moya vs commisioner 41 scra 292

8/9/2019 Moya vs Commisioner 41 SCRA 292

1/39

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-21289 October 4, 1971

MOY YA LIM YAO !"# E$IL%ERTO AGUINAL$O LIM &' LAU YUEN YEUNG, petitioners-appellants,vs.T(E COMMISSIONER O) IMMIGRATION, respondent-appellee.

Aruego, Mamaril & Associates for petitioners-appellants.

Office of the Solicitor General Arturo A. Alafriz, Assistant Solicitor General Frine' C. Zaallero an! Solicitor Sumilang". #ernar!o for respon!ent-appellee.

%ARRE$O, J.:

Appeal from the followin decision of the Court of !irst "nstance of Manila in its Civil Case No. #$%&' entitled Mo$ %aim %ao, etc., et al. s. (he Commissioner of )mmigration which, brief as it is, sufficientl( depicts the factual settin ofand the fundamental issues involved in this case thus)

"n the instant case, petitioners see* the issuance of a writ of in+unction aainst the Commissioner of"mmiration, restrainin the latter andor his authoried representative from orderin plaintiff /au0uen 0eun to leave the Philippines and causin her arrest and deportation and the confiscation ofher bond, upon her failure to do so.

1he pra(er for preliminar( in+unction embodied in the complaint, havin been denied, the case was

heard on the merits and the parties submitted their respective evidence.

1he facts of the case, as substantiall( and correctl( stated b( the 2olicitor 3eneral are these)

4n !ebruar( 5, 6$76, /au 0uen 0eun applied for a passport visa to enter thePhilippines as a non-immirant. "n the interroation made in connection with herapplication for a temporar( visitor8s visa to enter the Philippines, she stated thatshe was a Chinese residin at 9owloon, :on*on, and that she desired to ta*ea pleasure trip to the Philippines to visit her reat ;rand< uncle /au Chin Pinfor a period of one month ;E=hibits l, 6-a, and >


2/39

/au 0uen 0eun could not write either Enlish or 1aalo. E=cept for a fewwords, she could not spea* either Enlish or 1aalo. 2he could not name an(!ilipino neihbor, with a !ilipino name e=cept one, Rosa. 2he did not *now thenames of her brothers-in-law, or sisters-in-law.

nder the facts unfolded above, the Court is of the considered opinion, and so holds, that theinstant petition for in+unction cannot be sustained for the same reason as set forth in the 4rder of

this Court, dated March 6$, 6$7>, the pertinent portions of which read)

!irst, 2ection 6' of the Revised Naturaliation /aw provides)

*ffect of the naturalization on +ife an! chil!ren. An( woman who is now orma( hereafter be married to a citien of the Philippines, and who miht herself belawfull( naturalied shall be deemed a citien of the Philippines.

1he above-uoted provision is clear and its import uneuivocal and hence it should be held tomean what it plainl( and e=plicitl( e=presses in unmista*able terms. 1he clause who miht herselfbe lawfull( naturalied incontestabl( implies that an alien woman ma( be deemed a citien of thePhilippines b( virtue of her marriae to a !ilipino citien onl$ if she possesses all the ualificationsan! none of the !isualifications specifie! in the la+, because these are the e=plicit reuisitesprovided b( law for an alien to be naturalied. ;/ee 2uan A(, Alberto 1an and /ee Chiao vs. Emilio3alan, etc., 3. R. No. /-665'', or +ust a little over one month before the e=pir( date of hersta(, it is evident that said marriae was effected merel( for convenience to defeat or avoid herthen impendin compulsor( departure, not to sa( deportation. 1his cannot be permitted.

1hird, as the 2olicitor 3eneral has well stated)

'. 1hat petitioner /au 0uen 0eun, havin been admitted as a temporar( alienvisitor on the strenth of a deliberate and voluntar( representation that she willenter and sta( onl( for a period of one month and thereb( secured a visa, cannoto bac* on her representation to sta( permanentl( without first departin fromthe Philippines as she had promised. ;Chun 1iao Bin, et al. vs. Commissionerof "mmiration, 3. R. No. /-$$77, 2eptember >$, 6$'7F 4n 2e /un vs. Board ofCommissioners, 3. R. No. /-7&6%, 2eptember 67, 6$'#F 2ec. $, last par., Phil."mmiration /aw


3/39

1he aforeuoted arument of the 2olicitor 3eneral is well buttressed not onl( b( the decided casesof the 2upreme Court on the point mentioned above, but also on the ver( provisions of 2ection $,sub-pararaph ;< of the Philippine "mmiration Act of 6$#& which reads)

An alien who is admitted as a non-immirant cannot remain in the Philippinespermanentl(. 1o obtain permanent admission, a non-immirant alien must departvoluntaril( to some forein countr( and procure from the appropriate Philippine

Consul the proper visa and thereafter undero e=amination b( the 4fficers of theBureau of "mmiration at a Philippine port of entr( for determination of hisadmissibilit( in accordance with the reuirements of this Act. ;1his pararaph isadded b( Republic Act '&????7-R, Dec. 6', 6$7&


4/39

1:E /4ER C4R1 ERRED "N !A"/"N3 14 !"ND 1:A1 1:E C4MM"22"4NER 4!"MM"3RA1"4N AC1ED "1: AB2E 4! D"2CRE1"4N 4R "N EJCE22 4! :"2 @R"2D"C1"4N:EN 2A"D 4!!"CER 1:REA1ENED 14 2END 41 4! 1:E C4N1R0 P/A"N1"!! /A 0EN0EN3 "1: ARN"N3 1:A1 :ER !A"/RE 14 D4 24 4/D MEAN C4N!"2CA1"4N 4!:ER B4ND, ARRE21 AND "MMED"A1E DEP4R1A1"4N, "N 2P"1E 4! 1:E !AC1 1:A1 /A0EN 0EN3 "2 N4 A !"/"P"N4 C"1"GEN.

H

1:E /4ER C4R1 ERRED "N D"2M"22"N3 P/A"N1"!!2-APPE//AN128 C4MP/A"N1 AND "NRE!2"N3 14 PERMANEN1/0 EN@4"N 1:E C4MM"22"4NER !R4M 4RDER"N3 P/A"N1"!!/A 0EN 0EN3 14 /EAHE 1:E P:"/"PP"NE2 A2 A 1EMP4RAR0 H"2"14R :"C: 2:E "2N41.

H"

1:E /4ER C4R1 ERRED "N RE!2"N3 14 3RAN1 P/A"N1"!!2-APPE//AN128 M41"4N!4R PRE/"M"NAR0 "N@NC1"4N EMB4D"ED "N 1:E"R C4MP/A"N1, "N AN 4RDER DA1EDMARC: 6$, 6$7>. ;PA3E2 ?7-#6, REC4RD 4N APPEA/< .

e need not discuss these assined errors separatel(. "n effect, the above decision upheld the two main rounds ofob+ection of the 2olicitor 3eneral to the petition in the court below, iz)

1hat petitioner /au 0uen 0eun, havin been admitted as a temporar( alien visitor on the strenthof a deliberate and voluntar( representation that she will enter and sta( onl( for a period of onemonth and thereb( secured a visa, cannot o bac* on her representation to sta( permanentl(without first departin from the Philippines as she had promised. ;Chun 1iao Bin, et al. vs.Commissioner of "mmiration, 3.R. No. /-$$77, 2eptember >$, 6$'7F 4n 2e /un vs. Board ofCommissioners, 3.R. No. /-7&6%, 2ept. 67, 6$'#, 2ec. $, last par. Phil. "mmiration /aw', 6$'$-#7#.< .

As ma( be seen, althouh not specificall( in so man( words, no doubt was left in the above decision as reards thefollowin propositions) .

6. 1hat under 2ection 6' of Commonwealth Act #%?, the Revised Naturaliation /aw, the marriae of an alien womanto a !ilipino ma*es her a !ilipina, if she herself miht be lawfull( naturaliedF

>. 1hat this Court declared as correct the opinion of the 2ecretar( of @ustice that the limitation of 2ection 6' of theNaturaliation /aw e=cludes from the benefits of naturaliation b( marriae, onl( those disualified from beinnaturalied under 2ection # of the law outed in the decisionF

?. 1hat evidence to the effect that she is not disualified ma( be presented in the action to recover her bondconfiscated b( the Commissioner of "mmirationF

#. 1hat upon proof of such fact, she ma( be reconied as !ilipinaF and

'. 1hat in referrin to the disualification enumerated in the law, the Court somehow left the impression that no

inuir( need be made as to ualifications,speciall( considerin that the decision cited and footnotes severalopinions of the 2ecretar( of @ustice, the immediate superior of the Commissioner of "mmiration, the most importantof which are the followin)

Pararaph ;a$>%, as amended, ;now section 6', Commonwealth Act No.#%?


8/39

not reuirin the woman to have the ualifications of residence, ood character, etc., as in the caseof naturaliation b( +udicial proceedins, but merel( that she is of the race of persons who ma( benaturalied. ;9ell( v. 4wen LDist. Col. 6575 % all #$7, '!, 66, 6>F e6 parte1r(ason LD. C. ash.6$6# >6' !. ##$, >% 4p. Att(. 3en. '&%56, s. 6$#5F No. $7, s. 6$#$, s. 6$'& of @ustice 2ec. Ricardo Nepomuceno.>, 6$'%, in 0icar!o Cua . (he #oar! of Commissioners, 6&6 Phil. '>6, Mr. @ustice @.B./. Re(es,reiterated the same rulin on the basis of the followin facts)

1+ioe u 2uan, an "ndonesian, arrived in Manila on November 6, 6$'>, but it turned out that her passport was fored.4n December 6&, 6$'?, a warrant was issued for her arrest for purpose of deportation. /ater, on December >&, 6$'?,she married Ricardo Cua, a !ilipino, and because of said marriae, the Board of 2pecial "nuir( considered her a!ilipina. pon a review of the case, however, the Board of "mmiration Commissioners insisted on continuin with thedeportation proceedins and so, the husband filed prohibition and mandamus proceedins. 1he lower court deniedthe petition. Althouh this Court affirmed said decision, it held, on the other hand, that)

3rantin the validit( of marriae, this Court has ruled in the recent case of $ Gio a . Galang,supra, p. #'$, that the bare fact of a valid marriae to a citien does not suffice to confer hiscitienship upon the wife. 2ection 6' of the Naturaliation /aw reuires that the alien woman whomarries a !ilipino must show, in addition, that she miht herself be lawfull( naturalied as a!ilipino citien. As construed in the decision cited,this last con!ition reuires proof that the +oman+ho marrie! a Filipino is herself not !isualifie! un!er section 7 of the /aturalization a+.

