Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1969 > March 1969 Decisions > G.R. No. L-21664 March 28, 1969 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. MANOLO L. MADDELA, ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-21664. March 28, 1969.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, Petitioners, v. HON. MANOLO L. MADDELA, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Quezon, Branch II, and MIGUELA TAN SUAT, Respondents.

[G.R. No. L-21665. March 28, 1969.]

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, Petitioners, v. HON. MANOLO L. MADDELA, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Quezon, Branch II, and CHAN PO LAN, Respondents.

First Assistant Solicitor General Esmeraldo Umali and Solicitor Bernardo P. Pardo, for Petitioners.

De Mesa and De Mesa for Private Respondents.


SYLLABUS


1. POLITICAL LAW CITIZENSHIP; JUDICIAL DECLARATION OF FILIPINO CITIZENSHIP NOT ALLOWED IN THIS JURISDICTION; CASES AT BAR. — Private respondents’ identical prayer in the lower court was for a declaration of their Filipino citizenship and for an order to compel the Commissioner of Immigration to cancel their respective alien certificates of registration on the ground that they had married Filipino husbands. In granting the said prayer, the lower court was clearly in error. At that time, jurisprudence had already set the question at rest: no person claiming to be a citizen may get a judicial declaration of citizenship.


D E C I S I O N


MAKALINTAL, J.:


These are actually two (2) separate petitions for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction but are decided jointly because the issues presented proceed from the same factual background.

The pertinent facts are not disputed. On April 29, 1963 the Court of First Instance of Quezon (Branch II), Hon. Manolo L. Maddela presiding, rendered a decision in its Special Proceeding No. 4012, which is hereunder quoted in its entirety:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"This is a petition to have the petitioner Miguela Tan Suat a Chinese National, to be declared a Filipino citizen. The Solicitor General has been represented by Assistant Fiscal Jose Veluz. During the trial it has been established to the satisfaction of the Court that sometime in the year 1937 petitioner was legally married to Sy Ing Seng, a Filipino citizen; and that the petitioner has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications to become a Filipino Citizen. After the submission of the evidence for the petitioner, the court inquired from Fiscal Veluz if he has any opposition to the petition to which the Fiscal answered that he has no opposition, neither has he any evidence to warrant opposition. The Court had it announced to the public if there is any opposition to the petition of Miguela Tan Suat to be declared a Filipino citizen and nobody in the crowded courtroom registered his opposition.

"IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, petitioner Miguela Tan Suat is hereby declared a Filipino citizen by marriage and the Commissioner of Immigration is hereby ordered to cancel the necessary alien certificate of registration and immigrant certificate of residence of the petitioner and to issue the corresponding identification card."cralaw virtua1aw library

On the same day the same court rendered another similarly worded decision in its Special Proceeding No. 4013, this time in favor of Chan Po Lan. This second decision reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"This is a petition to have the petitioner Chan Po Lan, a Chinese National, to be declared a Filipino citizen. The Solicitor General has been represented by Assistant Fiscal Jose Veluz. During the trial it has been established to the satisfaction of the Court that sometime in the year of 1961 petitioner was legally married to Cu Bon Piao, a Filipino citizen and the petitioner has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications to become a Filipino citizen. After the submission of the evidence for the petitioner, the court inquired from Fiscal Veluz if he has any opposition to the petition to which the Fiscal answered that he has no opposition, neither has he any evidence to warrant any opposition. The Court had it announced to the public if there is any opposition to the petition of Chan Po Lan to be declared a Filipino citizen and nobody in the crowded courtroom registered his opposition.

"IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, petitioner Chan Po Lan is hereby declared a Filipino citizen by marriage and the Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration is hereby ordered to cancel the necessary alien certificate of registration and immigrant certificate of residence of the petitioner and to issue the corresponding identification card."cralaw virtua1aw library

On July 1, 1963 the Solicitor General 1 filed separate notices of appeal from said decisions, at the same time requesting an extension of ten (10) days within which to file the corresponding records on appeal. However, because of the unexplained failure of the Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance of Quezon to forward the records immediately despite repeated requests therefor by the Solicitor General, the latter, unable to prepare the records on appeal, filed the instant petitions instead, including the Commissioner of Immigration as co-petitioner in view of the fact that the dispositive parts of the decisions of the lower court are addressed to him for compliance.

