G.R. No. L-22551. March 16, 1971
PETITION TO BE ALLOWED TO FOLLOW OR TO ACQUIRE PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP BY VIRTUE OF MARRIAGE TO A FILIPINO CITIZEN. WONG SAU MEI AND ANASTACIO RABO (TA CHING TA), PETITIONERS-AP…
MAKASIAR, J.:
The Solicitor General appealed from the decision of the Judge of
Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte.
It is established that on December 29, 1961, petitioner Wong Sau Mei, then seventeen years old
and a citizen of Nationalist China, was admitted into the country as a
temporary visitor authorized to stay until March 15, 1962 and was issued ACR
B-6239 on the basis of her representation that her Chinese father, Wong Sum
alias Jose King, is a permanent resident of this country with whom she lived in
Camarines Norte until she married her present husband
and co-petitioner, Anastacio Rabo,
on February 4, 1962 at St. Jude
Catholic Church, San Miguel,
Manila.
She claims that her husband, co-petitioner Anastacio
Rabo, bearing Chinese name Ta Ching
Ta, is a natural born Filipino citizen, although he was born in Chingkang, Amoy, China, of a Chinese mother named Tee Lin
now known as Emma Rabo, because his father Benito Rabo is allegedly a Filipino citizen, allegedly a native of
Sta. Catalina, Ilocos Sur;
and that he was brought to the Philippines when he was about one year old and
baptized in the Catholic Church of Talisay, Camarines Norte.
Contending that she is now a Filipino citizen by virtue of her
marriage to a Filipino citizen, petitioner Wong Sau Mei filed, on February
16, 1962, with the Bureau of Immigration a petition praying that
her alien registration be cancelled on the ground that she possesses no
disqualification to become a Filipino citizen.
On February 23, 1962,
the Commissioner of Immigration, without hearing, denied her petition, because
her marriage to a Filipino citizen does not automatically confer upon her
Filipino citizenship, invoking the case of Lee Suan
Ay.[1]
On March 14, 1962,
the petitioner filed a petition for mandamus and prohibition with
preliminary injunction against the acting Commissioner of Immigration before
the Court of First Instance of Manila docketed as Civil Case No. 49865 (see
Annex B of Annex D, appellants brief).
In their petition for mandamus and prohibition with
preliminary injunction filed in the Manila Court of First Instance,
petitioners recited the foregoing facts and argued that the statement of this
Court in the Lee Suan Ay case is merely obiter dictum
for the simple reason that the issue of citizenship was not raised therein;
that the clause “who might herself be lawfully naturalized”, has been
consistently construed by the Supreme Court and the Secretary of Justice to
mean that the alien wife need not possess all the qualifications for naturalization,
for it is enough that she does not labor under any of the disqualifications
enumerated in Sec. 4 of Com. Act 473 (citing Opinions of the Secretary of
Justice Nos. 176 of 1940 and 111 of 1953, as well as Ly Giok
Ha vs. Galang, L-10760, May 17, 1957); and prayed
that the order of the Commissioner of Immigration denying her petition to
cancel her ACR be declared illegal and void ab initio
and that the Commissioner of Immigration be restrained from instituting
deportation proceedings against her.
In his decision dated November 13, 1962, then Presiding Judge,
now Court of Appeals Justice, Edilberto Soriano upheld the decision of the Commissioner of
Immigration and dismissed the petition, holding among others that, while petitioners
have adduced evidence tending to show that petitioner Anastacio
Rabo (Ta Ching Ta) is a
Filipino citizen, still his admitted marriage to co-petitioner Wong Sau Mei does not automatically
confer Filipino citizenship upon the latter, relying on Lee Suan
Ay vs. Galang,[2]
where the Supreme Court ruled that the alien wife must possess all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications for naturalization; and that
the salutary purpose of such requirement is to “prevent making the said
marriage a subterfuge for conferring Filipino citizenship upon alien wives who
are not otherwise qualified to become Filipino citizens.” (See Annex B-1
of appellant’s brief.)
From said decision of the Manila Court of First Instance,
petitioners-appellees herein appealed to the Court of
Appeals, which however dismissed the said appeal on July 31, 1963 for failure on the part of
petitioners-appellees to file their brief. (See Annex A and p. 9 of appellant’s brief.)
After appealing from the decision of the Manila Court of First
Instance of November 13, 1962 and before the dismissal of their appeal by the
Court of Appeals on July 31, 1963, petitioners spouses, on December 20, 1962,
filed before the Court of First
Instance of Camarines Norte the present petition subject of the present
appeal, praying that petitioner Wong Sau Mei be allowed to “follow or to acquire Filipino
citizenship by virtue of her marriage to a Filipino citizen”.
On January 28, 1963, the Solicitor General filed an opposition on
the ground that under sec. 15 of Com. Act No. 473, an alien woman married to a
Filipino citizen “shall be deemed a citizen of the Philippines” only
if she might be lawfully naturalized; that the marriage alone to a Filipino
citizen does not automatically make her a Filipino citizen and that her
petition does not allege that she does not possess any of the eight
disqualifications under Sec. 4 of Com. Act No. 473.
After said opposition was filed, petitioners spouses filed an
amended petition alleging among others that she is not among those disqualified
to be naturalized under Sec. 4 of Com. Act No. 473; without alleging that she
possesses all the qualifications under Sec. 2 of Com. Act No. 473.
After trial, Judge Melquiades G. Ilao rendered, on February
2, 1963, a decision declaring that petitioner Wong Sau Mei is a citizen of the Philippines
by reason of her marriage to her co-petitioner Anastacio
Rabo.
