IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF ON CITIZENSHIP STATUS, VICENTE TIU NAVARRO, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, RESPONDENT.

Vicente Tiu Navarro filed the petition which began this proceeding in the
Court of First Instance of Surigao, alleging that he is the son, out of wedlock,
of one Cecilia Laygo, Filipina, with Tiu Kiang, a Chinese merchant; that both of
his parents are dead; that he has continuously resided in the Philippines except
for two occasional visits to China and that his physical features are more those
of a Filipino than those of a Chinese; that he is registered as a Chinese
citizen, according to his landing certificate; and he prays that after the
presentation of his evidence his alien papers be cancelled and a certificate of
identity as Filipino citizen be issued in his favor. The Solicitor General
opposed the petition on the ground among others, that in so far as the petition
asks for a declaratory judgment, the petition states no cause of action, and
that in so fat as it compels the cancellation of his alien certificate, neither
does the said action lie for various reasons, among them that mandamus does not
lie to control the discretionary powers of the defendant, and that petition does
not allege sufficient facts to constitute an action for mandamus. Thereafter the
Solicitor General filed a motion to dismiss the petition but this motion was
denied. A hearing of the case was had and thereafter, the court below declared
that the petitioner is a Filipino citizen entitled to all the rights and
privileges thereunto appertaining. Against this decision the Solicitor General
has presented this appeal.

In this Court, the Solicitor General claims that the trial court erred, in
holding that an action for declaratory relief lies for a judicial pronouncement
of citizenship and, in granting the petition holding that the evidence presented
is sufficient to establish the fact that the petitioner is a Filipino
citizen.

A study of the petition shows that petitioner failed to allege sufficient
facts to show that he is entitled to a judgment for declaratory relief. There is
no allegation of the existence of the necessity of determining any question of
construction or validity arising under an instrument or statute and for a
declaration of petitioner’s rights or duties thereunder, as required by Section
1 of Rule 66 of the Rules of Court. There is no allegation that anybody has
contested his claim of citizenship, whether private or official, and neither is
there any allegation that any controversy has arisen with respect to his claim
of citizenship. A similar question has been decided adversely by Us in the case
of In Re Hospicio Obiles, 92 Phii., 864; 49 Off. Gaz. No. 3, p. 923.

Our decision in the case of Antonio Delumen vs. Republic of the
Philippines, 94 Phil., 287; 50 Off. Gaz., [2] 578, is to the same effect
thus:

“In essence, the appellees merely wanted to remove all doubts in their minds
as to their citizenship, but an action for declaratory judgment cannot be
invoked solely to determine or try issues or to determine a moot, abstract or
theoretical question or to decide claims which are uncertain or hypothetical. (1
C.J.S., p. 1024.) And the fact that appellee’s desires are thwarted by their own
doubts, or by fears of others * * * does not confer a cause of action.’ (Moran,
Comments on the Rules of Court, 1952 ed., Vol. II, p. 148, citing Willing
vs. Chicago Auditorium Assn., 277 U.S. 289, 48 Sup. Ct. 507,
509.)”

In accordance with Our ruling in the above cases, We hereby reverse the
decision of the court below and dismiss the petition, with costs against
petitioner-appellee.

Bengzon, Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera,
Gutierrez David, Paredes, and Dizon, JJ., concur..

Judgment reversed.