Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-21664 March 28, 1969
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, petitioners,
vs.
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,
vs.
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 respondents.
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 11), Hon. Manolo L. Maddela presiding, rendered a decision in its Special Proceeding No. 4012, which is hereunder quoted in its entirety:
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.lâwphi1.ñet
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:
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 1961, petitioner was legally married to Cu Bon Piao, a Filipino citizen; and the petitioner has all the qualifications and more 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 position.
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.
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 right 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, Castro, Fernando, Capistrano, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
1The Solicitor General was not furnished a copy of either after the petitions below, nor did he authorize the Provincial Fiscal of Quezon to appear in representation of his office.
2See also: (Palaran vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-15047, January 30, 1962; Channie Tan vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-14159, April 18, 1960; Tan Yu Chin vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-15775, April 29, 1961; Delumen vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-5552, January 28, 1954.)
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-24252 June 15, 1973
IN RE PETITION TO DECLARE ZITA NGO TO POSSESS ALL QUALIFICATIONS AND NONE OF THE DISQUALIFICATIONS FOR NATURALIZATION UNDER COMMONWEALTH ACT 473 FOR THE PURPOSE OF CANCELLING HER ALIEN REGISTRY WITH THE BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION. ZITA NGO BURCA, petitioner-appellee,
vs.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
Artemio Derecho, Angelito C. Imperio and Ferdinand S. Tinio for petitioner-appellee.
Office of the Solicitor General Antonio P. Barredo and Solicitor Bernardo P. Pardo for oppositor-appellant.
R E S O L U T I O N
ANTONIO, J.:
Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the decision in this case which reversed that of the Court of First Instance of Leyte declaring her a citizen of the Philippines, the said court have found her to be married to a Filipino citizen and to possess all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications to become Filipino citizen enumerated in the Naturalization Law. Her motion to such effect was filed on February 20, 1967, and March 2, 1967, the Court required the Solicitor General to comment on the same. On October 4, 1971, however, before petitioner's motion could be resolved, this Court rendered decision in the case of Moy Ya Lim Yao, etc., et al. vs. Commissioner of Immigration, G.R. No. L-21289, which, effect, passed on all the issues raised in said motion favorably to petitioner's position. Accordingly, and there being sufficient number of members of the Court in favor of maintaining the ruling in the Moy Ya Lim Yao case, the decision in this case should be modified.
On April 24, 1964, petitioner filed with the Court of First Instance of Leyte a petition alleging that she is married to Filipino citizen and possesses all the qualifications and none the disqualifications for naturalization under Commonwealth Act 473 and praying that a declaration to such effect be made by the Court for the purpose of laying the basis for the cancellation by the Bureau of Immigration of her alien certificate of registration. On April 17, 1964, the court set the petition for hearing on November 20, 1964 and ordered notified thereof to be given to the Solicitor General. In the same order it was required that said notice of hearing be published in the Official Gazette once a month for three consecutive months a once a week for three consecutive weeks in the Morning Times, a newspaper edited in the City of Ormoc, where petition resides, and posted in a public and conspicuous place in the Office of the Clerk of Court. On November 13, 1964, the Solicitor General filed an "Opposition and Motion to Dismiss" on the following grounds:
(1) As an application for Philippine Citizenship, the petition is fatally defective for failure to contain or mention the essential allegations required under Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law, as amended, such as petitioner's former places of residence, and that she has all the qualifications required under Section 2 and none of the disqualifications specified under Section 4 of the Revised Naturalization Law. Specifically, as can be gathered in the Notice of Hearing, there is no allegation that she is of good moral character and believes in the principles underlying the Philippine Constitution, and has conducted herself in a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of her residence in the Philippines; or that she has some known lucrative trade, profession, or lawful occupation. Likewise, there is no showing that the petition is supported by the affidavits of at least two credible persons stating that they are citizens of the Philippines and personally know the petitioner to be a resident of the Philippines for the period of time required by this Act, and a person of good repute and morally irreproachable, and that said petitioner has, in their opinion, all the qualifications necessary to become a citizen of the Philippines, and is not in any way disqualified under the provision of the Act. Similarly, there is no showing that she has filed a declaration of intention or is exempt from such requirement. Even in the Notice of Hearing, there is failure to mention the names of witnesses whom she proposes to introduce in support of the petition, as required under Section 9 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended.
(2) As a separate proceedings to declare the petitioner a citizen being allegedly the wife of a Filipino citizen, and to direct the cancellation of her alien Registry, it is well settled in this jurisdiction that there is no proceeding established by law, or the rules for the judicial declaration of the citizenship of an individual (Palaran vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-15047, January 30, 1962; Channie Tan vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-14159, April 18, 1960; Tan Yu Chin vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-15775, April 29, 1961; Delumen vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-552. January 28, 1954; in re Hospicion Obiles 49 Off. Gaz. 923), and that citizenship is not the proper subject for declaratory judgment (Feliseta Tan vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-16108, October 31, 1960: Santiago vs. Commissioner of Immigration, G.R. No. L-14653, January 31, 1963; Board of Commissioners, et al. vs. Hon. Felix R. Domingo, etc., et al., G.R. No. L-21274, July 31, 1963).
Thereafter, the court proceeded to hear the case and rendered its decision, in which it found inter alia the following:
After the necessary publications of the notice of hearing in the Official Gazette for July 6, July 13 and 20, 1964, (Exhibit A) and the Morning Times for April 26, May 3, 10, 1964 (Exhibits B, B-1, B-2 and B-3) this case was called for trial with the Honorable Solicitor General opposing the petition as aforesaid.
It appears from the evidence presented that petitioner is a native born Nationalist Chinese Citizen who was born at Gigaquit Surigao on March 30, 1933 (Exhibit D). In 1946, she transferred to Surigao, Surigao until her marriage to Florencio Burca a native born Filipino Citizen on May 14, 1961 (Exhibit C) when she transferred to Ormoc City to live with her husband. Petitioner studied at Surigao, Surigao from first grade to fourth year where she graduated. Thereafter she took home economics special course at the University of San Carlos, Cebu City.