No such evidence appearin on record, the claim of assumption of !ilipino citienship b( 1+ioe u2uan, upon her marriae to petitioner, is untenable. 1he lower court, therefore, committed no error

8


9/39

in refusin to interfere with the deportation proceedins, where she can an(wa( establish thereuisites indispensable for her acuisition of !ilipino citienship, as well as the alleed validit( ofher "ndonesian passport. ;Ricardo Cua v. 1he Board of "mmiration Commissioners, 3. R. No. /-$$$%, Ma( >>, 6$'%, 6&6 Phil. '>6, '>?.< LEmphasis supplied .

!or emphasis, it is reiterated that in the above two cases, this Court e=pressl( ave the parties concerned opportunit(to prove the fact that the( were not sufferin from an( of the disualifications of the law without the need of

underoin an( +udicial naturaliation proceedin. "t ma( be stated, therefore, that accordin to the above decisions,the law in this countr(, on the matter of the effect of marriae of an alien woman to a !ilipino is that she thereb(becomes a !ilipina, if it can be proven that at the time of such marriae, she does not possess an( of thedisualifications enumerated in 2ection # of the Naturaliation /aw, without the need of submittin to an(naturaliation proceedins under said law.

"t is to be admitted that both of the above decisions made no reference to ualifications, that is, as to whether or notthe( need also to be proved, but, in an( event, it is a fact that the 2ecretar( of @ustice understood them to mean thatsuch ualifications need not be possessed nor proven. 1hen 2ecretar( of @ustice @esus Barrera, who later became adistinuished member of this Court,so ruled in opinions rendered b( him subseuent to /( 3io* :a, the mostillustrative of which held) .

At the outset it is important to note that an alien woman married to a !ilipino citien needs onl( toshow that she miht herself be lawfull( naturalied in order to acuire Philippine citienship.

Compliance with other conditions of the statute, such as those relatin to the ualifications of anapplicant for naturaliation throuh +udicial proceedins, is not necessar(. ;2ee) /eonard v. 3rant, '!ed. 66F >% 4ps. Att(. 3en L.2. '&%F 4ps. 2ec. of @ustice, No. %%7, s. 6$#&, and No. 666, s. 6$'?.

1his view finds support in the case of $ Gio a et al. . Galang et al., 3.R. No. /-6&%7&,promulated Ma( 6%, 6$'%, where the 2upreme Court, construin the aboveuoted section of theNaturaliation /aw, held that marriae to a male !ilipino does not vest Philippine citienship to hisforein wife, unless she herself ma( be lawfull( naturalied, and that this limitation of Section 45e6clu!es, from the enefits of naturalization $ marriage, those !isualifie! from eing naturalize!as citizens of the 1hilippines un!er Section 7 of sai! Common+ealth Act /o. 789. "n other words,disualification for an( of the causes enumerated in 2ection # of the Act is the decisive factor thatdefeats the riht of the forein wife of a Philippine citien to acuire Philippine citienship.

=== === ===

Does petitioner, /im 9in Bian, belon to an( of these roups 1he Commissioner of "mmirationdoes not sa( so but merel( predicates his neative action on the round that a warrant ofdeportation for oversta(in is pendin aainst the petitioner.

e do not believe the position is well ta*en. 2ince the rounds for disualification for naturaliationare e=pressl( enumerated in the law, a warrant of deportation not based on a findin of unfitness tobecome naturalied for an( of those specified causes ma( not be invo*ed to neate acuisition ofPhilippine citienship b( a forein wife of a Philippine citien under 2ection 6' of the Naturaliation/aw. ;)nclusio unius est e6clusio alterius< ;4p. No. 6>, s. 6$'5 of @ustice ndersec. @esus 3.Barrera. 66 ed.


13/39

understood as referrin to those who under 2ection > of the law are ualified to become citiens ofthe Philippines.

1here is simpl( no support for the view that the phrase who miht herself be lawfull( naturaliedmust now be understood as reuirin merel( that the alien woman must not belon to the class ofdisualified persons under 2ection # of the Revised Naturaliation /aw. 2uch a propositionmisreads the rulin laid down in /eonard v. 3rant. A person who is not disualified is not

necessaril( ualified to become a citien of the Philippines, because the law treats ualificationsand disualifications in separate sections. And then it must not be lost siht of that even under theinterpretation iven to the former law, it was to be understood that the alien woman was notdisualified under 2ection > of that law. /eonard v. 3rant did not rule that it was enouh if the alienwoman does not belon to the class of disualified persons in order that she ma( be deemed tofollow the citienship of her husband) hat that case held was that the phrase who miht herselfbe lawfull( naturalied, merel( means that she belons to the class or race of persons ualified tobecome citiens b( naturaliation the assumption bein alwa(s that she is not otherwisedisualified.

e therefore hold that under the first pararaph of 2ection 6' of the Naturaliation /aw, an alienwoman, who is married to a citien of the Philippines, acuires the citienship of her husband onl(if she has all the ualifications and none of the disualifications provided b( law. 2ince there is noproof in this case that petitioner has all the ualifications and is not in an( wa( disualified, her

marriae to a !ilipino citien does not automaticall( ma*e her a !ilipino citien. :er affidavit to theeffect that she is not in an( wa( disualified to become a citien of this countr( was correctl(disrearded b( the trial court, the same bein self-servin.

Naturall(, almost a month later in Sun 1ec %ong . Commissioner of )mmigration, 3.R. No. /->&%5#, December >%,6$7?, $ 2CRA 5%', wherein the 2ecretar( of !orein Affairs reversed a previous resolution of the precedinadministration to allow 2un Pec* 0on and her minor son to await the ta*in of the oath of !ilipino citienship of herhusband two (ears after the decision rantin him nationaliation and reuired her to leave and this order wascontested in court, @ustice Barrera held)

"n the case of o San (uang . Commissioner of )mmigration;3.R. No. /-65%%', promulatedNovember ?&, 6$7?F :ua Su$ s. Commissioner of )mmigration, /-6?%$&, promulated 4ctober ?6,6$7?


14/39

No wonder, upon this authorit(, inAustria . Conchu, 3.R. No. /->&%67, @une >>, 6$7', 6# 2CRA ??7, @ustice @.P.Benon readil( reversed the decision of the lower court rantin the writs of mandamus and prohibition aainst theCommissioner of "mmiration, considerin that Austria8s wife, while admittin she did not possess all theualifications for naturaliation, had submitted onl( an affidavit that she had none of the disualifications therefor. 2oalso did @ustice Dion similarl( hold eiht da(s later in #rito . Commissioner, 3.R. No. /-675>$, @une ?&, 6$7', 6#2CRA '?$.

1hen came the second /( 3io* :a case 8wherein @ustice @. B. /. Re(es too* occasion to e=pand on the reasonin ofCho( 9in 1ee b( illustratin with e=amples the daner of rel(in e=clusivel( on the absence of disualifications,without ta*in into account the other affirmative reuirements of the law.9

/astl(, in Go )m ($ . 0epulic, 3.R. No. /-6%$6$, decided on @ul( ?&, 6$77, 1@ustice Galdivar held for the Court thatan alien woman who is widowed durin the dependenc( of the naturaliation proceedins of her husband, in orderthat she ma( be allowed to ta*e the oath as !ilipino, must, aside from provin compliance with the reuirements ofRepublic Act '?&, show that she possesses all the ualifications and does not suffer from an( of the disualifications

under the Naturaliation /aw, citin in the process the decision to such effect discussed above, 11even as heimpliedl( reversedpro tantothe rulin in (an in . 0epulic, 3.R. No. /-6?%57, Ma( ?6, 6$76, > 2CRA ?5?.

Accordinl(, in Burca, @ustice 2anche premised his opinion on the assumption that the point now under discussionis settled law.

"n the case now at bar, the Court is aain called upon to rule on the same issue. nder 2ection 6' of theNaturaliation /aw, Commonwealth Act #%?, providin that)

2EC. 6'. *ffect of the naturalization on +ife an! chil!ren. An( woman, who is now or ma(hereafter be married to a citien of the Philippines, and who miht herself be lawfull( naturaliedshall be deemed a citien of the Philippines.

Minor children of persons naturalied under this law who have been born in the Philippines shall beconsidered citiens thereof.

A forein-born minor child, if dwellin in the Philippines at the time of the naturaliation of theparent, shall automaticall( become a Philippine citien, and a forein-born child, who is not in thePhilippines at the time the parent is naturalied, shall be deemed a Philippine citien onl( durin his

minorit(, unless he beins to reside permanentl( in the Philippines when still a minor, in whichcase, he will continue to be a Philippine citien even after becomin of ae.

