DY EN SIU CO, ISIDRO CO, ROBERTO CO, ALFREDO CO AND TEODORA CO, ALL MINORS, AND REPRESENTED IN THIS ACTION BY THEIR JUDICIAL GUARDIAN MARCIANA BEN, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, VS. LO…

The nature of the case was set forth in the appealed order of
dismissal issued by the Honorable Conrado M. Vasquez,
Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila. 
Thus:  “This is a proceeding
Under Article 412 of the Civil Code.  The
petitioners seek to correct the entries in the Local Civil Registry of the City
of Manila, in the following manner:  (1)
to change the civil status of their mother from married to single, and her
citizenship from ‘Chinese’ to ‘Filipino’, and (2) the status of the plaintiffs
to be changed from legitimate to illegitimate’ and their citizenship from
‘Chinese’ to ‘Filipino’.  They averred
that they are all illegitimate children of their Chinese father named Co Te
Sing, alias Coo Guar, their mother Marciana Ben not
having been married to their father.  The
Local Civil Registrar of the City of Manila
and the Solicitor General filed oppositions to the petition upon the principal
ground that the correction or changes sought by the plaintiffs are substantial
in nature and may not be effected in a proceeding under Article 412 of the
Civil Code.  Before the petitioner was
heard, the father Co Te Sing alias Coo Cuan and Co
Bing Ling, Co Bing Pang and Ko Ching
Po o allege to be legitimate children of Co Te Sing, filed a motion to
intervene to which the plaintiffs manifested their conformity.  The motion to intervene was likewise opposed
by the Solicitor General.”^[1]

 Why the case could not
prosper was equally explained clearly in such an order.  Thus: 
“An examination of the pleadings reveals that the opposition of the
defendants to the same, which this Court takes in the nature of a motion to
dismiss, is well taken.  It is quite
evident that the changes and corrections sought to be accomplished by the
plaintiffs are substantial in nature affecting as they do, the legitimacy and
the nationality of the petitioners, including that of their mother who is not a
party herein.  Corrections of this nature
have been repeatedly disallowed in a proceeding under Article 412 of the Civil
Code (Ty Kon Tin v. Republics 50 0.0. 1077; Anzaldo v. Republic, 54 0.G. 5886;
Black v. Republic, G. R. NO. 1086, November 28, 1958; Espiritu
v. Republic, 55 0. G. 4832).”^[2]

The lower court correctly relied on the Ty
Kong Tin doctrine first announced in 1954 and subsequently reiterated in all
succeeding decisions, the latest of which is Lee v. Lee Man Tin.^[3]
Reyes v. Republic of the Philippines,^[4]
is particularly relevant.  In the
language of former Chief Justice Bengzon:  “The case before us is not of first
impression.  We have repeatedly declared
that in this jurisdiction, the remedy sought in the instant petition cannot be
granted in the manner desired.  While
ostensibly, the action seeks a mere correction of an entry in the Civil
Registry, in effect, it requests the judicial declaration of Philippine citizenship.  Many such cases, this Court has
dismissed.  We have clearly stated time
and again, decla­ratory relief is not available for the purpose of obtaining a
judicial declaration of citizenship.”

The firmness and consistency shown by this Court in
rejecting resort to proceedings of this character is thus mistakable.  Any attempt as was done in the well-written
brief of appellants to exclude this action from the operation of such a
well-settled principle on the ground that it could be distinguished, while not
implausible, cannot be allowed to succeed. 
What cannot be denied is that their plea, as noted in the order, is for
a change of a citizenship’ through the correction in the data appearing in the
Office of the Local Civil Registrar. 
Essentially then the proceeding cannot be dissociated from that
contemplated under Article 412 of the Civil Code.  It is in that sense that deference to the
aforesaid decisions, impressive for their number and unanimity precludes a
reversal of the lower court order.

With the above observation, the first and third
errors assigned, namely, that the suit filed by appellants in an ordinary civil
action and that it is not in the nature of a declaratory relief need not be
pursued further.  Neither is the second
assigned error meritorious.  It has been
held that on a question affecting the cause of action, the Court may motu proprio
inquire into such alleged fatal defect and thereafter dismiss the suit.^[5]

One other point. 
Two of the plaintiffs-appellants, Isidro Co and Robert Co, on October
10, 1963, filed a motion to withdraw and dismiss appeal alleging that as to
them the matter had “already become moot and academic” in view of a
lower court decision.  Reference was made
to a petition in another branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila to
compel the Director of Private Schools and the University of the East to allow
the above plaintiffs-appellants to continue their studies in such institution
with proper credit on all units earned as “they are Filipinos and do not
need alien certificates of registration” as well as to order the Local
Civil Registrar of Manila to make the necessary corrections.  According to the decision of that particular Sala, quoted in the motion, petitioners Isidro Co alias
Isidro Co Bun Huy, and Robert Co alias Roberto Co Bun
Pin, “are declared to be citizens of the Philippines and entitled to be
enrolled in any school of the Philippines, public or private, entitled to be
credited for units they have passed, and the Civil Registrar of the City of
Manila is hereby ordered to make the necessary corrections in their
certificates of birth in accordance with the tenor of this decision.  The writ of preliminary mandatory injunction
heretofore issued by this Court is hereby made final.”^[6]

This Court, in a resolution of October 30, 1963, stated that “such a motion would
be taken up when the case is decided on the merits.” After serious
consideration of the matter, this Court resolves to deny such motion for
withdrawal and dismissal of the appeal with respect to plaintiffs-appellants
Isidro Co and Robert Co.  Whatever be the
stage of finality reached in that decision referred to, enabling them to
continue their studies in the University of the East and to be credited for
units taken by them, it cannot affect their status as aliens, the decision of
this Court affirming the order of dismissal of their petition by the Hon. Conrado M. Vasquez being controlling in the premises
anything said to the contrary in such other lower court decision
notwithstanding.

WHEREFORE, the order of the Hon. Conrado
M. Vasquez of October 6, 1962,
dismissing the complaint filed by all of the plaintiffs-appellants as well as
the order by the same Judge of November
17, 1962, denying the motion for reconsideration, is affirmed.  With costs against plaintiffs-appellants.

Concepcion, C.J, Reyes, JBL, Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Sanchez, and, Angeles, JJ., concur.

Castro, J., concurs in the result.

^[1]
Order of October 6, 1962 of
the lower court, Record on Appeal, pp. 56 -57.

^[2] Ibid,
pp. 57-58.

^[3]
L-24540, April 25, 1968.  In addition to the cases cited in the lower
court order, reference may be made to the following:  San Luis de Castro v. Republic,
L-17431, April 30, 1963; Liu Lin v. Republic, L-18213, December 24,
1963; Obeso Beduya v.
Republic, L-17642, November 27, 1964; David v. Republic, L-21316,
November 29, 1965; Calicdan Baybayan
v. Republic, L-20717, March 18, 1966; Tan v. Republic, L-19847,
April 29, 1966; Chug Sin v. Civil Registrar of Manila, L-20649, July 31,
1967.

^[4]
L-47642, November 27, 1964.

^[5] Mun. of Hinabañgan v. Mun. of Wright, L-12603, March 25, 1960.

^[6]
Decision of the lower court, July 30,
1963.