On August 10, 1963 we issued in each case a writ of preliminary injunction to restrain execution and enforcement of the judgment. Thereafter these two cases were submitted for decision without any answer from the respondents.

Private respondents’ identical prayer in the lower Court was for a declaration of their Filipino citizenship and for an order to compel the Commissioner of Immigration to cancel their respective alien certificates of registration on the ground that they had married Filipino husbands. In granting the said prayer the lower court was clearly in error. At that time jurisprudence had already set the question at rest: no person claiming to be a citizen may get a judicial declaration of citizenship.

"Under our laws, there can be no action or proceeding for the judicial declaration of the citizenship of an individual. Courts of justice exist for the settlement of justiciable controversies, which imply a given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an act or omission violative of said right, and a remedy, granted or sanctioned by law, for said breach of right. As an incident only of the adjudication of the rights of the parties to a controversy, the court may pass upon, and make a pronouncement relative to, their status. Otherwise, such a pronouncement is beyond judicial power. Thus, for instance, no action or proceeding may be instituted for a declaration to the effect that plaintiff or petitioner is married, or single, or a legitimate child, although a finding thereon may be made as a necessary premise to justify a given relief available only to one enjoying said status. At times, the law permits the acquisition of a given status, such as naturalization by judicial decree. But there is no similar legislation authorizing the institution of a judicial proceeding to declare that a given person is part of our citizenry." (Tan v. Republic, L-14159, April 18, 1960). 2

Before these cases were submitted for decision the Solicitor General filed a motion, dated February 14, 1964, to cite the Clerk of Court of the Court of First Instance of Quezon for contempt by reason of his failure to forward the records of these cases to this Court despite our resolution to that effect. It appears, however, that after the said resolution was issued the Clerk did send those records and the same were received here on January 24, 1964. The question of contempt has therefore become moot.

WHEREFORE, the writs prayed for are hereby granted; the questioned decisions are set aside and the writs of preliminary injunction previously issued are made permanent. Costs against private respondents.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Zaldivar, Sanchez, Ruiz Castro, Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. The Solicitor General was not furnished copy of either of the petitions below, nor did he authorize the Provincial Fiscal of Quezon to appear in representation of his office.

2. See also: (Palaran vs Republic, G.R. No. L-15047, January 30, 1962; Channie Tan v. Republic, G.R. No L-14159, April 18, 1960; Tan Yu Chin v. Republic, G.R. No. L-15775, April 29, 1961; Delumen v. Republic, G.R. No. L-5552, January 28, 1954).




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






March-1969 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-26430 March 11, 1969 - ROSA GONZALEZ VDA. DE PALANCA, ET AL. v. CHUA KENG KIAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29588 March 18, 1969 - ANTONIO J. VILLEGAS, ET AL. v. ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26443 March 25, 1969 - MAKATI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. PEDRO C. TANJUATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-26770 & L-26771 March 25, 1969 - SAN ILDEFONSO ELECTRIC PLANT, INC. v. BALIUAG ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24985 March 27, 1969 - VICTORIAS MILLING CO., INC. v. BERTITO D. DADIVAS

  • G.R. No. L-24399 March 28, 1969 - FIRESTONE TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO TEMPONGKO

  • G.R. Nos. L-24634 & L-24635 March 28, 1969 - UNION OF PHILIPPINE EDUCATION EMPLOYEES v. PHILIPPINE EDUCATION CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24699 March 28, 1969 - ABIGUEL REYES-GREGORIO, ET AL. v. ARSENIO REYES

  • G.R. No. L-24775 March 28, 1969 - MARIANO C. ATEGA v. MONTANO A. ORTIZ

  • G.R. No. L-24982 March 28, 1969 - BERNARDINA FLORENDO v. BONIFACIA FLORENDO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25333 March 28, 1969 - CONSOLIDATED WORKERS UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25338 March 28, 1969 - UNION INSURANCE SOCIETY OF CANTON, LTD. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25439 March 28, 1969 - IN RE: CHUA TAN CHUAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-25555 March 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO MAGCAMIT

