THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. ANSELMA AVENGOZA, ET. AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

Go Gam alias Luistro Sancho, a Chinese, his wife Anselma Avengoza
and the latter’s mother Gavina Avengoza, were charged in Criminal Case No. 6201
of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur with violation of Commonwealth
Act No. 108, as amended, in the information which reads:

“That during the period comprised between July 19, 1954 and
April 1957, in the Municipalities of Libmanan and Sipocot, province of
Camarines Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the said accused Anselma
Avengoza and Go Gam alias Luistro Sancho, being Chinese citizens, who as such
are barred from acquiring private agricultural lands in the Philippines and
with deliberate intent to defraud, mislead, and for the evident purpose of
evading Section 5 of Article XIII of the Philippine Constitution did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and for their own bene­fits and for
profits, utilize as a dummy their co-accused Gavina Avengoza, a Filipino
citizen, who in turn deliberately allowed and permitted herself to be used as
such dummy in the acquisition and sale of private agricultural land described
as follows, to wit:

‘Six parcels of land situated in the municipality of Sipocot,
province of Camarines Sur, Philippines, embraced in and covered by Tax
Declaration Nos. 3105, 3323, 3338, 3348, 3621 and 3223 of the said
municipality.

‘One (1) parcel of land situated in the municipality of Libmanan,
province of Camarines Sur, Philippines, embraced in and covered by Tax
Declaration No. 6979 of said municipality.’

by making it appear in the instruments of
conveyance that the said Gavina Avengoza was the real purchaser, when in truth
and in fact, the true vendees are the alien-accused Anselma Avengoza and Go
Gam, as a result of which the latter were able to possess and own real
properties and have profited themselves by the aid of their co-accused Gavina
Avengoza.

“Acts contrary to law.”

In Criminal Case No. 6643
of the same court, Anselma Avengoza was charged together with Rafaela Alfante
of violation of Section 2 of Commonwealth Act No. 108 in an information which
reads:

“That on or about the 12th day of February 1950 in the
municipality of Sipocot, province of Camarines Sur, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Rafaela Alfante, who is a
Filipina citizen and being then the owner of a private agricultural land
registered under original certificate of Title No. 289 situated in said
municipality and the ownership of which is expressly reserved by the
Constitution or the laws to the citizens of the Philippines, did, then and
there knowingly, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously cede, transfer and
convey by way of deed of sale said property to accused Anselma Avengoza, a
Chinese citizen and who, knowingly aids, assists or abets in the consummation
or per­petration of the aforementioned sale, then an alien by reason of lawful
marriage with Go Gam alias Luistro Sancho, a Chinese citizen, who as such is
barred from acquiring private agri­cultural lands in the Philippines.

“Acts contrary to law.”

All
the accused pleaded not guilty and the two cases were tried jointly.

While the cases were pending in the lower court, the accused
Gavina Avengoza and Go Gam alias Luistro Sancho died; thus trial continued only
as regard Anselma Avengoza and Rafaela Alfante.

Counsel for the said accused subsequently filed a motion for
leave to withdraw their plea of not guilty and to be permitted to file a motion
to quash, alleging that accused Anselma Avengoza had reacquired her Philippine
citizenship by repatriation, by reason whereof the criminal liability of said
accused and that of the remaining defendant Rafaela Alfante, if any, was
thereby extinguished; and that the issue in the criminal cases had thus been
rendered moot and academic.

The trial court allowed defendants to withdraw their plea,
admitted and found defendants’ motion to quash meritorious, and ordered the
dismissal of the two cases, with costs de oficio. Reason for the dismissal is principally predicated on the trial
court’s opinion that defendant Anselma Avengoza has validly reacquired her
Philippine citizenship.

From the said order, the plaintiff appealed to this Court and
claimed that the trial court has committed the following errors:

“I.

“THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ACCUSED, ANSELMA
AVENGOZA, BY EXECUTING AN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
AND REGIS­TERING IT WITH THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRY OF SIPOCOT, CAMARINES SUR HAD
LEGALLY REPATRIATED HERSELF AND THEREBY RE­ACQUIRED HER PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP.

“II.

“THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT, HAVING REACQUIRED HER
PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP BY REPATRIATION, ANSELMA AVENGOZA”S TITLE OVER THE
AGRICULTURAL LANDS PURCHASED BY GAVINA AVENGOZA FOR HER AND HER HUSBAND, BECAME
LAWFUL AND VALID AS OF THE DATE OF THEIR CONVEYANCE OR TRANSFER TO HER AND HER
ALIEN HUSBAND; AND IN CONCLUDING THAT AS A RESULT OF SAID REPATRIATION THE
CRIMINAL ACTS COMMITTED BY HER AND HER HUSBAND, AND THOSE WHO AIDED THEM TO
POSSESS THOSE LANDS, HAD BEEN EXTINGUISHED.”

