G.R. No. L-32999 - OCTOBER 1982 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE G.R. No. L-32999October 15, 1982 Republic of the Philippines vs. Teodulo C. Tandayag G.R. No. L-53497October 18, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Godofredo Inguito G.R. No. L-56564 October 18, 1982 Filomeno Barias vs. Eduarda Alcantara G.R. No. L-59847 October 18, 1982 PhilippineInter-Fashion, Inc. vs. Nat'l. Labor Relations Com G.R. No. L-60800October 18, 1982 Jaime Pelejo vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-61676October 18, 1982 Editha B. Saligumba vs. Commission on Audit G.R. No. L-39919 October 19, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo B. De La Cruz G.R. No. L-55249-50 October 19, 1982 PhilippineGeothermal, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission G.R. No. L-48875October 21, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Delfin Muit A.M. No. 2125-CTJOctober 23, 1982 Candelaria Villamor vs. Silvino Lu. Barro A.M. No. 2410October 23, 1983 In Re Disbarment of Rodolfo Pajo G.R. No. L-33819 and G.R. No. 88397October 23, 1982 National Power Corporations vs. National Merchandising Corporation and Domestic Insurance Company of the Philippines G.R. No. L-37323October 23, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Crispiniano Mauro G.R. No. L-37255October 23, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Victor B. Asibar and Julio R. Manzano G.R. No. L-29985October 23, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Mario M. Bundalian G.R. No. L-30583 October 23, 1982 Eutropio Zayas, Jr. vs. Luneta Motor Company G.R. No. L-31053 October 23, 1982 Philippine National Bank vs. Pedro Samson C. Animas G.R. No. L-31420October 23, 1982 PhilippineRabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. Patrocinio Esguerra G.R. No. L-31832October 23, 1982 Social Security System vs. Sss Supervisors' Union G.R. No. L-32377October 23, 1982 Lucas Buiser vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. L-32719October 23, 1982 Rufila Q. Aranas vs. Federico Endona G.R. No. L-33192 October 23, 1982 Gervacio Luis Que vs. Court of First Instance of Rizal G.R. No. L-33632October 23, 1982 Fausto Montesa vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-33756October 23, 1982 Sabino Rigor vs. Eduardo Rosales G.R. No. L-36181October 23, 1982 Meralco Securities Co. vs. Victorino Savellano G.R. No. L-36481-2October 23, 1982 Amparo C. Servando vs. Philippines Steam Navigation Co. G.R. No. L-37203October 23, 1982 The People of the Philippines vs. Carlito Sadiwa G.R. No. L-38297 October 23, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Mario Capalac G.R. No. L-39631October 23, 1982 Jesusa Liquido vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-43309October 23, 1982 Simeon Olbes vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-43805October 23, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Gregorio Romero, Jr. G.R. No. L-48143October 23, 1982 Domingo D. Togonon vs. Gov't. Service Insurance System G.R. No. L-57467 October 23, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Francis Militante G.R. No. L-57641October 23, 1982 Antolin A. Jariol vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-59264October 23, 1982 Alejandro Gronifillo vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-59906October 23, 1982 Buenaventura San Juan vs. Manuel E. Valenzuela G.R. No. L-60018October 23, 1982 Dole Philippines, Inc. vs. Vicente Leogardo, Jr. G.R. No. L-45553October 25, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Wilfredo Lisondra G.R. No. L-60083 October 27, 1982 Crispina Peñaflor vs. Domingo Panis G.R. No. L-47363 October 28, 1982 Francisco A. Fuentes vs. J. Oscar Leviste G.R. No. L-57429 October 28, 1982 Int'l Hardwood and Veneer Co. vs. Vicente Leogardo G.R. No. L-30882October 29, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Constante F. Anies G.R. No. L-31757October 29, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Pio Marcos G.R. No. L-36186October 29, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Norberto Quinto G.R. No. L-38989October 29, 1982 People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Castro G.R. No. L-60121October 29, 1982 Carlos Po vs. Emeterio Yu The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Republic of the Philippines vs. Teodulo C. Tandayag People of the Philippines vs. Godofredo Inguito Filomeno Barias vs. Eduarda Alcantara PhilippineInter-Fashion, Inc. vs. Nat'l. Labor Relations Com Jaime Pelejo vs. Court of Appeals Editha B. Saligumba vs. Commission on Audit People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo B. De La Cruz PhilippineGeothermal, Inc. vs. National Labor Relations Commission People of the Philippines vs. Delfin Muit Candelaria Villamor vs. Silvino Lu. Barro In Re Disbarment of Rodolfo Pajo National Power Corporations vs. National Merchandising Corporation and Domestic Insurance Company of the Philippines People of the Philippines vs. Crispiniano Mauro People of the Philippines vs. Victor B. Asibar and Julio R. Manzano People of the Philippines vs. Mario M. Bundalian Eutropio Zayas, Jr. vs. Luneta Motor Company Philippine National Bank vs. Pedro Samson C. Animas PhilippineRabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. Patrocinio Esguerra Social Security System vs. Sss Supervisors' Union Lucas Buiser vs. People of the Philippines Rufila Q. Aranas vs. Federico Endona Gervacio Luis Que vs. Court of First Instance of Rizal Fausto Montesa vs. Court of Appeals Sabino Rigor vs. Eduardo Rosales Meralco Securities Co. vs. Victorino Savellano Amparo C. Servando vs. Philippines Steam Navigation Co. The People of the Philippines vs. Carlito Sadiwa People of the Philippines vs. Mario Capalac Jesusa Liquido vs. Court of Appeals Simeon Olbes vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission People of the Philippines vs. Gregorio Romero, Jr. Domingo D. Togonon vs. Gov't. Service Insurance System People of the Philippines vs. Francis Militante Antolin A. Jariol vs. Court of Appeals Alejandro Gronifillo vs. Court of Appeals Buenaventura San Juan vs. Manuel E. Valenzuela Dole Philippines, Inc. vs. Vicente Leogardo, Jr. People of the Philippines vs. Wilfredo Lisondra Crispina Peñaflor vs. Domingo Panis Francisco A. Fuentes vs. J. Oscar Leviste Int'l Hardwood and Veneer Co. vs. Vicente Leogardo People of the Philippines vs. Constante F. Anies People of the Philippines vs. Pio Marcos People of the Philippines vs. Norberto Quinto People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Castro Carlos Po vs. Emeterio Yu The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-32999 October 15, 1982

