellants contend that they are entitled to enter into and remain in the country, Chua Uang for being a Filipina, and her two children for being minors.

As Chua Uang is of Chinese parentage and has the same nationality as her parents on the ground that she was then a minor, there is no doubt that when she went to China at the age of 13 years, which must have been in 1927, she continued to be a Chinese citizen (art. 2, par. 2, Chap. II, of the Revised Nationality Laws of China, edited by Flournoy-Hudson and published by Carnegie Endowment of International Peace, cited on page 9 of the brief of the Solicitor-General). When four years later she married Yao Tian, another citizen of the Chinese Republic, she, granting that she had a different nationality, followed that of her husband, in accordance with paragraph 1 of said Compilation of Laws of China. Chua Uang cannot involve Filipino nationality merely because of the fact that she was horn in this country, inasmuch as she does not come within the provisions of section 2 of the Jones Law, Act of Congress of the United States of August 29, 1916, not having been a Spanish subject on April 11, 1899.

The appealed decision is hereby affirmed, with the costs of this instance to the appellants. So ordered.

Avanceña, C.J., Villa-Real, Diaz, Laurel, Concepcion, and Moran, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






September-1939 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 46562 September 13, 1939 - BARDWIL BROS. v. PHIL. LABOR UNION

    068 Phil 436

  • G.R. No. 46673 September 13, 1939 - ANDRES P. GOSECO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    068 Phil 444

  • G.R. No. 45596 September 18, 1939 - MARCOS LIPANA v. DOMlNGO LAO Y OTROS

    068 Phil 451

  • G.R. No. 46412 September 18, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANOJI

    068 Phil 471

  • G.R. No. 46497 September 18, 1939 - ANTONIO S. SANAGUSTIN v. CONRADO BARRIOS

    068 Phil 475

  • G.R. No. 46170 September 20, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERMIN PUNTO

    068 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. 46780 September 20, 1939 - FISCAL OF CAMARINES NORTE v. JUDGE OF FIRST INSTANCE OF CAMARINES NORTE

    068 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. 46108 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DATU GALANTU MEDTED

    068 Phil 485

  • G.R. No. 46109 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICOLAS CARPIO

    068 Phil 490

  • G.R. No. 46197 September 22, 1939 - KINKWA MERIYASU CO. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    068 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. 46302 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TORIBIO C. COSTES

    068 Phil 503

  • G.R. No. 46578 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANICETO MARQUEZ

    068 Phil 506

  • G.R. No. 46580 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO DE GUZMAN

    068 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. 46602 September 22, 1939 - YAP TAK WING & CO. v. MUNICIPAL BOARD

    068 Phil 511

  • G.R. No. 46686 September 22, 1939 - TRANQUILINO RUBIS v. PHILIPPINE CHARITY SWEEPSTAKES

    068 Phil 515

  • G.R. No. 46715 September 22, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO DE JESUS

    068 Phil 517

  • G.R. No. 46068 September 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUSTAQUIO CAROZ

    068 Phil 521

  • G.R. No. 46650 September 23, 1939 - MARIO BENGZON v. AUDITOR GENERAL

    068 Phil 527

  • G.R. No. 46652 September 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CASIMIRO CONCEPCION

    068 Phil 530

  • G.R. Nos. 46802-46812 September 23, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RESURRECCION B. PEÑAS

    068 Phil 533

  • G.R. No. 46739 September 23, 1939 - PAMPANGA BUS CO., INC. v. PAMBUSCO EMPLOYEES UNION

    068 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. 46668 September 26, 1939 - GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. PAMPANGA SUGAR MILLS

    068 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. 46729 September 25, 1939 - KAPISANAN NG MGA MANGAGAWA SA PANTRANCO v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    068 Phil 552

  • Adm. Case No. 879 September 27, 1939 - PEDRO DE GUZMAN v. TOMAS B. TADEO

    068 Phil 554

  • G.R. No. 46080 September 27, 1939 - GUILLERMO A. CU UNJIENG v. HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING CORP.

    068 Phil 559

  • G.R. No. 46094 September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO C. QUEBRAL

    068 Phil 564

  • G.R. No. 46237 September 27, 1939 - ROSALIO MARQUEZ v. BERNARDO CASTILLO

    068 Phil 568

  • G.R. No. 46350 September 27, 1939 - TAN CHAY v. GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 572

  • G.R. No. 46470 September 27, 1939 - JUAN CASTILLO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS

    068 Phil 577

  • G.R. No. 46539 September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALENTIN DOQUEÑA

    068 Phil 580

  • G.R. Nos. 46553-46555 September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEON FABILLAR

    068 Phil 584

  • G.R. No. 46615 September 27, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO AQUINO

    068 Phil 588

  • G.R. No. 46727 September 27, 1939 - PAMBUSCO EMPLOYEES’ UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

    068 Phil 591

  • G.R. No. 46168 September 29, 1939 - INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER CO. OF THE PHIL. v. DELFIN MAHINAY

    068 Phil 597

  • G.R. No. 46336 September 29, 1939 - REVEREND ULRIC ARCAND v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

    068 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. 46458 September 29, 1939 - ERLANGER & GALINGER v. HERMENEGILDO G. ALAGAR

    068 Phil 610

  • G.R. No. 46725 September 29, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMINO AQUINO

    068 Phil 615

  • G.R. No. 46023 September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS FLORENDO

    068 Phil 619

  • G.R. No. 46252 September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONOR DE MOLL

    068 Phil 626

  • G.R. No. 46298 September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DATU AMBIS

    068 Phil 635

  • G.R. No. 46390 September 30, 1939 - CASIMIRO TIANGCO v. PROCESO FRANCISCO

    068 Phil 639

  • G.R. No. 46396 September 30, 1939 - ALEJANDRO DE GUZMAN v. VISAYAN RAPID TRANSIT CO.

    068 Phil 643

  • G.R. No. 46451 September 30, 1939 - PAZ CHUA v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

    068 Phil 649

  • G.R. No. 46484 September 30, 1939 - SANTIAGO SAMBRANO v. RED LINE TRANSPORTATION CO., INC.

    068 Phil 652

  • G.R. No. 46724 September 30, 1939 - CRESCENCIO REYNES v. ROSALINA BARRERA

    068 Phil 656

  • G.R. No. 46728 September 30, 1939 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO MONTENEGRO

    068 Phil 659