ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
January-1949 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-406 January 7, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO GARCIA

    082 Phil 496

  • G.R. No. L-1449 January 7, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE DOSAL, ET AL.

    082 Phil 501

  • G.R. No. L-1656 January 7, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMAN VILO

    082 Phil 524

  • G.R. No. L-1838 January 7, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EXEQUIEL LACANLALE

    082 Phil 536

  • G.R. No. L-1874 January 7, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELECIO MEJIAS

    082 Phil 541

  • G.R. No. L-2327 January 11, 1949 - CANUTO F. PIMENTEL v. PEDRO FESTEJO

    082 Phil 545

  • G.R. No. L-1607 January 12, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ATANACIO FIGUIEROA

    082 Phil 559

  • G.R. Nos. L-1846-48 January 18, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO REYES, ET AL.

    082 Phil 563

  • G.R. No. L-1591 January 20, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO REFUERZO

    082 Phil 576

  • In re VICENTE SOTTO, for contempt of court : January 21, 1949 - 082 Phil 595

  • G.R. No. L-365 January 21, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTONIO RACAZA

    082 Phil 623

  • G.R. No. L-1278 January 21, 1949 - LORETO BARRIOQUINTO, ET AL. v. ENRIQUE A. FERNANDEZ, ET AL

    082 Phil 642

  • G.R. No. L-1369 January 21, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL VALENCIA

    082 Phil 657

  • G.R. No. L-1187 January 25, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUFRACIO LANSANG

    082 Phil 662

  • G.R. No. L-1288 January 25, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JACINTO PINEDA

    082 Phil 668

  • G.R. No. L-1561 January 25, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE CADA

    082 Phil 671

  • G.R. No. L-2456 January 25, 1949 - NICOLAS B. POTOT v. JUAN L. BAGANO, ET AL.

    082 Phil 679

  • G.R. No. L-986 January 26, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX ALCOVER

    082 Phil 681

  • G.R. No. L-1620 January 26, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUPERTO ARANGUREN, ET AL.

    082 Phil 696

  • G.R. No. L-300 January 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENO CASTRO

    082 Phil 706

  • G.R. No. L-1481 January 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO ABENDAN, ET AL.

    082 Phil 711

  • G.R. No. L-1547 January 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO BATE

    082 Phil 716

  • G.R. No. L-1653 January 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE TUMANDAO

    082 Phil 723

  • G.R. No. L-1677 January 28, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIRILO HUMARANG

    082 Phil 737

  • G.R. Nos. L-1642-44 January 29, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO MENDIOLA, ET AL.

    082 Phil 740

  • G.R. No. L-2186 January 29, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN BULATAO

    082 Phil 753

  • G.R. No. L-2417 January 29, 1949 - DALMACIO CELINO v. ALEJANDRO BAUTISTA

    082 Phil 756

  • G.R. No. L-1805 January 31, 1949 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN ALBANO

    082 Phil 767

  • G.R. No. L-2007 January 31, 1949 - WILLIAM CHIONGBIAN v. ALFREDO DE LEON, ET AL.

    082 Phil 771

  • G.R. No. L-2676 January 31, 1949 - LI KIM THO v. GO SIU KAO, ET AL.

    082 Phil 776

  • R-CA-No. 9871 January 31, 1949 - ANTONIO AUSTRIA v. JOSE E. LAUREL, ET AL.

    082 Phil 780

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. L-2007   January 31, 1949 - WILLIAM CHIONGBIAN v. ALFREDO DE LEON, ET AL. <br /><br />082 Phil 771

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [G.R. No. L-2007. January 31, 1949.]

    WILLIAM CHIONGBIAN, Petitioner, v. ALFREDO DE LEON, in his capacity as Commissioner of Customs, JOSE GALLOFIN, in his capacity as Collector of Customs of the Port of Cebu, and VICENTE DE LA CRUZ, in his capacity as General Manager of the Philippine Shipping Administration, respondents: PHILIPPINE SHIPOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, intervenor.

    Tañada, Pelaez & Teehankee, Pendatun, Arches & Sayo, and De Santos, Herrera & Delfino for Petitioner.

    First Assistant Solicitor General Roberto A. Gianzon and Solicitor Lucas Lacson for Respondents.

    Roxas, Picazo & Mejia for intervenor.

    Mariano Jesus Cuenco, Miguel Cuenco and Nicolas Belmonte as amici curiae.

    SYLLABUS


    1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; CITIZENSHIP; HOLDING PUBLIC OFFICE THROUGH ELECTION BEFORE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION; LEGITIMATE MINOR CHILD. — Upon the adoption of the Constitution, V. C., father of herein petitioner, having been elected to a public office in the Philippines before the adoption of the Constitution, became a Filipino citizen by virtue of Article IV, section 1, subsection 2 of the Constitution. W. C., the herein petitioner, who was then a minor, also became a Filipino by reason of subsection 3 (Article IV) of the Constitution, his father having become a Filipino citizen upon the adoption of said Constitution. This is also in conformity with the settled rule in our jurisprudence that a legitimate minor child follows the citizenship of his father.

    2. ID.; ID.; INTENTION OF FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION; NO PROVISION THEREIN WAS INTENDED ONLY FOR BENEFIT OF ONE PERSON. — The members of the Constitutional Convention could not have dedicated a provision of our Constitution merely for the benefit of one person without considering that it could also affect others. When they adopted subsection 2, they permitted, if not willed, that said provision should function to the full extent of its substance and its terms, not by itself alone, but in conjunction with all other provisions of that great document. They adopted said provision fully cognizant of the transmissive essence of citizenship as provided in subsection 3. Had it been their intention to curtail the transmission of citizenship in such a particular case, they would have so clearly stated.