A child born outside of the Philippines after the naturaliation of his parent, shall be considered aPhilippine citien unless within one (ear after reachin the ae of ma+orit( he fails to reisterhimself as a Philippine citien at the American Consulate of the countr( where he resides, and tota*e the necessar( oath of alleiance.

is it necessar(, in order that an alien woman who marries a !ilipino or who is married to a man who subseuentl(becomes a !ilipino, ma( become a !ilipino citien herself, that, aside from not sufferin from an( of thedisualifications enumerated in the law, she must also possess all the ualifications reuired b( said lawK if nothinbut the unbro*en line from /ee 2uan A( to 3o "m 1(, as recounted above, were to be considered, it is obvious that anaffirmative answer to the uestion would be inevitable, speciall(, if it is noted that the present case was actuall(submitted for decision on @anuar( >6, 6$7# (et, shortl( after /o 2an 1uan, 1on 2io* 2( and 2un Pec* 0on,

all supra, and even before Cho( 9in 1ee, supra, were decided. 1here are other circumstances, however, whichma*e it desirable, if not necessar(, that the Court ta*e up the matter anew. 1here has been a substantial chane inthe membership of the Court since 3o "m 1(, and of those who were in the Court alread( when Burca was decided,two members, @ustice Ma*alintal and Castro concurred onl( in the result, precisel(, accordin to them, because ;the(

wanted to leave the point now under discussion open in so far as the( are concerned. 121ruth to tell, the views andaruments discussed at lenth with copious relevant authorities, in the motion for reconsideration as well as in the

memorandum of the amici curae1*in the Burca case cannot +ust be ta*en lihtl( and summaril( inored, since the(pro+ect in the most forceful manner, not onl( the leal and loical anles of the issue, but also the imperative practicalaspects thereof in the liht of the actual situation of the thousands of alien wives of !ilipinos who have so lon, evendecades, considered themselves as !ilipinas and have alwa(s lived and acted as such, officiall( or otherwise, rel(in

14


15/39

on the lon standin continuous reconition of their status as such b( the administrative authorities in chare of thematter, as well as b( the courts. nder these circumstances, and if onl( to afford the Court an opportunit( to considerthe views of the five +ustices who too* no part in 3o "m 1( ;includin the writer of this opinion7, 6$>&, Act No. >$>%. Before then, as a conseuence of the 1reat( of Paris, our citienship laws werefound onl( in the 4ranic /aws, the Philippine Bill of 6$&>, the Act of the nited 2tates Conress of March >?, 6$6>and later the @ones /aw of 6$67. "n fact, Act No. >$>% was enacted pursuant to e=press authorit( ranted b( the@ones /aw. !or obvious reasons, the Philippines ained autonom( on the sub+ects of citienship and immiration onl(after the effectivit( of the Philippine "ndependence Act. 1his made it practicall( impossible for our laws on said sub+ectto have an( perspective or orientation of our ownF ever(thin was American.

1he Philippine Bill of 6$&> provided pertinentl() .

2EC1"4N #. 1hat all inhabitants of the Philippine "slands continuin to reside herein who were2panish sub+ects on the eleventh da( of April, eihteen-hundred and ninet(-nine, and then residedin said "slands, and their children born subseuent thereto, shall be deemed and held to be citiensof the Philippine "slands and as such entitled to the protection of the nited 2tates, e=cept such asshall have elected to preserve their alleiance to the Crown of 2pain in accordance with theprovisions of the treat( of peace between the nited 2tates and 2pain sined at Paris Decembertenth, eihteen hundred and ninet(-eiht.

1his 2ection # of the Philippine Bill of 6$&> was amended b( Act of Conress of March >?, 6$6>, b( addin aprovision as follows)

Provided, 1hat the Philippine /eislature is hereb( authoried to provide b( law for the acuisition

of Philippine citienship b( those natives of the Philippine "slands who do not come within theforeoin provisions, the natives of other insular possessions of the nited 2tates, and such otherpersons residin in the Philippine "slands who would become citiens of the nited 2tates, underthe laws of the nited 2tates, if residin therein.

1he @ones /aw reenacted these provisions substantiall() .

2EC1"4N >. 1hat all inhabitants of the Philippine "slands who were 2panish sub+ects on theeleventh da( of April, eihteen hundred and ninet(-nine, and then resided in said islands, and theirchildren born subseuent thereto, shall be deemed and held to be citiens of the Philippine "slands,e=cept such as shall have elected to preserve their alleiance to the Crown of 2pain in accordancewith the provisions of the treat( of peace between the nited 2tates and 2pain, sined at ParisDecember tenth, eihteen hundred and ninet(-eiht and e=cept such others as have since becomecitiens of some other countr() Provided, 1hat the Philippine /eislature, herein provided for, is

hereb( authoried to provide b( law for the acuisition of Philippine citienship b( those natives ofthe Philippine "slands who do not come within the foreoin provisions, the natives of the insularpossessions of the nited 2tates, and such other persons residin in the Philippine "slands who arecitiens of the nited 2tates under the laws of the nited 2tates if residin therein.

!or auht that appears, there was nothin in an( of the said oranic laws reardin the effect of marriae to a !ilipinoupon the nationalit( of an alien woman, albeit under the 2panish Civil Code provisions on citienship, Articles 6% to>%, which were, however, abroated upon the chane of sovereint(, it was unuestionable that the citienship of thewife alwa(s followed that of the husband. Not even Act >$>% contained an( provision reardin the effect of

15


16/39

naturaliation of an alien, upon the citienship of his alien wife, nor of the marriae of such alien woman with a nativeborn !ilipino or one who had become a !ilipino before the marriae, althouh 2ection 6? thereof provided thus) .

2EC. 6?. 0ight of +i!o+ an! chil!ren of petitioners +ho hae !ie!. "n case a petitioner shoulddie before the final decision has been rendered, his widow and minor children ma( continue theproceedins. 1he decision rendered in the case shall, so far as the widow and minor children areconcerned, produce the same leal effect as if it had been rendered durin the life of the petitioner.

"t was not until November ?&, 6$>5, upon the approval of Act ?##5, amendin Act >$%%, that the followin provisionswere added to the above 2ection 6?)

2EC1"4N 6. 1he followin new sections are hereb( inserted between sections thirteen andfourteen of Act Numbered 1went(-nine hundred and 1went(-seven)

2EC. 6?;a thereof need be shown. "t was onl( in ee Suan A$in 6$'$ that thepossession of ualifications were specificall( reuired, but it was not until 6$7?, in o San (uang, that @ustice Realareasoned out wh( the possession of the ualifications provided b( the law should also be shown to be possessed b(the alien wife of a !ilipino, for her to become a !ilipina b( marriae.

As ma( be recalled, the basic arument advanced b( @ustice Reala was briefl( as follows) 1hat li*e the law in thenited 2tates, our Naturaliation /aw specified the classes of persons who alone miht become citiens, even as itprovided who were disualified, and inasmuch as Commonwealth Act #%?, our Naturaliation /aw since 6$?$ did notreenact the section providin who miht become citiens, alleedl( in order to remove racial discrimination in favor ofCaucasians and aainst Asiatics, the onl( loical deduction ... is that the phrase who miht herself be lawfull(naturalied must now be understood as referrin to those who under 2ection > of the law are ualified to become

citiens of the Philippines and there is simpl( no support for the view that the phrase who miht herself be lawfull(naturalied must now be understood as reuirin merel( that the alien woman must not belon to the class ofdisualified persons under 2ection # of the Revised Naturaliation /aw. 14

A similar line of reasonin was followed in Cho$ :ing (ee, which for read( reference ma( be outed)

1he uestion has been settled b( the uniform rulin of this Court in a number of cases. 1he alienwife of a !ilipino citien must first prove that she has all the ualifications reuired b( 2ection > andnone of the disualifications enumerated in 2ection # of the Naturaliation /aw before she ma( bedeemed a Philippine citien ;/ao Cha( v. 3alan, /-6$&$%%, 4ct. ?&, 6$7#, citin /o 2an 1uan v.

16


17/39

3alan, /-65%%', Nov. ?&, 6$7?F 2un Pec* 0on v. Commissioner of "mmiration, /->&%5#,December >%, 6$7?F 1on 2io* 2( v. Hivo, /->66?7, December >%, 6$7?


18/39

1he marriae of a !ilipino citien to an alien does not automaticall( conferPhilippine citienship upon the latter. 2he must possess the ualificationsreuired b( law to become a !ilipino citien b( naturaliation.

2ince that time, however, a lon line of decisions of this Court has firml( established the rule thatthe reuirement of section 6' of Commonwealth Act #%? ;the Naturaliation Act of Commonwealth Act #%? ;2an 1uan v.3alan, /-65%%', Nov. ?&, 6$7?F 2un Pec* 0on v. Com. of "mmiration, /->&%5#, Dee. >%, 6$7?F1on 2io* 2( v. Hivo, /->66?7, Dec. >%, 6$7?F Austria v. Conchu, /->&%67, @une >>, 6$7'F Cho(9in 1ee v. 3alan, /-65?'6, March >7, 6$7'F Brito v. Com. of "mmiration, /-675>$, @une ?&,6$7' of theNaturaliation Act, and the disualifications enumerated in its section # are not mutuall( e=clusiveFand if all that were to be reuired is that the wife of a !ilipino be not disualified under section #,the result miht well be that citienship would be conferred upon persons in violation of the polic( ofthe statute. !or e=ample, section # disualifies onl(

;c< Pol(amists or believers in the practice of pol(am(F and

;d< Persons convicted of crimes involvin moral turpitude,

so that a blac*mailer, or a maintainer of amblin or bawd( houses, not previousl( convicted b( acompetent court would not be thereb( disualifiedF still, it is certain that the law did not intend suchperson to be admitted as a citien in view of the reuirement of section > that an applicant forcitienship must be of ood moral character.

2imilarl(, the citien8s wife miht be a convinced believer in racial supremac(, in overnment b(certain selected classes, in the riht to vote e=clusivel( b( certain herrenvol*, and thus disbelievein the principles underl(in the Philippine ConstitutionF (et she would not be disualified undersection #, as lon as she is not opposed to oranied overnment, nor affiliated to roupsupholdin or teachin doctrines opposin all oranied overnments, nor defendin or teachinthe necessit( or propriet( of violence, personal assault or assassination for the success or

predominance of their ideas. *t sic !e caeteris.

1he foreoin instances should suffice to illustrate the daner of rel(in e=clusivel( on the absenceof disualifications, without ta*in into account the other affirmative reuirements of the law, which,in the case at bar, the appellee /( 3io* :a admittedl( does not possess.

As to the arument that the phrase miht herself be lawfull( naturalied was derived from the.2. Revised 2tatutes ;section 6$$#< and should be iven the same territorial and racialsinificance iven to it b( American courts, this Court has re+ected the same in on San (uang .Galang, /-65%%', November ?&, 6$7?F and in Cho$ :ing (ee . Galang, /-65?'6, March >7, 6$7'.

