IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR CANCELLATION OF ALIEN CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION. RICARDO SANTIAGO, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, RESPONDENT AND A…

On June 15, 1957 Ricardo Santiago filed in the Court
of First Instance of Negros Occidental a petition praying that he be
declared a Philippine citizen and that an order be issued cancelling
his alien certificate of registration, alleged by him to have been
erroneously entered in the Bureau of Immigration. The petition was
subsequently amended to make the Commissioner of Immigration a
respondent.

During the hearing petitioner presented evidence to
prove the following: On September 28, 1904 , in La Carlota, Negros
Occidental, he was born out of wedlock to Apolonia Andrade, Filipina,
and Tomas Santiago, Chinese, who could not many each other because the
latter had a lawfully wedded wife in China . When he was four, his
father sent him on a vacation to China . Upon return to the Philippines
in 1915 he was issued Landing Certificate of Residence No. 13939
(Exhibit G) wherein it appears that he is a Filipino. In 1924 he went
back to China and there married a Chinese woman, Ty Sek Nio, whom he
brought to the Philippines in 1925 and who was granted Landing
Certificate of Residence No. 69033 (Exhibit H), wherein it appears that
she is the wife of a Filipino citizen. Petitioner and his family lived
in Himamaylan, where he operated a sari-sari store. During the Japanese
occupation, he and his family evacuated to the swamps. After liberation
they stayed for a short time in Andangan, Quezon, where they engaged in
the copra business. In 1956 he and his family returned to Bacolod . In
August 1957 they transferred to Sipalay, Negros Occidental, where they
had been living up to the time of the hearing. Aside from the son born
to him and his wife in China , they have five other children born in
the Philippines . In spite of petitioner’s alleged Filipino
citizenship, his father, before the latter’s death in 1928, erroneously
registered him as an alien. The registration was periodically renewed
thereafter, the last being in 1950, when Alien Certificate of
Registration No. 97013, Exhibit M, the one now sought to be cancelled,
was issued to him.

Based on the above evidence, the lower court, on March 19, 1958 , issued an order, the dispositive part of which follows:

“Wherefore, the Court finds that’
the petitioner has established the allegations contained in his amended
petition and following the ruling in U.S. vs. Ong Tian Se, 29 Phil.
352; Santos Ko vs. P.P.I. 52 Phil. 562, * and in the case of Luis
Serra, G.R. No. L-4223, May 12,1952, it is hereby declared that the
petitioner Ricardo Santiago is a Filipino citizen, and it is hereby
ordered that the Commissioner of Immigration cancel the Alien
Certificate of Registration of Residence No. 197013 of the petitioner
Ricardo Santiago in the flies of the Immigration Office, without
pronouncement as to costs.”

The provincial fiscal, in representation of the
Solicitor-General, moved for reconsideration on the ground that an
action for declaratory relief is not the proper remedy for removing
doubts as to citizenship. Finding this motion to be well-founded, the
court, on June 14, 1958 , set aside its order of March 19. Petitioner
moved for reconsideration of this second order and for reinstatement of
the first, amending it, however, by having the declaration of his
Filipino citizenship eliminated.

On August 14, 1958 , the court issued a third order, thus:

“Wherefore, in view of the
foregoing, the order of this Court dated June 14, 1958, is hereby
revoked and declared of no effect, and the order of March 19, 1958, is
hereby reinstated and declared to be in full force and effect, with the
slight modification in its dispositive portion which should run as
follows:

‘Wherefore, the
Court finds that the petitioner has established the allegations
contained in his amended petition and following the ruling in U.S. vs.
Ong Tian Se, 29 Phil., 352; Santos Co vs. P.P.I., 52 Phil., 562, * and
in the case of Luis Serra, Off. Gaz., No. L- 4223, May 12, 1952; It is
hereby ordered that the Commissioner of Immigration cancel the Alien
Certificate of Registration of Residence No. 197013 of the petitioner
Ricardo Santiago in the files of the Immigration Office, without
pronouncement as’ to costs.”

The Commissioner of Immigration appealed to this
Court, ascribing error to the lower court in taking cognizance of the
petition and in declaring appellee a Filipino citizen based on the
allegedly meager evidence of record.

Appellant contends that appellee’s petition is one
for declaratory relief, a remedy not available in seeking a declaration
of one’s status or citizenship. On the other hand, appellee argues that
his suit is merely for the cancellation of his alien certificate of
registration.