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLE TEODULO C. TANDAYAG, as Judge of the Court of First Instance of Lanao del Norte, Branch IV, stationed at Iligan City, and CONSOLATRIX KHO SY, in her own behalf and in behalf of her minor son, EDGARDO SY TIONGSA,respondents.

The Solicitor General for petitioner.

Teodulo C. Tandayag in his own behalf.

FERNANDO,C.J.:

This appeal from an order of the lower court poses the question of whether or not the repatriation of a mother, Consolatrix Kho Sy, entitles her minor son, Edgardo Sy TIONGSA, to a declaration that he is entitled to Philippine citizenship. In an amended petition for repatriation, the prayer was from an order from the lower court "l—authorizing petitioner's son, Edgardo Sy Tiongsa, to take his oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, at such time and place as may be set forth in the judgment; and thereafter 2—an order issue directing the Commissioner, Bureau of Immigration, Manila or his representative, to revoke, cancel or void the Alien Certificate of Registration and Immigration Certificate of Residence of petitioner, Consolatrix Kho Sy and her minor child, Edgardo Sy Tiongsa, ... ."1Such prayer was granted. There was a motion for reconsideration based on alleged procedural deficiencies arising from lack of conformity to the then applicable rules and regulations promulgated by the Department of Justice. In an order denying such motion, the lower court pointed out that there was no sufficient basis for the imputation of such procedural flaws. In addition, relying onTalaroc v. Uy,2the lower court affirmed its order "declaring Consolatrix Kho Sy and her minor son, Edgardo Sy Tiongsa, citizens of the Republic of the Philippines" by repatriation.3In the appeal to this Court, it was even pointed out that repatriation, on the assumption of the mother being a Filipino citizen prior to her marriage, may be obtained "by the simple expedient of taking the required oath of allegiance and its filing with the proper civil registry (Sec. 4, Com. Act No. 63, as amended), without need of resorting to judicial proceedings."4Nonetheless, in the five-page brief submitted by the Office of the Solicitor General, it was alleged that the lower court erred in ruling that the mother was repatriated and that the minor son by virtue thereof was entitled to acquire Filipino citizenship. It may be noted that less than two pages were devoted to discussing the two assigned errors. Nor was any effort made to refute the doctrine set forth inTalaroc v. Uy,the case relied upon by the lower court Judge in granting the petition for repatriation of the mother and the declaration of citizenship of the minor son. The appeal lacks merit.