"t is difficult to minimie the persuasive force of the foreoin rationaliations, but a closer stud( thereof cannot batreveal certain relevant considerations which adversel( affect the premises on which the( are predicated, thus

renderin the conclusions arrived thereb( not entirel( unassailable.

6. 1he main proposition, for instance, that in eliminatin 2ection 6 of Act >$>% providin who are eliible for Philippinecitienship, the purpose of Commonwealth Act #%?, the Revised Naturaliation /aw, was to remove the racialreuirements for naturaliation, thereb( openin the door of !ilipino nationalit( to Asiatics instead of allowin theadmission thereto of Caucasians onl(, suffers from lac* of e=act accurac(. "t is important to note, to start with, thatCommonwealth Act #%? did awa( with the whole 2ection 6 of Act >$>% which reads, thus)

2EC1"4N 6. ;ho ma$ ecome 1hilippine citizens. Philippine citienship ma( be acuired b();a< natives of the Philippines who are not citiens thereof under the @ones /awF ;b< natives of the

18


19/39

other "nsular possessions of the nited 2tatesF ;c< citiens of the nited 2tates, or foreiners whounder the laws of the nited 2tates ma( become citiens of said countr( if residin therein.

and not onl( subdivision ;c< thereof. Nowhere in this whole provision was there an( mention of race or color of thepersons who were then eliible for Philippine citienship. hat is more evident from said provision is that it reflectedthe inevitable subordination of our leislation durin the pre-Commonwealth American reime to the understandablestations flowin from our staffs as a territor( of the nited 2tates b( virtue of the 1reat( of Paris. "n fact, 2ection 6 of

Act >$>% was precisel( approved pursuant to e=press authorit( without which it could not have been done, ranted b(an amendment to 2ection # of the Philippine Bill of 6$&> introduced b( the Act of the nited 2tates Conress ofMarch >?, 6$6> and which was reenacted as part of the @ones /aw of 6$67, the pertinent provisions of which havealread( been footed earlier. "n truth, therefore, it was because of the establishment of the Philippine Commonwealthand in the e=ercise of our leislative autonom( on citienship matters under the Philippine "ndependence Act that

2ection 6 of Act >$>% was eliminated, 1and not purposel( to eliminate an( racial discrimination contained in ourNaturaliation /aw. 1he Philippine /eislature naturall( wished to free our Naturaliation /aw from the impositions of

American leislation. "n other words, the fact that such discrimination was removed was one of the effects rather thanthe intended purpose of the amendment.

>. Aain, the statement in Cho( 9in 1ee to the effect that the reference in subdivision ;c< ;of 2ection 6 of Act >$>%&, whenour Act >$>% became a law, the naturaliation, laws of the nited 2tates alread( provided for the followindisualifications in the Act of the Conress of @une >$, 6$&7)

2EC. %. 1hat no person who disbelieves in or who is opposed to oranied overnment, or who is amember of or affiliated with an( oraniation entertainin and teachin such disbelief in oropposition to oranied overnment, or who advocates or teaches the dut(, necessit(, or propriet(of the unlawful assaultin or *illin of an( officer or officers, either of specific individuals or ofofficers enerall(, of the 3overnment of the nited 2tates, or of an( other oranied overnment,because of his or their official character, or who is a pol(amist, shall be naturalied or be made acitien of the nited 2tates.

and all these disualified persons were, therefore, ineliible for Philippine citienship under 2ection 6 of Act >$>%even if the( happened to be Caucasians. More importantl(, as a matter of fact, said American law, which was the firstAct to Establish a Bureau of "mmiration and Naturaliation and to provide for a niform Rule for Naturaliation of

Aliens throuhout the nited 2tates contained no racial disualification reuirement, e=cept as to Chinese, the Act ofMa( 7, 655> not bein amon the e=pressl( repealed b( this law, hence it is clear that when Act >$>% was enacted,subdivision ;e< of its 2ection 6 could not have had an( connotation of racial e=clusion necessaril(, even if it were

traced bac* to its oriin in the Act of the nited 2tates Conress of 6$6> alread( mentioned above. 11hus, it wouldseem that the rationaliation in the outed decisions predicated on the theor( that the elimination of 2ection 6 of Act>$>% b( Commonwealth Act #%? was purposel( for no other end than the abolition of racial discrimination in ournaturaliation law has no clear factual basis. 17

?. "n view of these considerations, there appears to be no coent reason wh( the construction adopted in theopinions of the 2ecretar( of @ustice referred to in the first /( 3io* :a decision of the Chief @ustice should not prevail."t is be(ond dispute that the first pararaph of 2ection 6' of Commonwealth Act #%? is a reenactment of 2ection6?;a< of Act >$>%, as amended b( Act ?##5, and that the latter is nothin but an e=act cop(, deliberatel( made, of

2ection 6$$# of the Raised 2tatutes of the nited 2tates as it stood before its repeal in 6$>>. 18Before such repeal,the phrase who miht herself be lawfull( naturalied found in said 2ection 6' had a definite unmista*ableconstruction uniforml( fo"lowed in all courts of the nited 2tates that had occasion to appl( the same and which,therefore, must be considered, as if it were written in the statute itself. "t is almost trite to sa( that when our leislatorsenacted said section, the( *new of its unvar(in construction in the nited 2tates and that, therefore, in adoptinverbatim the American statute, the( have in effect incorporated into the provision, as thus enacted, the constructioniven to it b( the American courts as well as the Attorne( 3eneral of the nited 2tates and all administrativeauthorities, chared with the implementation of the naturaliation and immiration laws of that countr(. ;/o Cham v.4campo, %% Phil., 7?' L6$#7F /a=amana v. Baltaar, $> Phil., ?> L6$'>F :artle( v. Commissioner, >$' .2. >67, %$

19


20/39

/. ed. 6?$$, '' 2 Ct. %'7 L6$?'?F :elverin v. inmill, ?&' .2. %$, 5? / ed. '>, '$ 2 Ct. #' L6$?5F :elverin v. R. @.Re(nolds 1obacco Co., ?&7 .2. 66&, 5? / ed. '?7, '$ 2 Ct. #>? L6$?$. Lp. ?>, Memo ofAmicus Curiae?, decided November 6#, 6$>>, >7 A. /. R. 6?67 as follows)

2ection 6$$# of the Revised 2tatutes ;Comp. 2tat. ?$#5, > !ed. 2ta. Anno. >d ed. p. 66%< providesas follows) An( woman who is now or ma( hereafter be married to a citien of the nited 2tates,and who miht herself be lawfull( naturalied, shall be deemed a citien.

2ection 6$## of the Revised 2tat. is said to oriinate in the Act of Conress of !ebruar( 6&, 65'';6& 2tat. at /. 7, chap. %6>, 6$>> ;#> 2tat. at /. 6&>6, chap. #66, Comp. 2tat. #?'5b,!ed. 2tat. Anno. 2upp. 6$>>, p. >'', provides that an( woman who marries a citien of the nited 2tates afterthe passae of this Act, ... shall not become a citien of the nited 2tates b( reason of suchmarriae ...

2ection 7 of the act also provides that 6$$# of the Revised 2tatutes ... are repealed.

2ection 7 also provides that such repeal shall not terminate citienship acuired or retained undereither of such sections, ... meanin > and 7. 2o that this Act of 2eptember >>, 6$>>, has noapplication to the facts of the present case, as the marriae of the relator too* place prior to itspassae. 1his case, therefore, depends upon the meanin to be attached to 6$$# of the Revised2tatutes.

"n 6575 the 2upreme Court, in :ell$ . O+en, % all. #$7, #$5, 6$ /. ed. >5?, >5#, construed thisprovision as found in the Act of 65'' as follows) 1he term, who miht lawfull( be naturaliedunder the e=istin laws, onl( limits the application of the law to free white women. 1he previousNaturaliation Act, e=istin at the time, onl( reuired that the person appl(in for its benefits shouldbe a free white person, and not an alien enem(.

1his construction limited the effect of the statute to those aliens who beloned to the class or racewhich miht be lawfull( naturalied, and did not refer to an( of the other provisions of thenaturaliation laws as to residence or moral character, or to an( of the provisions of the immirationlaws relatin to the e=clusion or deportation of aliens.

"n 655&, in /eonard v. 3rant ;C. C.< ' !ed. 66, District @ude Dead( also construed the Act of 65'',declarin that an( woman who is now or ma( hereafter be married to a citien of the nited

2tates, and miht herself be lawfull( naturalied, shall be deemed a citien. :e held that upon theauthorities, and the reason, if not the necessit(, of the case, the statute must be construed as ineffect declarin that an alien woman, who is of the class or race that ma( be lawfull( naturaliedunder the e=istin laws, and who marries a citien of the nited 2tates, is such a citien also, and itwas not necessar( that it should appear affirmativel( that she possessed the other ualifications atthe time of her marriae to entitle her to naturaliation.

"n 655>, the Act of 65'' came before Mr. @ustice :arlan, sittin in the circuit court, in >nite! States. :ellar, 6? !ed. 5>. An alien woman, a sub+ect of Prussia came to the nited 2tates and marriedhere a naturalied citien. Mr. @ustice :arlan, with the concurrence of @ude 1reat, held that upon

20


21/39

her marriae she became ipso factoa citien of the nited 2tates as full( as if she had compliedwith all of the provisions of the statutes upon the sub+ect of naturaliation. :e added) 1here can beno doubt of this, in view of the decision of the 2upreme Court of the nited, 2tates in 9ell( v.4wen, % all. #$7, 6$ /. ed. >5?. 1he alien beloned to the class of persons who miht belawfull( naturalied.

"n 6$, in opins . Fachant, 7' C. C. A. 6, 6?& !ed. 5?$, an alien woman came to the nited

2tates from !rance and entered the countr( contrar( to the immiration laws. 1he immirationauthorities too* her into custod( at the port of New 0or*, with the view of deportin her. 2he appliedfor her release under a writ of habeas corpus, and pendin the disposition of the matter shemarried a naturalied American citien. 1he circuit court of appeals for the ninth Circuit held,affirmin the court below, that she was entitled to be dischared from custod(. 1he court declared)1he rule is well settled that her marriae to a naturalied citien of the nited 2tates entitled her tobe dischared. 1he status of the wife follows that of her husband, ... and b( virtue of her marriaeher husband8s domicil became her domicil. .