We find merit in this appeal. Records show that defendant Anselma Avengoza merely executed an oath of
allegiance to the Philippine Republic, filed it with the Office of the
Municipal Treasurer of Sipocot, Camarines Sur on October 18, 1966, and the
trial court considered it sufficient for her to reacquire Philippine
citizenship by repatriation. Section 4
of Commonwealth Act 63 provides that would-be repatriate should show by con­clusive
evidence that he or she has the qualifications to be so repatriated. Without such conclusive proof, he or she has
to file with the proper Court of First Instance a petition for repatriation.

Pertinent sections of Commonwealth Act No. 63 provides:

“Section 2. How
Citizenship may be reacquired:

x x x              x x x                 x
x x

“2. By repatriation of deserters of the Army,
Navy or Air Corps: Provided That a
woman who lost her citizen­ship by reason of her marriage to an alien may be
repatriated in accordance with this Act after the termination of the marital
status:

x x x              x x x                 x
x x

“Sec. 4. Repatriation
shall be effected by merely taking the necessary oath of allegiance to the
Commonwealth (now Republic) of the Philippines and registration in the proper
civil registry.

“Sec. 5. The Secretary
of Justice shall issue the necessary regulations for the proper enforcement of
this Act x x x.”

And, the Rules and
Regulations issued by the Depart­ment of Justice on July 1, 1937, pursuant to
Section 5 of Commonwealth Act No. 63 governing the reacquisition of Philippine
citizenship, provide:

“Rule 3. Any person
who has lost his or her Philippine citizenship in any of the following ways and/or events:

‘1. By having been declared, by competent
authority, a deserter of the Philippine Army, Navy, or Air corps in time of
war, unless subsequently a plenary pardon or amnesty has been granted; and

‘2. In the case of a woman, upon her marriage to
a foreigner if, by virtue of the law in force in her husband’s country, she
acquires his nationality.’

“Anyone wishing to reacquire his or her Philippine citizenship
by repatriation under the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 63, shall file an
application with any Court of First Instance setting forth his name and
surname; his present and former places of residences; his occupation; the place
and date of his birth; whether single or married, in the case of deserter of
the Army, Navy, or Air Corps, and if married, the name, age, and birth place,
and residence of his wife and each of
the children. In the case of a woman
who lost her Philippine citizenship by reason of her marriage to an alien, the
applicant shall state the date and place of her marriage, the nationality of
her former husband, and the cause of the dissolution of the marriage. The petition must be supported by the
affidavit of at least two persons stating that they are citizens of the
Philippine Islands, and that said peti­tioner, in their opinion, has all the
qualifications necessary to be re­patriated. If after the hearing the court believes in view of the evidence taken
that the petitioner has all the qualifications required by Commonwealth Act No.
63, it shall require the peti­tioner to take in open court the follow­ing oath
of allegiance: x x x ‘and shall order
the registration of such oath in the proper civil registry through the clerk of
court.”

Defendant Avengoza’s sole evidence on record to support her
repatriation is her oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. No evidence has been presented to show
conclusively that she has the right to be repatriated under Section 4 of
Commonwealth Act No. 63. As aptly
stated by the Solicitor General in his brief, “to sustain the findings of
the trial court on this point would establish a very dangerous precedent as any
alien woman married to a Chinese citizen can easily ‘acquire’ Philippine
citizenship upon the death of her Chinese husband by merely executing an oath
of allegiance to the Republic and filing the same with the local civil registry
even if she does not possess the required citizenship.” Defendant Anselma
Avengoza became an alien by reason of her lawful marriage to a Chinese citizen;
however, this does not necessarily mean that she was a Filipino citizen
previous to such marriage. Thus, she
should first prove her citizenship previous to her marriage and as there is no
conclusive proof of this matter on record, this question must be judicially
determined before she can be legally repatriated.

Further, even Filipino citizens can be criminally liable under
the anti-dummy law; and, aliens violating said law are not exempted from
criminal liability upon becoming a Filipino citizen.

Finally, the sales in
favor of alien Anselma Avengoza, through a dummy, of various parcels of land are
void for being contrary to public policy. And, like an alien who became a naturalized Filipino citizen, her
repatriation did not exempt her from criminal liability for violation of the
Anti-Dummy Law.

ACCORDINGLY, the appealed order of the trial court is
hereby SET ASIDE and the case is remanded to the lower court for trial on the
merits.

SO ORDERED.

Melencio-Herrera, Plana, and
Gutierrez, Jr., JJ., concur.

Teehankee, Acting C.J., reserves
his vote.

Vasquez, J., in the result.