March 1983 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1983 > March 1983 Decisions >
G.R. No. L-29397 March 29, 1983 - MODESTA DUGCOY JAO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.
206 Phil. 286:
206 Phil. 286:
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. L-29397. March 29, 1983.]
MODESTA DUGCOY JAO (SOMETIMES SPELLED HAO), Petitioner, v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor.
Julius Artes for Petitioner-Appellee.
The Solicitor General for Oppositor-Appellant.
SYLLABUS
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; CITIZENSHIP; NO PROCEEDING ESTABLISHED FOR JUDICIAL DECLARATION THEREOF. — There is no proceeding established by law or the rules by which any person claiming to be a citizen may get a declaration in a court of justice to that effect or in regard to his citizenship (Lim v. Republic, 37 SCRA 783).
2. ID.; ID.; CITIZENSHIP PRIOR TO MARRIAGE CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED IN NON-ADVERSARY SUIT. — The petitioner’s claim of Philippine citizenship prior to her marriage for being allegedly an illegitimate child of a Chinese father and a Filipina mother may not be established in an action where her mother or her heirs are not parties. It is the consistent rule in this jurisdiction that Philippine citizenship may not be declared in a non-adversary suit where the persons whose rights are affected by such a declaration are not parties, such as an action for declaratory relief (Tiu Navarro w. Commissioner of Immigration, 107 Phil. 632), a petition for judicial repatriation (Lim v. Republic, supra), or an action to cancel registration as an alien (Tan v. Republic, L-16108, Oct. 31, 1961).
3. ID.; ID.; REPATRIATION, PROPER PROCEDURE FOR REACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP. — All that is required for a female citizen of the Philippines, who lost her citizenship to an alien to reacquire her Philippine citizenship, upon the termination of her marital status, "is for her to take the necessary oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to register the said oath in the proper civil registry" (Lim v. Republic, 37 SCRA 783).
2. ID.; ID.; CITIZENSHIP PRIOR TO MARRIAGE CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED IN NON-ADVERSARY SUIT. — The petitioner’s claim of Philippine citizenship prior to her marriage for being allegedly an illegitimate child of a Chinese father and a Filipina mother may not be established in an action where her mother or her heirs are not parties. It is the consistent rule in this jurisdiction that Philippine citizenship may not be declared in a non-adversary suit where the persons whose rights are affected by such a declaration are not parties, such as an action for declaratory relief (Tiu Navarro w. Commissioner of Immigration, 107 Phil. 632), a petition for judicial repatriation (Lim v. Republic, supra), or an action to cancel registration as an alien (Tan v. Republic, L-16108, Oct. 31, 1961).
3. ID.; ID.; REPATRIATION, PROPER PROCEDURE FOR REACQUISITION OF PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP. — All that is required for a female citizen of the Philippines, who lost her citizenship to an alien to reacquire her Philippine citizenship, upon the termination of her marital status, "is for her to take the necessary oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to register the said oath in the proper civil registry" (Lim v. Republic, 37 SCRA 783).
R E S O L U T I O N
VASQUEZ, J.:
The petitioner filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Davao for repatriation under Commonwealth Act No. 63, as amended, alleging therein that although her father was Chinese, she was a citizen of the Philippines because her mother was a Filipina who was not legally married to her Chinese husband; that she lost her Philippine citizenship when she married Go Wan, a Chinese, with whom she had three children; and that Go Wan died in September 6, 1962. Petitioner further alleged that her illiterate mother erroneously registered her as an alien with the Bureau of Immigration, by virtue of which she was issued Alien Certificate of Registration No. A-176678. The petition contains no prayer for relief.cralawnad
The petition was not published, but notice thereof was served on the Provincial Fiscal who appeared at the hearing but presented no evidence. After receiving the evidence of the petitioner, the trial court issued an Order declaring the petitioner as "judicially repatriated," and ordering the cancellation of her alien certificate of registration. The Provincial Fiscal, in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, took this appeal.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
The proceedings taken in the trial court are a complete nullity. There is no law requiring or authorizing that repatriation should be effected by a judicial proceeding. All that is required for a female citizen of the Philippines who lost her citizenship to an alien to reacquire her Philippine citizen, upon the termination of her marital status, "is for her to take necessary oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to register the said oath in the proper civil registry" (Lim v. Republic, 37 SCRA 783). Moreover, the petitioner’s claim of Philippine citizenship prior to her marriage for being allegedly an illegitimate child of a Chinese father and a Filipina mother may not be established in an action where the mother or her heirs are not parties (Tan Pong v. Republic, 30 Phil. 380). It is the consistent rule in this jurisdiction that Philippine citizenship may not be declared in a non-adversary suit where the persons whose rights are affected by such a declaration are not parties, such as an action for declaratory relief (Tiu Navarro v. Commissioner of Immigration, 107 Phil. 632) a petition for judicial repatriation (Lim v. Republic, supra), or an action to cancel registration as an alien (Tan v. Republic, L-16108, Oct. 31, 1961). As was held in Lim v. Republic, supra, "there is no proceeding established by law or the rules by which any person claiming to be a citizen may get a declaration in a court of justice to that effect or in regard to his citizenship."cralaw virtua1aw library
ACCORDINGLY, the decision appealed from is hereby revoked and set aside.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.
The petition was not published, but notice thereof was served on the Provincial Fiscal who appeared at the hearing but presented no evidence. After receiving the evidence of the petitioner, the trial court issued an Order declaring the petitioner as "judicially repatriated," and ordering the cancellation of her alien certificate of registration. The Provincial Fiscal, in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, took this appeal.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary
The proceedings taken in the trial court are a complete nullity. There is no law requiring or authorizing that repatriation should be effected by a judicial proceeding. All that is required for a female citizen of the Philippines who lost her citizenship to an alien to reacquire her Philippine citizen, upon the termination of her marital status, "is for her to take necessary oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to register the said oath in the proper civil registry" (Lim v. Republic, 37 SCRA 783). Moreover, the petitioner’s claim of Philippine citizenship prior to her marriage for being allegedly an illegitimate child of a Chinese father and a Filipina mother may not be established in an action where the mother or her heirs are not parties (Tan Pong v. Republic, 30 Phil. 380). It is the consistent rule in this jurisdiction that Philippine citizenship may not be declared in a non-adversary suit where the persons whose rights are affected by such a declaration are not parties, such as an action for declaratory relief (Tiu Navarro v. Commissioner of Immigration, 107 Phil. 632) a petition for judicial repatriation (Lim v. Republic, supra), or an action to cancel registration as an alien (Tan v. Republic, L-16108, Oct. 31, 1961). As was held in Lim v. Republic, supra, "there is no proceeding established by law or the rules by which any person claiming to be a citizen may get a declaration in a court of justice to that effect or in regard to his citizenship."cralaw virtua1aw library
ACCORDINGLY, the decision appealed from is hereby revoked and set aside.
SO ORDERED.
Teehankee (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Relova and Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.