"n 6$&5, the circuit court for the district of Rhode "sland in Re Rustiian, 67'. !ed. $5&, had beforeit the application of a husband for his final decree of naturaliation. "t appeared that at that time hiswife was held b( the immiration authorities at New 0or* on the round that she was afflicted with adanerous and contaious disease. Counsel on both sides areed that the effect of the husband8snaturaliation would be to confer citienship upon the wife. "n view of that continenc( District

@ude Brown declined to pass upon the husband8s application for naturaliation, and thouht it bestto wait until it was determined whether the wife8s disease was curable. :e placed his failure to acton the e=press round that the effect of naturaliin the husband miht naturalie her. At the sametime he e=press his opinion that the husband8s naturaliation would not effect her naturaliation, asshe was not one who could become lawfull( naturalied. :er own capacit( ;to becomenaturalied7, District @ude /earned :and heldthat an alien woman, a sub+ect of the 1ur*ish Empire, who married an American citien whilevisitin 1ur*e(, and then came to the nited 2tates, could not be e=cluded, althouh she had, atthe time of her entr(, a disease which under the immiration laws would have been sufficient

round for her e=clusion, if she bad not had the status of a citien. 1he case was brouht into thiscourt on appeal, and in 6$66 was affirmed, in 6&7 C. C. A. #7#, 65# !ed. ?>>. "n that case,however at the time the relators married, the( miht have been lawfull( naturalied, and we said)Even if we assume the contention of the district attorne( to be correct that marriae will not ma*ea citien of a woman who would be e=cluded under our immiration laws, it does not affect theserelators.

e held that, bein citiens, the( could not be e=cluded as aliensF and it was also said to beinconsistent with the polic( of our law that the husband should be a citien and the wife an alien.1he distinction between that case and the one now before the court is that, in the former case, themarriae too* place before an( order of e=clusion had been made, while in this the marriae wascelebrated after such an order was made. But such an order is a mere administrative provision, andhas not the force of a +udment of a court, and wor*s no estoppel. 1he administrative order isbased on the circumstances that e=isted at the time the order of e=clusion was made. "f the

circumstances chane prior to the order bein carried into effect, it cannot be e=ecuted. !ore=ample, if an order of e=clusion should be based on the round that the alien was at the timeafflicted with a contaious disease, and it should be made satisfactoril( to appear, prior to actualdeportation, that the alien had entirel( recovered from the disease, we thin* it plain that the ordercould not be carried into effect. 2o, in this case, if, after the ma*in of the order of e=clusion andwhile she is permitted temporaril( to remain, she in ood faith marries an American citien, wecannot doubt the validit( of her marriae, and that she thereb( acuired, under international lawand under 6$$# of the Revised 2tatutes, American citienship, and ceased to be an alien. 1hereupon, the immiration authorities lost their +urisdiction over her, as that +urisdiction applies onl( toaliens, and not to citiens.

21


22/39

"n 6$6&, District @ude Dode, in *6 parte9aprielian, 655 !ed. 7$#, sustained the riht of theofficials to deport a woman under the followin circumstances) 2he entered this countr( in @ul(,6$6&, bein an alien and havin been born in 1ur*e(. 2he was ta*en into custod( b( theimmiration authorities in the followin 2eptember, and in 4ctober a warrant for her deportationwas issued. Pendin hearins as to the validit( of that order, she was paroled in the custod( of hercounsel. 1he round alleed for her deportation was that she was afflicted with a danerous andcontaious disease at the time of her entr(. 4ne of the reasons assined to defeat deportation was

that the woman had married a citien of the nited 2tates pendin the proceedins for herdeportation. @ude Dode declared himself unable to believe that a marriae under suchcircumstances is capable of havin the effect claimed, in view of the facts shown. :e held that itwas no part of the intended polic( of 6$$# to annul or override the immiration laws, so as toauthorie the admission into the countr( of the wife of a naturalied alien not otherwise entitled toenter, and that an alien woman, who is of a class of persons e=cluded b( law from admission to thenited 2tates does not come within the provisions of that section. 1he court relied wholl( upon thedicta contained in the Rustiian Case. No other authorities were cited.

"n 6$6#, District @ude Neterer, in E= parte 3ra(son, >6' !ed. ##$, construed 6$$# and held thatwhere, pendin proceedins to deport an alien native of !rance as an alien prostitute, she wasmarried to a citien of the nited 2tates, she thereb( became a citien, and was not sub+ect todeportation until her citienship was revo*ed b( due process of law. "t was his opinion that if, aswas contended, her marriae was conceived in fraud, and was entered into for the purpose ofevadin the immiration laws and preventin her deportation, such fact should be established in a

court of competent +urisdiction in an action commenced for the purpose. 1he case was appealedand the appeal was dismissed. 6?# C. C. A. 777, >6$ !ed. 6&>>.

"t is interestin also to observe the construction placed upon the lanuae of the statute b( theDepartment of @ustice. "n 65%#, Attorne( 3eneral illiams, 6# 4ps. Att(. 3en. #&>, passin uponthe Act of !ebruar( 6&, 65'', held that residence within the nited 2tates for the period reuired b(the naturaliation laws was riot necessar( in order to constitute an alien woman a citien, shehavin married a citien of the nited 2tates abroad, althouh she never resided in the nited2tates, she and her husband havin continued to reside abroad after the marriae.

"n 6$&$, a similar construction was iven to the "mmiration Act of Ma( ', 6$&%, in an opinionrendered b( Attorne( 3eneral ic*ersham. "t appeared an unmarried woman, twent(-eiht (ears ofae and a native of Belium, arrived in New 0or* and went at once to a town in Nebras*a, whereshe continued to reside. About fifteen months after her arrival she was ta*en before a nited 2tates

commissioner b( wa( of institutin proceedins under the "mmiration Act ;?# 2tat. at /. 5$5, chap.66?#, Comp. 2tat. #>#>, ? !ed. 2tat. Anno. >d ed. p. 7?%< for her deportation, on the round thatshe had entered this countr( for the purpose of prostitution, and had been found an inmate of ahouse of prostitution and practicin the same within three (ears after landin. "t appeared, however,that after she was ta*en before the nited 2tates commissioner, but prior to her arrest under awarrant b( the Department of @ustice, she was lawfull( married to a native-born citien of thenited 2tates. 1he woman professed at the time of her marriae an intention to abandon herprevious mode of life and to remove with her husband to his home in Penns(lvania. :e *new whather mode of life had been, but professed to believe in her ood intentions. 1he uestion was raisedas to the riht to deport her, the claim bein advance that b( her marriae she bad become an

American citien and therefore could not be deported. 1he Attorne( 3eneral ruled aainst the rihtto deport her as she had become an American citien. :e held that the words, who miht herselfbe lawfull( naturalied, refer to a class or race who miht be lawfull( naturalied, and thatcompliance with the other conditions of the naturaliation laws was not reuired. >% 4ps. Att(. 3en.'&%.

Before concludin this opinion, we ma( add that it has not escaped our observation that Conress,in enactin the "mmiration Act of 6$6%, so as to provide, in 6$, that the marriae to an Americancitien of a female of the se=uall( immoral classes ... shall not invest such female with nited2tates citienship if the marriae of such alien female shall be solemnied after her arrest or afterthe commission of acts which ma*e her liable to deportation under this act.

1wo conclusions seem irresistibl( to follow from the above chane in the law)

22


23/39

;6< Conress deemed leislation essential to prevent women of the immoral class avoidindeportation throuh the device of marr(in an American citien.

;>< "f Conress intended that the marriae of an American citien with an alien woman of an( otherof the e=cluded classes, either before or after her detention, should not confer upon her Americancitienship, thereb( entitlin her to enter the countr(, its intention would have been e=pressed, and6$ would not have been confined solel( to women of the immoral class.

"ndeed, e have e=amined all the leadin American decisions on the sub+ect and e have found no warrant for theproposition that the phrase who miht herself be lawfull( naturalied in 2ection 6$$# of the Revised 2tatutes wasmeant solel( as a racial bar, even if loose statements in some decisions and other treaties and other writins on thesub+ect would seem to ive such impression. 1he case of :elle$ . O+en, supra, which appears to be the most cited

amon the first of the decisions 19simpl( held)

As we construe this Act, it confers the privilees of citienship upon women married to citiens ofthe nited 2tates, if the( are of the class of persons for whose naturaliation the previous Acts ofConress provide. 1he terms married or who shall be married, do not refer in our +udment, tothe time when the ceremon( of marriae is celebrated, but to a state of marriae. 1he( mean that,whenever a woman, who under previous Acts miht be naturalied, is in a state of marriae to acitien, whether his citienship e=isted at the passae of the Act or subseuentl(, or before or afterthe marriae, she becomes, b( that fact, a citien also. :is citienship, whenever it e=ists, confers,

under the Act, citienship upon her. 1he construction which would restrict the Act to women whosehusbands, at the time of marriae, are citiens, would e=clude far the reater number, for whosebenefit, as we thin*, the Act was intended. "ts ob+ect, in our opinion, was to allow her citienship tofollow that of her husband, without the necessit( of an( application for naturaliation on her partFand, if this was the ob+ect, there is no reason for the restriction suested.

1he terms, who miht lawfull( be naturalied under the e=istin laws, onl( limit the application ofthe law to free white women. 1he previous Naturaliation Act, e=istin at the time onl( reuired thatthe person appl(in for its benefits should be a free white person, and not an alien enem(. Act of

April 6#th, 65&>, > 2tat. at /. 6'?.

A similar construction was iven to the Act b( the Court of Appeals of New 0or*, in #urton . #urton,#& N. 0. ?%?F and is the one which ives the widest e=tension to its provisions.