In the well-reasoned order denying the motion for reconsideration by respondent Judge Teodulo C. Tandayag, the argument that there was "no satisfactory evidence" presented by the mother to support her claim for citizenship was rejected. Thus: "This contention could not be sustained because Consolatrix Kho Sy has proven in open Court that she was born in Iligan City on September 7, 1921 of a Filipino father who is already dead and a Filipino mother who is still alive so that she is a natural born citizen of the Philippines; that she was employed as a public school teacher in Iligan before the war and after the war and her claim for backpay was duly approved and fully redeemed as shown by Exhs. "J", "J-1" and "J-2 "; that she was a registered voter of Precinct No. 6, Iligan, in the 1946 elections as shown by the certification, Exhs. "K" and "K-11"; that all her sisters and brothers are Filipino citizens as shown by the fact that her sister, Lourdes E. Kho, is a licensed pharmacist, Exh. "L", and Natividad E. Kho, also a licensed pharmacist, Exh. "M". The petitioner, Consolatrix Kho Sy, has, therefore, satisfactorily proven that she was a Filipino citizen by birth and continued to be such until her marriage to her Chinese husband on November 15, 1947, and that she has not taken any oath of allegiance to any foreign state, country or sovereign."5In addition, the City Fiscal, during such hearing, verbally urged respondent Judge to deny the repatriation on the ground that he should wait until he became of age. Nor was such submission found acceptable in view of the ruling in the aforecited Talaroc v. Uy decision which in the language of the lower court held "that Alejandro D. Uy became a Filipino citizen at least upon his father's death."6Here the mother reacquired Filipino citizenship upon the death of her husband.

To repeat, the appeal lacks merit.

The reliance onTalaroc v. Uy7by the lower court is more than justified. In this case, the election of respondent Uy to the office of municipal mayor of Manticao, Misamis Oriental, was challenged in aquo warrantopetition on the ground of lack of eligibility, he being a Chinese national. The lower court found the petition well-founded but the Supreme Court reversed. Justice Tuason, speaking for the Court, first noted that the facts were undisputed. Respondent Uy was the son of a Chinese national, Uy Piangco, and a Filipino mother. He was born in Iligan, Province of Lanao, in 1912. He had never been to China; had voted in previous elections and had held such offices as inspector of the Bureau of Plant Industry, a public school teacher, a filing clerk, and acting municipal treasurer. Moreover, as noted by Justice Tuason in his opinion: "These facts also appear uncontroverted in evidence: One of the respondent's brothers, Pedro D. Uy, before the war and up to this time has been occupying the position of income tax examiner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue. His other brother, Jose D. Uy, is a practicing certified public accountant, and before the war was the accountant of the National Abaca and Fiber Corporation (NAFCO). His other brother, Dr. Victorio D. Uy, is a practising physician, and, before the war, was charity physician in Initao and later a physician in the provincial hospital. During the war, Dr. Uy was a captain in the Philippine Army. His younger brother was a lieutenant in the 120th Infantry Regiment of the guerrillas."8It would appear, therefore, that the lower court was more than justified in holding that the mother, Consolatrix Kho Sy, who was born in 1921, thereafter employed as a public school teacher before and after World War II, with her claim for backpay duly approved, was a registered voter and whose brothers and sisters are recognized as Filipino citizens, is entitled to the same ruling. Hence upon the death of her husband, her right to repatriation cannot be doubted. This portion of the opinion of Justice Tuason is likewise relevant: "Certainly, it would neither be fair nor good policy to hold the respondent an alien after he had exercise the privileges of citizenship and the Government had confirmed his Philippine citizenship on the faith of legal principles that had the force of law. On several occasions the Secretary of Justice had declared as Filipino citizens persons similarly circumstanced as the herein respondent."9Similarly, again as held inTalaroc v. Uy,Edgardo Sy Tiongsa, her son, who was a minor having born in 1952 and the father having died in 1957, is entitled to Philippine citizenship.

WHEREFORE,the order appealed from must be affirmed, declaring Consolatrix Kho Sy repatriated and Edgardo Sy Tiongsa, her son, entitled to Philippine citizenship.ℒαwρhi৷

Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De Castro and Escolin, JJ., concur.

Footnotes