  • G.R. No. L-25618 March 28, 1969 - ABELARDO SUBIDO, ET AL. v. SIMEON GOPENGCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25878 March 28, 1969 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF FREE LABOR UNIONS v. GAUDENCIO CLORIBEL

  • G.R. No. L-26153 March 28, 1969 - GUALBERTO TENCHAVEZ v. ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEVELOPMENT CO., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26487 March 28, 1969 - CONSTANTINA DE AGRAVIADOR, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26572 March 28, 1969 - MORALES DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26932 March 28, 1969 - RUPERTO SANCHEZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26953 March 28, 1969 - ZENAIDA MEDINA v. VENANCIA L. MAKABALI

  • G.R. No. L-26808 March 28, 1969 - LUCIO V. GARCIA v. CONRADO M. VASQUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-27100 March 28, 1969 - GERMAN S. MONTESA v. FELIPE ONOFRE DIRECTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27120 March 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN L. BOCAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27189 March 28, 1969 - FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY v. MAERSK LINE FAR EAST SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-27231 March 28, 1969 - ALFONSO VISITACION v. VICTOR MANIT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28113 March 28, 1969 - MUNICIPALITY OF MALABANG, ET AL. v. PANGANDAPUN BENITO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28734 March 28, 1969 - EMETERIO A. RODRIGUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29199 March 28, 1969 - CLENIO L. ONDONA v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29343 March 28, 1969 - FELIPE DE GUZMAN v. WALFRIDO DE LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29610 March 28, 1969 - ALIM BALINDONG v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29458 March 28, 1969 - VIRGINIA F. PEREZ v. RAFAEL DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29684 March 28, 1969 - ARACELI V. MALAG v. RAMON DE LOS CIENTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-29814 March 28, 1969 - SANTOS ANDAL, ET AL. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-29894 March 28, 1969 - JESUS W. LAZATIN v. RUPERTO KAPUNAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30058 March 28, 1969 - LUIS G. DE CASTRO v. JULIAN G. GINETE, ET AL.

  • Adm.Case No. 598 March 28, 1969 - AURORA SORIANO DELES v. VICENTE E. ARAGONA, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-20017 March 28, 1969 - IN RE: LEON TE POOT v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21213 & L-21214 March 28, 1969 - GABRIEL ZARI, ET AL. v. JOSE R. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. L-21291 March 28, 1969 - PRECIOLITA V. CORLISS v. MANILA RAILROAD CO.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21528 & L-21529 March 28, 1969 - ROSAURO REYES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21664 March 28, 1969 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. MANOLO L. MADDELA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21953 March 28, 1969 - ENCARNACION GATIOAN v. SIXTO GAFFUD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22007 March 28, 1969 - NATIONAL MIRROR FACTORY v. ISIDRA SUNGA VDA. DE ANURE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22094 March 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO TATLONGHARI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22187 March 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTACIO MAISUG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22619 March 28, 1969 - IN RE: EMMANUEL LAI, ET AL. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-22687 March 28, 1969 - MALAYAN INSURANCE CO., INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22675 March 28, 1969 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. PACIFIC COMMISSION HOUSE

  • G.R. No. L-22706 March 28, 1969 - JOAQUIN UYPUANCO, ET AL. v. JOSE N. LEUTERIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22784 March 28, 1969 - INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. OSAKA SHOSEN KAISHA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23253 March 28, 1969 - IN RE: PACITA CHUA v. BARTOLOME CABANGBANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23591 March 28, 1969 - LEONCIO YU LIM v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-23654 March 28, 1969 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE MARQUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-23792 March 28, 1969 - MODESTA JIMENEZ VDA. DE NOCETE v. PILAR OIRA

  • G.R. No. L-23942 March 28, 1969 - CARMEN DEVEZA, ET AL. v. JUAN B. MONTECILLO, ET AL.