Note that write the court did sa( that the terms, who miht lawfull( be naturalied under e=istin laws onl( limit the

application to free white women 2it hastened to add that the previous Naturaliation Act, e=istin at the time, ...reuired that the person appl(in for its benefits should be ;not onl(< a free white person ;but also< ... not an alienenem(. 1his is simpl( because under the Naturaliation /aw of the nited 2tates at the time the case was decided,the disualification of enem( aliens had alread( been removed b( the Act of @ul( ?&, 656?, as ma( be seen in thecorrespondin footnote hereof anon. "n other words, if in the case of :ell$ . O+en onl( the race reuirement wasmentioned, the reason was that there was no other non-racial reuirement or no more alien enem( disualification atthe timeF and this is demonstrated b( the fact that the court too* care to ma*e it clear that under the previousnaturaliation law, there was also such reuirement in addition to race. 1his is impotent, since as stated in reRustiian, 67' !ed. Rep. $5&, 1he e=pression used b( Mr. @ustice !ield, ;in 9ell( v. 4wen< the terms who mihtlawfull( be naturalied under e=istin laws onl( limit the application of the law to free white women, must beinterpreted in the application to the special facts and to the incapacities under the then e=istin laws, ;at p. $5>$>% was eliminated b( Commonwealth Act #%?, it follows that in place of the saideliminated section particularl( its subdivision ;c, such as those of ae, residence, ood moral character,adherence to the underl(in principles of the Philippine Constitution, irreproachable conduct, lucrative emplo(ment orownership of real estate, capacit( to spea* and write Enlish or 2panish and one of the principal local lanuaes,education of children in certain schools, etc., thereb( impl(in that, in effect, sails 2ection > has been purposel(

23


24/39

intended to ta*e the place of 2ection 6 of Act >$>%. pon further consideration of the proper premises, e havecome, to the conclusion that such inference is not sufficientl( +ustified.

1o bein with, nothin e=tant in the leislative histor(, which e have alread( e=plained above of the mentionedprovisions has been shown or can be shown to indicate that such was the clear intent of the leislature. Rather, whatis definite is that 2ection 6' is, an e=act cop( of 2ection 6$$# of the Revised 2tatutes of the nited 2tates, which, atthe time of the approval of Commonwealth Act #%? had alread( a settled construction b( American courts and

administrative authorities.

2econdl(, as ma( be leaned from the summar( of pertinent American decisions uoted above, there can be nodoubt that in the construction of the identicall( worded provision in the Revised 2tatutes of the nited 2tates, ;2ection6$$#, which was ta*en, from the Act of !ebruar( 6&, 65''< all authorities in the nited 2tates are unanimousl(areed that the ualifications of residence, ood moral character, adherence to the Constitution, etc. are notsupposed to be considered, and that the onl( eliibilit( to be ta*en into account is that of the race or class to which

the sub+ect belons, the conceptual scope of which, e have +ust discussed. 21"n the ver( case ofeonar! .Grant, supra, discussed b( @ustice Reala in /o 2an 1uan, the e=planation for such posture of the Americanauthorities was made thus)

1he phrase, shall be deemed a citien in section 6$$# Rev. 2t., or as it was in the Act of65'',supra, shall be deemed and ta*en to be a citien while it ma( impl( that the person to whomit relates has not actuall( become a citien b( ordinar( means or in the usual wa(, as b( the

+udment of a competent court, upon a proper application and proof, (et it does not follow that suchperson is on that account practicall( an( the less a citien. 1he word deemed is the euivalent ofconsidered or +udedF and, therefore, whatever an act of Conress reuires to be deemed orta*en as true of an( person or thin, must, in law, be considered as havin been dul( ad+uded orestablished concernin such person or thin, and have force and effect accordinl(. hen,therefore, Conress declares that an alien woman shall, under certain circumstances, be deemed8an American citien, the effect when the continenc( occurs, is euivalent to her bein naturalieddirectl( b( an act of Conress, or in the usual mode thereb( prescribed.

nless e disreard now the lon settled familiar rule of statutor( construction that in a situation li*e this wherein ourleislature has copied an American statute word for word, it is understood that the construction alread( iven to suchstatute before its bein copied constitute part of our own law, there seems to be no reason how e can ive adifferent connotation or meanin to the provision in uestion. At least, e have alread( seen that the viewssustainin the contrar( conclusion appear to be based on in accurate factual premises related to the real leislative

bac*round of the framin of our naturaliation law in its present form.

1hirdl(, the idea of euatin the ualifications enumerated in 2ection > of Commonwealth Act #%? with the eliibilit(reuirements of 2ection 6 of Act >$>% cannot bear close scrutin( from an( point of view. 1here is no uestion that2ection > of Commonwealth Act #%? is more or less substantiall( the same as 2ection ? of Act >$>%. "n other words,2ection 6 of Act >$>% co-e=isted alread( with practicall( the same provision as 2ection > of Commonwealth Act #%?."f it were true that the phrase who ma( be lawfull( naturalied in 2ection 6? ;a< of Act >$>%, as amended b( Act?##5, referred to the so-called racial reuirement in 2ection 6 of the same Act, without reard to the provisions of2ection ? thereof, how could the elimination of 2ection 6 have the effect of shiftin the reference to 2ection ?, whenprecisel(, accordin to the American +urisprudence, which was prevailin at the time Commonwealth Act #%? wasapproved, such ualifications as were embodied in said 2ection ?, which had their counterpart in the correspondin

American statutes, are not supposed to be ta*en into account and that what should be considered onl( are thereuirements similar to those provided for in said 2ection 6 toether with the disualifications enumerated in 2ection#K

!ourthl(, it is difficult to conceive that the phrase who miht be lawfull( naturalied in 2ection 6' could have beenintended to conve( a meanin different than that iven to it b( the American courts and administrative authorities. Asalread( stated, Act ?##5 which contained said phrase and from which it was ta*en b( Commonwealth Act #%?, wasenacted in 6$>5. B( that, time, 2ection 6$$# of the Revised 2tatutes of the nited 2tates was no loner in forcebecause it had been repealed e=pressl( the Act of 2eptember >>, 6$>> which did awa( with the automaticnaturaliation of alien wives of American citiens and reuired, instead, that the( submit to reular naturaliationproceedins, albeit under more liberal terms than those of other applicants. "n other words, when our leislatureadopted the phrase in uestion, which, as alread( demonstrated, had a definite construction in American law, the

Americans had alread( abandoned said phraseolo( in favor of a cateorical compulsion for alien wives to be natural+udiciall(. 2imple loic would seem to dictate that, since our lawma*ers, at the time of the approval of Act ?##5, had

24


25/39

two choices, one to adopt the phraseolo( of 2ection 6$$# with its settled construction and the other to follow thenew posture of the Americans of reuirin +udicial naturaliation and it appears that the( have opted for the first, ehave no alternative but to conclude that our law still follows the old or previous American /aw 4n the sub+ect. "ndeed,when Commonwealth Act #%? was approved in 6$?$, the Philippine /eislature, alread( autonomous then from the

American Conress, had a clearer chance to disreard the old American law and ma*e one of our own, or, at least,follow the trend of the Act of the .2. Conress of 6$>>, but still, our leislators chose to maintain the lanuae of theold law. hat then is sinificantl( important is not that the leislature maintained said phraseolo( after 2ection 6 of

Act >$>% was eliminated, but that it continued insistin on usin it even after the Americans had amended their law inorder to provide for what is now contended to be the construction that should be iven to the phrase in uestion.2tated differentl(, had our leislature adopted a phrase from an American statute before the American courts hadiven it a construction which was acuiesced to b( those iven upon to appl( the same, it would be possible for s toadopt a construction here different from that of the Americans, but as thins stand, the fact is that our leislatureborrowed the phrase when there was alread( a settled construction thereof, and what is more, it appears that ourleislators even inored the modification of the American law and persisted in maintainin the old phraseolo(. nderthese circumstances, it would be in defiance of reason and the principles of 2tatutor( construction to sa( that 2ection6' has a nationalistic and selective orientation and that it should be construed independentl( of the previous

American posture because of the difference of circumstances here and in the nited 2tates. "t is alwa(s safe to sa(that in the construction of a statute, e cannot fall on possible +udicial fiat or perspective when the demonstratedleislative point of view seems to indicate otherwise.

'. Hiewin the matter from another anle, there is need to emphasie that in realit( and in effect, the so called racialreuirements, whether under the American laws or the Philippine laws, have hardl( been considered as ualifications

in the same sense as those enumerated in 2ection ? of Act >$>% and later in 2ection > of Commonwealth Act #%?.More accuratel(, the( have alwa(s been considered as disualifications, in the sense that those who did not possessthem were the ones who could not be lawfull( naturalied, +ust as if the( were sufferin from an( of thedisualifications under 2ection > of Act >$>% and later those under 2ection # of Commonwealth Act #%?, which,incidentall(, are practicall( identical to those in the former law, e=cept those in pararaphs ;f< and ;h< of the

latter. 22"ndeed, such is the clear impression an(one will surel( et after oin over all the American decisions andopinions uoted andor cited in the latest 2CA ;6$%&, before she ma( be deemed a citien. 2uch condition, if

25


26/39

imposed upon an alien wife, becomes unreasonabl( onerous and compliance therewith manifestl(difficult. 1he unreasonableness of such reuirement is shown b( the followin)

6. 4ne of the ualifications reuired of an Applicant for naturaliation under2ection > of the law is that the applicant must have resided in the Philippines fora continuous period of not less than ten (ears. "f this reuirement is applied toan alien wife married to a !ilipino citien, this means that for a period of ten (ears

at least, she cannot hope to acuire the citienship of her husband. "f the wifehappens to be a citien of a countr( whose law declares that upon her marriaeto a foreiner she automaticall( loses her citienship and acuires the citienshipof her husband, this could mean that for a period of ten (ears at least, she wouldbe stateless. And even after havin acuired continuous residence in thePhilippines for ten (ears, there is no uarantee that her petition for naturaliationwill be ranted, in which case she would remain stateless for an indefinite periodof time.

>. 2ection > of the law li*ewise reuires of the applicant for naturaliation that hemust own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than five thousand pesos,Philippine currenc(, or must have some *nown lucrative trade, profession, orlawful occupation. Considerin the constitutional prohibition aainst acuisitionb( an alien of real estate e=cept in cases of hereditar( succession ;Art. J""", 2ec.