    3. ID.; ID.; DELETIONS IN THE PRELIMINARY DRAFTS OF THE CONVENTION, EFFECT OF. — Deletions in the preliminary drafts of the Convention are, at best, negative guides, which cannot prevail over the positive provisions of the finally adopted Constitution.

    4. CONTRACT OF SALE; HONEST ERROR COMMITTED IS NOT MISREPRESENTATION; CASE AT BAR. — Respondent’s allegation that the petitioner violated the contract of sale with the Philippine Shipping Administration on the ground of misrepresentation, petitioner having alleged in said contract that his father was a naturalized Filipino, is without merit. Held: That such was not a deliberate misrepresentation but an error which any person not versed in the law is prone to commit. It is clear that petitioner merely meant that his father was a Filipino citizen by operation of law and not by birth.


    D E C I S I O N


    MORAN, C.J. :


    This is a petition seeking to permanently prohibit respondent Customs officials from cancelling the registration certificates of petitioner’s vessels, and respondent Philippine Shipping Administration from rescinding the sale of three vessels to petitioner. The primary basis for respondents’ and intervenor’s acts is the allegation that petitioner is not a Filipino citizen and therefore not qualified by law to operate and own vessels of Philippine registry. The Philippine Shipping Administration also alleges that petitioner violated the contract of sale of three vessels executed between them, on the ground of misrepresentation, petitioner having alleged in said contract that his father was a naturalized Filipino citizen. The Philippine Shipowners’ Association was later allowed to intervene and it filed its answer against the petitioner.

    The entire case hinges on whether or not petitioner William Chiongbian is a Filipino citizen, and this Court holds that he is one.

    Article IV of the Constitution provides:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "SECTION 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.

    "(2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before the adoption of this Constitution, had been elected to public office in the Philippine Islands.

    "(3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines.

    "(4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship.

    "(5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

    "SEC. 2. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law."cralaw virtua1aw library

    In 1925, Victoriano Chiongbian, a Chinese citizen and father of the herein petitioner William Chiongbian, was elected to and held the office of municipal councilor of the town of Plaridel, Occidental Misamis. This fact is sufficiently established by the evidence submitted to this Court; by the findings of the National Bureau of Investigation cited in Opinion No. 27, s. 1948, of the Secretary of Justice; and as admitted by respondents in their pleadings. It is also shown and admitted that at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, petitioner William Chiongbian was still a minor.

    It is conclusive that upon the adoption of the Constitution, Victoriano Chiongbian, father of herein petitioner, having been elected to a public office in the Philippines before the adoption of the Constitution, became a Filipino citizen by virtue of Article IV, section 1, subsection 2 of the Constitution. William Chiongbian, the herein petitioner, who was then a minor, also became a Filipino citizen by reason of subsection 3 (Article IV) of the Constitution, his father having become a Filipino citizen upon the adoption of said Constitution. This is also in conformity with the settled rule of our jurisprudence that a legitimate minor child follows the citizenship of his father.

    It is argued by respondents that this privilege of citizenship granted by subsection 2 (Article IV, Constitution) is strictly personal and does not extend to the children of the grantee. In support of this contention they offer two principal arguments. Firstly, that this subsection was adopted by the Constitutional Convention merely to grant Filipino citizenship to Delegate Caram and thus obviate the possibility of a non-Filipino signing the Constitution as one of its framers. Secondly, it is argued that the original draft of said subsection 2 contained the phrase — "and their descendants," — which was deleted from the final draft, thus showing that this privilege of citizenship was intended to be strictly personal to the one who had been elected to a public office and did not extend to his descendants.

    With regard to the first argument, it may be said that the members of the Constitutional Convention could not have dedicated a provision of our Constitution merely for the benefit of one person without considering that it could also affect others. When they adopted subsection 2, they permitted, if not willed, that said provision should function to the full extent of its substance and its terms, not by itself alone, but in conjunction with all other provisions of that great document. They adopted said provision fully cognizant of the transmissive essence of citizenship as provided in subsection 3. Had it been their intention to curtail the transmission of citizenship in such a particular case, they would have so clearly stated.

    The second argument of respondents is similarly untenable. The mere deletion of the phrase — "and their descendants," — is not determinative of any conclusion. It could have been done because the learned framers of our Constitution considered it superfluous, knowing full well that the meaning of such a phrase was adequately covered by subsection 3. Deletions in the preliminary drafts of the Convention are, at best, negative guides, which cannot prevail over the positive provisions of the finally adopted Constitution.

    Respondents’ allegation that the petitioner violated the contract of sale with the Philippine Shipping Administration on the ground of misrepresentation, petitioner having alleged in said contract that his father was a naturalized Filipino, is without merit. Such was not a deliberate misrepresentation but an error which any person not versed in the law is prone to commit. It is clear that petitioner merely meant that his father was a Filipino citizen by operation of law and not by birth.

    In view of all the foregoing, the petition for the issuance of the writ of prohibition is hereby granted and respondent Customs officials are hereby enjoined from cancelling the registration certificates of petitioner’s vessels and respondent Philippine Shipping Administration is hereby enjoined from rescinding the sale of the three vessels made to petitioner. No costs. It is so ordered.

    Paras, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Briones, Tuason and Montemayor, JJ., concur.

    Moran, C.J., I certify that Mr. Justice Feria voted for the issuance of the writ.

    G.R. No. L-2007   January 31, 1949 - WILLIAM CHIONGBIAN v. ALFREDO DE LEON, ET AL. <br /><br />082 Phil 771


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED