IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF REGARDING CIVIL STATUS, ELEUTERIA FELISETA TAN, PETITIONER AND APPELLEE, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPE…

Appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Misamis
Occidental, Hon. Patricio C. Ceniza, presiding, the dispositive part of
which reads as follows:

“Wherefore, premises considered, the court hereby
renders judgment declaring said Eleuteria Feliseta Tan a Filipino
citizen; that her registration as an alien has been a clear mistake on
her part and on the part of the City Treasurer of Ozamiz City and
therefore, the Commissioner of Immigration is hereby ordered to cancel
the Alien Certificate of Registration the herein petitioner as well as
those of her children born out her relationship as husband and wife
without benefit of marriage with Tan King Pock, namely; Loreta Tan,
Nenita Tan, Lourdes Tan, Leonila Tan, Tan King Pock, Jr., and William
Tan.” (ROA, pp: 29-30).

The case originated with the presentation of a petition to the Court
of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, alleging that petitioner
Eleuteria Felisefea Tan is the common-law wife of Tan King Pock a
Chinaman, and that nine minor children were born to them out of
wedlock; chat she and her children are registered as aliens; that she
had asked the Commissioner of Immigration to cancel her registration
and that of her children as aliens, but that the Commissioner refused
to grant her petition. Therefore, she prayed that the cancellation of
the alien certificate of registration of herself and her children be
ordered.

The petition is dated September 8, 1958, and on September 17, 1958,
the court issued an order suggesting that the petitioner amend her
petition into one for declaratory relief. The order reads thus:

“After considering carefully the merits of the
petition, the Court finds and so holds that the same cannot be granted
in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court on February 5,
1954, in 94 Phil. 321; 50 Off. Gaz. (3) 1077, entitled Ty Kong Tin vs.
Republic of the Philippines.

“It is suggested, therefore,
that the herein petitioner amends her petition into that of declaratory
relief within a period of fifteen (15) days from receipt a copy of this
order, otherwise this case will be dismissed.” (ROA, p. 5).

Pursuant to the suggestion, petitioner through counsel, amended her
original petition converting it into one for declaratory judgment,
alleging that petitioner is a Filipino citizen being the illegitimate
child of a Chinaman by the name of Sy Siwa and Benita Feliseta, a
Filipina, without benefit of marriage; that the children mentioned in
the petition are children of herself and Tan King Pock and their
registration as aliens has been a mistake; that she had asked the
Commissioner of Immigration for the cancellation of their alien
certificate of registration but the Commissioner had denied her
petition, so she prayed that her alien certificate of registration be
cancelled.

The Solicitor General presented an answer asking for the denial of
the petition because the petition is not based upon any of the grounds
required by the rules as a ground for declaratory judgment; that there
is no need for the, present action for the cancellation of their alien
certificate of registration; and that the petition is evidently one
which seeks a judicial pronouncement as to petitioner’s claim for
citizenship, which matter should be threshed out in a proper action.
The provincial fiscal also prayed that the petition be denied, alleging
that the petition is not in order; that the children are not
represented by a guardian, and that the end sought in the petition
should be threshed out in a proper action. After hearing the petition
and the arguments, the court below entered the order already quoted
above.

The judgment or order appealed from must be set aside. 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 get 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 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 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 that a given person is part of our citizenry.”
(Tan vs. Republic, 107 Phil., 632; 57 Off. Gaz. (90) 5401 reiterated in 58 Off. Gaz. (47) 7683).

If the petition be considered as one for declaratory judgment, the
facts do not warrant the filing of the said special civil action. If
the petition seeks to compel the Commissioner of Immigration to cancel
her and her children’s alien certificate of registration, this petition
would not lie because such a remedy of cancellation of alien
certificate of registration can only be had by virtue of a judgment of
a competent court, in an action where the citizenship of parties is a
material matter in issue, declaring the Filipino citizenship of the
petitioner and her children, and such declaration cannot be obtained
directly because there is no proceeding at present provided by law or
the rules for such purpose.

Wherefore, the judgment appealed from should be, as it is hereby,
set aside, and the petition dismissed. With costs against
petitioner-appellee.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Paredes, Dizon, and De Leon, JJ., concur.