', Constitution$,6$'?F /im /ian :on v. Republic, /-?'%', Dec. >7, 6$'& shall be understood as reduced to five (ears for an( petitioner ;who is5, amendin Act No. >$>% ;the old Naturaliation /aw> of the ;2panish< Civil Code, the wife follows thenationalit( of the husbandF but the Department of 2tate of the nited 2tates on4ctober ?6, 6$>6, ruled that the alien wife of a !ilipino citien is not a !ilipinocitien, pointin out that our 2upreme Court in the leadin case of Roa v.Collector of Customs ;>? Phil. ?6'< held that Articles 6% to >% of the Civil Codebein political have been abroated upon the cession of the Philippine "slands tothe nited 2tates. Accordinl(, the state! taen $ the Attorne$-General prior tothe enictment of Act /o. 977?, +as that marriage of alien +omen to 1hilippine

citizens !i! not mae the former citizens of this counting. ;4p. Att(. 3en., March67, 6$>5< .

(o reme!$ this anomalous con!ition, Act /o. 977? +as enacte! in 4@? a!!ingsection 49Ba to Act /o. @8 +hich proi!es that 2an$ +oman +ho is no+ orma$ hereafter e marrie! to a citizen of the 1hilippine )slan!s, an! +ho mightherself e la+full$ naturalize!, shall e !eeme! a citizen of the 1hilippine)slan!s. ;4p. No. >>, s. 6$#6F emphasis ours


28/39

%. "n Cho( 9in 1ee and the second /( 3io* :a, emphasis was laid on the need for alinin the construction of2ection 6' with the national polic( of selective admission to Philippine citienship. But the uestion ma( be as*ed,is it reasonable to suppose that in the pursuit of such polic(, the leislature contemplated to ma*e it more difficult ifnot practicall( impossible in some instances, for an alien woman marr(in a !ilipino to become a !ilipina than an(ordinar( applicant for naturaliation, as has +ust been demonstrated aboveK "t seems but natural and loical toassume that 2ection 6' was intended to e=tend special treatment to alien women who b( marr(in a !ilipinoirrevocabl( deliver themselves, their possessions, their fate and fortunes and all that marriae implies to a citien of

this countr(, for better or for worse. Perhaps there can and will be cases wherein the personal conveniences andbenefits arisin from Philippine citienship ma( motivate such marriae, but must the minorit(, as such cases arebound to be, serve as the criterion for the construction of lawK Moreover, it is not farfetched to believe that in +oinin a!ilipino famil( the alien woman is somehow disposed to assimilate the customs, beliefs and ideals of !ilipinos amonwhom, after all, she has to live and associate, but surel(, no one should e=pect her to do so even before marriae.Besides, it ma( be considered that in realit( the e=tension of citienship to her is made b( the law not so much for hersa*e as for the husband. "ndeed, e find the followin observations anent the national polic( rationaliation in Cho(9in 1ee and /( 3io* :a ;the second< to be uite persuasive)

e respectfull( suest that this articulation of the national polic( bes the uestion. 1he avowedpolic( of selectives admission more particularl( refers to a case where citienship is sought to eacuire!in a +udicial proceedin for naturaliation. "n such a case, the courts should no doubt appl(the national polic( of selectingonl( those who are worth( to become citiens. 1here is here achoice between acceptin or re+ectin the application for citienship. But this polic( finds noapplication in cases where citienship is conferred $ operation of la+. "n such cases, the

courts hae no choiceto accept or re+ect. "f the individual claimin citienship b( operation of lawproves in leal proceedins that he satisfies the statutor( reuirements, the courts cannot dootherwise than to declare that he is a citien of the Philippines. 1hus, an individual who is able toprove that his father is a Philippine citien, is a citien of the Philippines, irrespective of his moralcharacter, ideoloical beliefs, and identification with !ilipino ideals, customs, and traditions. Aminor child of a person naturalied under the law, who is able to prove the fact of his birth in thePhilippines, is li*ewise a citien, reardless of whether he has lucrative income, or he adheres tothe principles of the Constitution. 2o it is with an alien wife of a Philippine citien. 2he is reuired toprove onl( that she ma( herself be lawfull( naturalied, i.e., that she is not one of the disualifiedpersons enumerated in 2ection # of the law, in order to establish her citienship status as a fact.

A paramount polic( consideration of raver import should not be overloo*ed in this reard, for ite=plains and +ustifies the obviousl( deliberate choice of words. "t is universall( accepted that a2tate, in e=tendin the privilee of citienship to an alien wife of one of its citiens could have had

no other ob+ective than to maintain a unit$ of allegianceamon the members of the famil(. ;Nelsonv. Nelson, 66? Neb. #'?, >&? N. . 7#& L6$>'F see also Convention on the Nationalit( of Marriedomen) :istorical Bac*round and Commentar(. N"1ED NA1"4N2, Department of Economicand 2ocial Affairs ECN, 7?$$, pp. 5 et se.>&, Civil Code67, Civil Code


29/39

be refused reconition, and we submit that in respect of our citienship laws, it should onl( be inthe instances where the wife suffers from the disualifications stated in 2ection # of the RevisedNaturaliation /aw. ;Motion for Reconsideration, #urca s. 0epulic, supra. and none of the disualifications under 2ection #, both of theRevised Naturaliation /awF ;>< 2aid petition must be filed in the Court of !irst "nstance wherepetitioner has resided at least one (ear immediatel( precedin the filin of the petitionF and ;?< An(action b( an( other office, aenc(, board or official, administrative or otherwise other than the

+udment of a competent court of +ustice certif(in or declarin that an alien wife of the !ilipino

citien is also a !ilipino citien, is hereb( declared null and void.

?. e treat the present petition as one for naturaliation. 4r, in the words of law, a petition forcitienship. 1his is as it should be. Because a readin of the petition will reveal at once that effortswere made to set forth therein, and to prove afterwards, compliance with 2ections > and # of theRevised Naturaliation law. 1he trial court itself apparentl( considered the petition as one fornaturaliation, and, in fact, declared petitioner a citien of the Philippines.

"n other words, under this holdin, in order for an alien woman marr(in a !ilipino to be vested with !ilipinocitienship, it is not enouh that she possesses the ualifications prescribed b( 2ection > of the law and none of thedisualifications enumerated in its 2ection #. 4ver and above all these, she has to pass thru the whole process of

+udicial naturaliation apparentl( from declaration of intention to oathta*in, before she can become a !ilipina. "n plainwords, her marriae to a !ilipino is absolutel( of no conseuence to her nationalit( vis-a-vis that of her !ilipinohusbandF she remains to be the national of the countr( to which she owed alleiance before her marriae, and if she

desires to be of one nationalit( with her husband, she has to wait for the same time that an( other applicant fornaturaliation needs to complete, the reuired period of ten (ear residence, ain the *nowlede of Enlish or 2panishand one of the principle local lanuaes, ma*e her children stud( in !ilipino schools, acuire real propert( or enaein some lawful occupation of her own independentl( of her husband, file her declaration of intention and after one(ear her application for naturaliation, with the affidavits of two credible witnesses of her ood moral character andother ualifications, etc., etc., until a decision is ordered in her favor, after which, she has to undero the two (ears ofprobation, and onl( then, but not before she ta*es her oath as citien, will she bein to be considered and deemed tobe a citien of the Philippines. Briefl(, she can become a !ilipino citien onl( b( +udicial declaration.

2uch bein the import of the Court8s rulin, and it bein uite obvious, on the other hand, upon a cursor( readin ofthe provision, in uestion, that the law intends b( it to spell out what is the effect of naturaliation on ;the< wife andchildren of an alien, as plainl( indicated b( its title, and inasmuch as the lanuae of the provision itself clearl(conve(s the thouht that some effect beneficial to the wife is intended b( it, rather than that she is not in an( mannerto be benefited thereb(, it behooves s to ta*e a second hard loo* at the rulin, if onl( to see whether or not theCourt miht have overloo*ed an( relevant consideration warrantin a conclusion different from that complained

therein. "t is undeniable that the issue before s is of rave importance, considerin its conseuences upon tens ofthousands of persons affected b( the rulin therein made b( the Court, and surel(, it is for s to avoid, wheneverpossible, that 4ur decision in an( case should produce an( adverse effect upon them not contemplated either b( thelaw or b( the national polic( it see*s to endorse.

AM"C" CR"AE in the Burca case, respectable and impressive b( their number and standin in the Bar and well*nown for their reputation for intellectual interit(, leal acumen and incisive and comprehensive resourcefulness inresearch, trul( evident in the ualit( of the memorandum the( have submitted in said case, invite 4ur attention to theimpact of the decision therein thus)

1he doctrine announced b( this :onorable Court for the first time in the present case -- that analien woman who marries a Philippine citien not onl( does not ipso factoherself become a citienbut can acuire such citienship onl( throuh ordinar( naturaliation proceedins under theRevised Naturaliation /aw, and that all administrative actions certif(in or declarin such woman

to be a Philippine citien are null and void has conseuences that reach far be(ond theconfines of the present case. Considerabl( more people are affected, and affected deepl(, thansimpl( Mrs. Gita N. Burca. 1he newspapers report that as man( as 6' thousand women married toPhilippine citiens are affected b( this decision of the Court. 1hese are women of man( and diversenationalities, includin Chinese, 2panish, British, American, Columbian, !innish, @apanese,Chilean, and so on. 1hese members of the communit(, some of whom have been married tocitiens for two or three decades, have all e=ercised rihts and privilees reserved b( law toPhilippine citiens. 1he( will have acuired, separatel( or in con+ual partnership with their citienhusbands, real propert(, and the( will have sold and transferred such propert(. Man( of thesewomen ma( be in professions membership in which is limited to citiens. 4thers are doubtless

30


31/39

stoc*holders or officers or emplo(ees in companies enaed in business activities for which acertain percentae of !ilipino euit( content is prescribed b( law. All these married women are nowfaced with possible divestment of personal status and of rihts acuired and privilees e=ercised inreliance, in complete ood faith, upon a readin of the law that has been accepted as correct formore than two decades b( the ver( aencies of overnment chared with the administration of thatlaw. e must respectfull( suest that +udicial doctrines which would visit such comprehensive andfar-reachin in+ur( upon the wives and mothers of Philippine citiens deserve intensive scrutin( and

ree=amination.