In his original petition appellee prayed, inter alia,
that the court “declare him as a Filipino citizen.” This portion of the
prayer was, however, omitted from his amended petition, leaving only
that asking for cancellation of his alien certificate of registration.
The original petition appears to be in the nature of a proceeding for
declaratory relief, although it is not captioned as such. And while the
amended petition does not ask for declaration of Filipino citizenship,
the plea is implicit in the prayer for cancellation of the appellee’s
alien certificate of registration, for the cancellation cannot be based
on any other ground other than that appellee is a Filipino citizen.

The lower court itself, in its original order, made
such a declaration of appellee’s citizenship, although when it
reinstated the order after having first set it aside, the declaration
was eliminated, thereby leaving without support its order for
cancellation of appellee’s alien certificate of registration.

In any event, whether or not appellee’s suit is
interpreted as one for declaratory relief, what seems clear is that,
directly or indirectly, he seeks a declaration of his supposed
Philippine citizenship. There is no proceeding, by declaratory relief
[1] or otherwise [2] available for the express purpose of obtaining a
judicial declaration to that effect. This was the ruling of this Court
in Eleuteria Feliseta Tan vs. Republic (G. R. No. L-16108, October 31,
1961 ):

“Declaratory relief in this
jurisdiction is a special civil action which may lie only when ‘any
person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written
instrument, or whose rights are affected by statute or ordinance,’
demands construction thereof for a declaration of his rights
thereunder. None of the above, circumstances exists in the case under
consideration. And this Court has already held that there is no
proceeding established by law or the rules by which any person claiming
to be a citizen may got a declaration in a court of justice to that
effect or in regard to his 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 justifiable 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 accident 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 that1 a given person is part of our citizenry.’ (Tan vs.
Republic, G.R. No. L-14159, April 18, 1960 , reiterated on G.R. No.
L-15775 April 29, 1961 ).”

The lower court based the appealed order on the
cases of U.S. vs. Ong Tian Se, 29 Jur. Pil. 352; Santos Co vs. P.P.I.,
52 Jur. Fil. 562; Luis Serra contra Republica de Filipinas, G.R. No.
L-4223, May 12, 1952 , which appellee now invokes. The cited cases are
inapplicable herein. The Ong Tian Se case was for the deportation of
one who, however, successfully alleged that he was a Filipino citizen.
The Santos Co and Serra cases were both for naturalization of person
whose evidence showed they were born Filipinos and therefore need not
be naturalized. The nature of action or proceeding in each of said
cases -is entirely different from the present one.

Having concluded that the remedy sought by appellee
is not proper, it is unnecessary to determine whether or not the
evidence proves that he is a Filipino.

The order appealed from is hereby reversed and the petition is dismissed, with costs.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador , Concepcion , Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon and Regala, JJ., concur.

^[1] Obiles vs. Republic, 49 Off. Gaz., No. 3, 923; Delumen vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-5552, Jan. 28, 1954 ; Sen vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-6868, April 30, 1955; Tiu Navarror v s. Commissioner of Immigration, G.R. No. L-15100, Dec. 29, 1960 .

^[2] The only-way by which a declaration of Filipino citizenship may be had is the rather circuitous one mentioned in Sen vs. Republic, supra:

“But petitioners are not devoid of any remedy if they
really desire to have a judicial declaration of their alleged
Philippine citizenship for they could file as they have done, a
petition for naturalization with an alternative prayer for declaration
of their status as Filipino citizens. There, is nothing that prevents
them from doing so, or from alleging that alternative claim in a
petition for naturalization, for if they succeed in proving, their
Philippine citizenship, the court can make a declaration to that effect
if the evidence so warrants. This procedure has been followed in a
number of cases by .persons whose status as citizens is clouded with
doubt and petitioners had been declared Filipino citizens in the same
proceeding. Thus, in Sy Quinsuan vs. Republic of the Philippines , 49
Off. Gaz., (No., 2) 492, this Court said: ‘When the evidence in
applicant’s possession proved in- his opinion that he has already the
status of a Filipino citizen as would make it unnecessary to press
further his petition for naturalization, he may. be declared Filipino
citizen in the same proceedings. There is nothing in the law which
would prohibit this alternative procedure. This course has been
followed in a number of cases.