On February 8, 1963,
the Provincial Fiscal of Camarines Norte filed a
notice of appeal for and in behalf of the Republic of the Philippines.
Petitioners filed an opposition dated March 13, 1963 to the approval of appeal on the
ground that no factual or legal question was raised during the trial and
therefore nothing could be raised on appeal and that the appeal is frivolous
and intended for delay.
In an order dated April
22, 1963, the court dismissed the appeal.
In a motion dated April 26, 1963, the Provincial Fiscal prayed
for the reconsideration of the order dated April 22, 1963 dismissing the
appeal, on the ground that the notice of appeal was filed on time, that the
record on appeal was perfected within the reglementary
period, and that the appeal raises a question of law which only the Supreme
Court can decide.
In a motion dated August 26, 1963, the Solicitor General prayed
for the setting aside of the decision rendered on February 2, 1963 and/or for a
reconsideration of the order dated April 22, 1963 dismissing the appeal on the
ground that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction in this case for under
our laws, there can be no action or proceeding for the judicial declaration of
citizenship; that the instant case as well as the decision rendered therein is
barred by a prior judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila dealing
with the same subject matter and involving the same parties; and that the
appeal interposed by the Provincial Fiscal was perfected within the reglementary period.
On September 2, 1963,
petitioners filed an opposition to the aforesaid motion to set aside the
decision and/or supplementary motion for reconsideration.
In an order dated December
4, 1963, the court granted the aforesaid motions to dismiss and for
reconsideration filed by the Solicitor General, set aside its decision dated February 2, 1963, and dismissed the
case.
In a motion dated December 13, 1963, petitioners spouses moved
for the reconsideration of the order of December 4, 1963 on the ground that the
motion for reconsideration and motion to dismiss were filed by the Solicitor
General out of time and that the Solicitor General, having perfected his
appeal, all that the trial court can do is to approve the record on appeal and
certify the case to the Supreme Court.
In an order dated December
23, 1963, the trial court set aside its order dated December 4, 1963 dismissing the case
and approved the record on appeal filed by the Provincial Fiscal.
It has been the consistent ruling of this Tribunal that there is
no proceeding authorized by law or by the Rules of Court for the judicial
declaration of citizenship of an individual.
The last restatement of this principle was pronounced in the case Soria vs. Commissioner of Immigration.[3]
Such judicial declaration of citizenship cannot even be decreed pursuant to an
alternative prayer therefor in a naturalization
proceeding.[4]
The petition of the appellees, which is
the subject of the present appeal, is in the nature of a petition for declaratory
judgment; because it prays that petitioner Wong Sau Mei “be allowed to follow or to acquire Philippine
Citizenship by virtue of her marriage to a Filipino citizen” (see original
petition and amended petition in the record of appeal).
The defense of res judicata
is tenable. The dismissal by the
Court of Appeals on July 31, 1963 of Civil Case No. 49865 filed March 14, 1962
by the petitioners for mandamus and prohibition with preliminary
injunction against the acting Commissioner of Immigration before the Court of
First Instance of Manila, forecloses the right of petitioners to file this
petition before the Court of First Instance of Camarines
Norte.
There can be no dispute that both cases involve the same
issues. As a matter of fact, the
allegations in Civil Case No. 49865 before the Manila Court of First Instance
are substantially the same as those in the original as well as the amended
petitions petitioners filed in the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte. The
petitioners in the said Civil Case before the Manila Court of First Instance
are the same petitioners in this case.
The respondent or oppositor in both cases is
the Republic of the Philippines
represented by the Solicitor General.
The acting Commissioner of Immigration was merely a nominal party
respondent in Civil Case No. 49865 before the Manila Court of First Instance,
since the acting Immigration Commissioner represented and was an agent of the
Republic of the Philippines.6
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed
and the petition is hereby denied. With
costs against petitioners-appellees.
Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Ruiz Castro, Fernando, Teehankee,
Barredo, and Villamor, JJ., concur.
[1]
L-11855, Dec. 23, 1959.
[2]
L-11855, Dec. 23, 1959.
[3]
L-24102, Jan. 30, 1971.
[4]
Soria vs. Commissioner, supra; Tan Pong vs.
Republic, L-21010, Nov. 28, 1969, 30 SCRA 380, 388; Chua Tan
Chuan vs. Republic, L-25439, March 28, 1969, 27 SCRA 447, 449; Dy Poco vs.
Com., L-22313, March 31, 1966, 16 SCRA 615, 617; Lao, et. al. vs.
Republic, L-19107 & 19109, Sept. 30, 1964, 12 SCRA 107-111; Palaran
vs. Republic, L-15047, Jan. 30, 1962, 4 SCRA 79, 82-83; Tan vs.
Republic, L-16108, Oct. 31, 1961, 3 SCRA 407, 410-11.
6 Santos
vs. Mojica, etc., et. al., L-25450, Jan. 31, 1969, 26 SCRA 703, 706;
Gonzales vs. Gonzales, et. al., L-22717, Nov. 27, 1968, 26 SCRA 72, 77; Roxas vs. Bermudez,
et. al., L-25051, Sept. 30, 1968,
25 SCRA 413-14; Marcos vs. De Banuvar,
L-22110, Sept. 28, 1968, 25
SCRA 316; 320-22; Cruz vs. Mossesgeld,
L-20495, Aug. 31, 1968, 24
SCRA 1006, 1011; Aguila vs. Tuason, L-24223, Feb.
22, 1968, 22 SCRA 690, 693-4.