1o be sure, this appeal can be no less than what this Court attended to in Gan (situng s. 0epulic, 3.R. No. /->&56$, !eb. >6, 6$7%, 6$ 2CRA #&6 when Chief @ustice Concepcion observed)

1he Court realies, however, that the rulins in the Barretto and Delado cases althouhreferrin to situations the euities of which are not identical to those obtainin in the case at bar ma( have contributed materiall( to the irreularities committed therein and in other analoouscases, and induced the parties concerned to believe, althouh erroneousl(, that the procedurefollowed was valid under the law.

Accordinl(, and in view of the implications of the issue under consideration, the 2olicitor 3eneralwas reuired, not onl(, to comment thereon, but, also, to state how man( cases there are, li*e theone at bar, in which certificates of naturaliation have been issued after notice of the filin of the

petition for naturaliation had been published in the 4fficial 3aette onl( once, within the periods;a< from @anuar( >5, 6$'& ;when the decision in Delado v. Republic was promulated< to Ma(>$, 6$'% ;when the 4n 2on Cui was decided< and ;b< from Ma( >$, 6$'% to November >$,6$7' ;when the decision in the present case was rendered$, 6$'%.

:ere e are met aain b( the same problem. "n Gan (situng, the Court had to e=pressl( en+oin the prospective

application of its construction of the law made in a previous decision, 24which had alread( become final, to serve theends of +ustice and euit(. "n the case at bar, e do not have to o that far. As alread( observed, the decision inBurca still under reconsideration, while the rulin in ee Suan A$, o San (uang, Cho$ :ing (ee and others that

followed them have at the most become the law of the case onl( for the parties thereto. "f there are ood roundstherefor, all e have to do now is to ree=amine the said rulins and clarif( or modif( them.

!or read( reference, e reuote 2ection 6')

2ec. 6'. *ffect of the naturalization on +ife an! chil!ren. An( woman who is now or ma(hereafter be married to a citien of the Philippines, and who miht herself be lawfull( naturaliedshall be deemed a citien of the Philippines.

Minor children of persons naturalied under this law who have been born in the Philippines shall beconsidered citiens thereof.

A forein-born minor child, if dwellin in the Philippines at the time of naturaliation of the parents,

shall automaticall( become a Philippine citien, and a forein-born minor child, who is not in thePhilippines at the time the parent is naturalied, shall be deemed a Philippine citien onl( durin hisminorit(, unless he beins to reside permanentl( in the Philippines when still a minor, in whichcase, he will continue to be a Philippine citien even after becomin of ae.

A child born outside of the Philippines after the naturaliation of his parent, shall be considered aPhilippine citien, unless within one (ear after reachin the ae of ma+orit(, he fails to reisterhimself as a Philippine citien at the American Consulate of the countr( where he resides, and tota*e the necessar( oath of alleiance.

31


32/39

"t is obvious that the main sub+ect-matter and purpose of the statute, the Revised Naturaliation /aw orCommonwealth Act #%?, as a whole, is to establish a complete procedure for the +udicial conferment of the status ofcitienship upon ualified aliens. After la(in out such a procedure, remar*able for its elaborate and careful inclusionof all safeuards aainst the possibilit( of an( undesirable persons becomin a part of our citienr(, it carefull( butcateoricall( states the conseuence of the naturaliation of an alien underoin such procedure it prescribes upon

the members of his immediate famil(, his wife and children, 2and, to that end, in no uncertain terms it ordains that);a< all his minor children who have been born in the Philippines shall be considered citiens alsoF ;b< all such minor

children, if born outside the Philippines but dwellin here at the time of such naturaliation shall automaticall(become !ilipinos also, but those not born in the Philippines and not in the Philippines at the time of suchnaturaliation, are also redeemed citiens of this countr( provided that the( shall lose said status if the( transfer theirpermanent residence to a forein countr( before becomin of aeF ;c< all such minor children, if born outside of thePhilippines after such naturaliation, shall also be considered !ilipino citiens, unless the( e=patriate themselves b(failin to reister as !ilipinos at the Philippine ;American< Consulate of the countr( where the( reside and ta*e thenecessar( oath of alleianceF and ;d< as to the wife, she shall be deemed a citien of the Philippines if she is onewho miht herself be lawfull( naturalied. 2

No doubt whatever is entertained, so #urcaholds ver( correctl(, as to the point that the minor children, fallin withinthe conditions of place and time of birth and residence prescribed in the provision, are vested with Philippinecitienship directl( b( leislative fiat or b( force of the law itself and without the need for an( +udicial proceedin ordeclaration. ;At p. 6$>, 6$ 2CRA edition, citin /( 3io* :a and Ricardo Cua,supra.< that the ualifications of the oriinal petitioner remain to bein issue and not those of the widow and minor children, and ;?< that said 2ection 67 applieswhether the petitioner dies before or after final decision is rendered, but before the +udmentbecomes e=ecutor(.

1here is force in the first and second aruments. Even the second sentence of said 2ection 67

contemplate the fact that the ualifications of the oriinal petitioner remains the sub+ect of inuir(,for the simple reason that it states that 1he decision rendered in the case shall, so far as thewidow and minor children are concerned, produce the same leal effect as if it had been rendereddurin the life of the petitioner. 1his phraseolo( emphasies the intent of the law to continue theproceedins with the deceased as the theoretical petitioner, for if it were otherwise, it would havebeen unnecessar( to consider the decision rendered, as far as it affected the widow and the minorchildren.

=== === ===

1he Chua Chian case ;supra


34/39

that his $ minor children were all born in the Philippines. ;Decision, "n the Matter of the Petition of/ee Pa to be admitted a citien of the Philippines, Civil Case No. 67>5%, C!", Manila, Anne= AFRecord on Appeal, pp. 5-66 L6$76 ed.< 1heConstitution itself reconies as Philippine citiens 1hose who are naturalied in accordance withlaw ;2ection 6L', Article "H, Philippine Constitution


35/39

1he phrases shall be deemed shall be considered, and shall automaticall( become as used inthe above provision, are undoubtedl( s(non(mous. 1he leadin idea or purpose of the provisionwas to confer Philippine citienship b( operation of law upon certain classes of aliens as a legalconseuence of their relationship, b( blood or b( affinit(, to persons who are alread( citiens of thePhilippines. henever thefact of relationship of the persons enumerated in the provision concurswith thefact of citizenship of the person to whom the( are related, the effect is for said persons tobecome ipso factocitiens of the Philippines. )pso facto as here used does not mean that all alien

wives and all minor children of Philippine citiens, from the mere fact of relationship, necessaril(become such citiens also. 1hose who do not meet the statutor( reuirements do not ipsofactobecome citiensF the( must appl( for naturaliation in order to acuire such status. hat itdoes mean, however, is that in respect of those persons enumerate! in Section 45, the relationshipto a citien of the Philippines is the operative fact which establishes the acuisition of Philippinecitienship b( them. Necessaril(, it also determines the point of time at which such citienshipcommences. 1hus, under the second pararaph of 2ection 6', a minor child of a !ilipinonaturalied under the law, +ho +as orn in the 1hilippines, becomes ipso factoa citien of thePhilippines from the time the fact of relationship concurs with the fact of citienship of his parent,and the time when the child became a citien does not depend upon the time that he is ale to

proe that he +as orn in the 1hilippines. 1he child ma( prove some >' (ears after thenaturaliation of his father that he was born in the Philippines and should, therefore, beconsidered a citien thereof. "t does not mean that he became a Philippine citien onl( at thatlater time. 2imilarl(, an alien woman who married a Philippine citien ma( be able to prove onl(some >' (ears after her marriae ;perhaps, because it was onl( >' (ears after the marriae that

her citienship status became in uestion5? L657$


36/39

impl( that the( did not become, in truth and in fact, citiens upon their marriae to !ilipinos. hatthe decisions merel( held was that these wives failed to establish their claim to that status as a

proen fact.

"n all instances where citienship is conferred b( operation of law, the time when citienship isconferred should not be confused with the time when citienship status is established as a provenfact. 1hus, even a natural-born citien of the Philippines, whose citienship status is put in issue in

an( proceedin would be reuired to prove, for instance, that his father is a citien of thePhilippines in order to factuall( establish his claim to citienship.+:is citienship status commencesfrom the time of birth, althouh his claim thereto is established as a fact onl( at a subseuent time./i*ewise, an alien woman who miht herself be lawfull( naturalied becomes a Philippine citien atthe time of her marriae to a !ilipino husband, not at the time she is able to establish that status asa proven fact b( showin that she miht herself be lawfull( naturalied. "ndeed, there is nodifference between a statutor( declaration that a person is deemed a citien of thePhilippinesproi!e! his father is such citizen from a declaration that an alien woman married to a!ilipino citien of the Philippinesproi!e! she might herself e la+full$ naturalize!. Both becomecitiens b( operation of lawF the former becomes a citien ipso factoupon birthF the later ipsofactoupon marriae.

"t is true that unless and until the alien wife proves that she miht herself be lawfull( naturalied, itcannot be said that she has established her status as a proven fact. But neither can it be said that

on that account, she did not become a citien of the Philippines. "f her citienship status is notuestioned in an( leal proceedin, she obviousl( has no obliation to establish her status as afact. "n such a case, the presumption of law should be that she is what she claims to be. ;.2. v.Ro=as, ' Phil. ?%' L6$&'F :ilado v. Assad, '6 4.3. #'>% L6$''


37/39

4nce the Commissioner of "mmiration cancels the sub+ect8s reistration as an alien, there will probabl( be lessdifficult( in establishin her !ilipino citienship in an( other proceedin, dependin naturall( on the substance andvior of the opposition.

Before closin, it is perhaps best to clarif( that this third issue e have passed upon was not touched b( the trialcourt, but as the point is decisive in this case, the Court prefers that the matter be settled once and for all now.

"N H"E 4! A// 1:E !4RE34"N3, the +udment of the Court a uodismissin appellants8 petition f

moya vs commisioner 41 scra 292

Documents