the motion for

reconsideration.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual
law library

In a long line of decisions, this Court has held that the

principle of jus soliapplies in this jurisdiction. It is embodied
in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States which provides that "All persons born or
EN BANC naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of
the state wherein they reside." In the case of U.S. vs. Wong
G.R. No. 47616            September 16, 1947 Kim Ark, 169 U.S., 649, the SupremeCourt of the United
States applying the principle of jus soli  held that a person
born in the United States of Chinese parents domiciled
JOSE TAN CHONG, petitioner-appellee, vs. THE
therein is a citizen of the United States. It further held that
SECRETARY OF LABOR, respondent-appellant.
the Fourteenth Amendment was declaratory of the common
law as existed in England and in the United States before
x---------------------------------------------------------x and after the Declaration of independence. From that
decision, Mr. Chief Justice Fuller, with whom concurred Mr.
Justice Harlan, dissented. The principle of jus soli was the
G.R. No. 47623            September 16, 1947 rule in this jurisdiction until the 30th of September, 1939,
when in the case of Chua vs. Secretary of Labor (68 Phil.,
649), this Court abandoned it and held that a person of
LAM SWEE SANG, petitioner-appellee, vs. THE
Chinese parentage born in the Philippines in 1941 is not a
COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-
citizen thereof, because she followed the citizenship of her
appellant.
Chinese parents and she is not a citizen of the Philippines
under the provisions of section 2 of the Jones Law, the Act of
First Assistance Solicitor General Jose B. L. Reyes and Congress of 29 August 1916. But in the cases of Torres and
Solicitor Lucas Lacson for appellants. Gallofin vs. Tan Chim (69 Phil., 518), decided on 3 February
Antonio V. Raquiza for appellee. 1940 (69 Phil., 518), and Gallofin vs. Ordoñez, decided on
27 June 1940 (70 Phil., 287), this Court reverted to the rule
of jus soli laid down in the cases prior to the decisionin the
PADILLA, J.: case of Chua vs. Secretary of
Labor, supra.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual
On 15 October 1941, a decision was promulgated in thecase law library
of Tan Chong vs. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No.
47616,whereby this Court affirmed the judgment of the The Solicitor General heeding the opinions of the Assitant
Court of First Instance of Manila, which hAd granted the writ Secretary of State, Mr. G.S. Messermith, of 15 January
of habeas corpus applied for by tan Chong, on the ground 1938; of the Second Assistant Secretary of State, Mr. Alvey
that he, being a native of the Philippines, of a Chinese father A. Adee, dated 12 September 1921, and of the Acting
and a Filipino mother, is a citizen of the Secretary of State, Mr. Huntington Wilson, of 5April 1912,
Philippines.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law who held that a person born in the Philippines of alien
library parentage is not a citizen thereof, because the common law
principle of  jus soli or the Fourteenth Amendment to the
On the same date, in the case of Lam Swee Sang vs. Constitutiton of United States was not extended to the
Commonwealth of the Philippines  (G.R. No. 47623), this Philippines - the same opinions upon which the Solicitor
Court rendered a decision dismissing the petition of the General had relied in the case of Chua vs. The Secretary of
applicant for naturalization filed in the Court of First Instance Labor, supra, in his contention that the rule applying the
of Zamboanga, on the ground that the applicant, having principle of  jus soli in this jurisdiction should be abandoned -
been born in Sulu, Philippines, of a Chinese father and urges upon this Court to reconsider its decisions in the cases
Filipino mother, is a citizen of the Philippines. The dismissal under consideration.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles
of the petition implies and means that there was no need of virtual law library
naturalization for the applicant who is aFilipino
citizen.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law In the case of Muñoz vs. Collector of Customs, 20 Phil.,494,
library the Court applied the principle of jus soli to a person born in
the Philippines of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother, and
On 21 October 1941, a motion for reconsideration was filed in so doing it cited the case of U.S. vs. Gosiaco, 12 Phil., 490
in both cases by the Solicitor General. The latter contends where, according to the Court, the principle had been
that even if the petitioner in the first case and the applicant applied. But nowhere in the decision of the last mentioned
in the second were born in the Philippines, of a Chines father case was such principle applied, because the only question
and a Filipino mother, lawfully married, still they are not passed upon was whether a person detained for not having a
citizens of the Philippines under and pursuant to the laws in certificate of registration, as required by Act 702, could be
force at the time of their birth, and prays that both decisions admitted to bail pending determination of his appeal by this
be set aside and the judgments appealed from be reversed. Court as to whether he did come within the provisions of
This motion for reconsideration was pending in this Court said Act.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law
when the Pacific was broke out. During the battle for library
liberation, the records of both cases were destroyed. Upon
petition of the Assistant Solicitor General, Mr. Roberto A. In the case of Roa vs. Collector of Customs, 23 Phil.,315,
Gianzon, therecords were reconstituted in accordance with this Court passed upon the question as to whether a person
the provisionsof Act. No. 3110. The record of the first case, born in the Philippines of a Chinese father and a Filipino
G.R. No. 47616,was declared reconstituted on 5 June, and of mother, legally married; is a citizen thereof. In this case this
the second case, G.R. No. 47623, on 28 June 1946. Upon Court took into consideration the provisions of articles 17,
these reconstituted records, we now proceed to dispose of 18 and 19 of the Civil Code in viewof the fact that the

1
petitioner was born on 6 July 1889; the second paragraph of ground in support of the pronouncement that petitioner Roa
Article IX of the Treaty of Paris; section 4 of the Philippine is a Filipino citizen, and for that reason entitled to land and
Bill (Act of Congress of 1 July 1902) and the amendatory Act reside in the Philippines. The additional ground is that the
of Congress of 23 March 1912, these being the laws then petitioner's father having died in China in 1900, his mother
applicable. Commenting on sec. 4 of the Philippine Bill, as reacquired her Filipino citizenship which he being under age
amended, this Court said: followed upon the death of his father. The concluding
pronouncement in the decisionof the case is, as follows:

By section 4 the doctrine or principle of citizenship by place

of birth which prevails in the United States was extended to The nationality of the appellant having followed that of his
the Philippine Islands, but with limitations. In the United mother, he was therefore a citizen of the Philippine Islands
States every person, which certain specific exceptions, born on July 1, 1902, and never having expatriated himself, he
in the United States is a citizen of that country. Under still remains a citizen of this country.
section 4 every person born after the 11th of April, 1889, of
parents who were Spanish subjects on that date and who
continued to reside in this country are at themoment of their If all the native inhabitants residing in the Philippines on the
birth ipso facto citizens of the Philippine Islands. From the 11th day of April 1899, regardless of their alien parentage,
reading of section 4 and taking into consideration the Act of are citizens thereof, the amendatory Act of Congress of 23
March 23, 1912, it is clear that Congress realized that there March 1912 empowering the Philippine Legislature to provide
were inhabitants in the Philippine Islands who did not come by legislation for the acquisition of Filipino citizenship by
within the provisions of said section, and also that Congress those natives excluded from such citizenship by the original
did not then by express legislation determine the political section 4 of the Philippine Bill, would be
status of such persons. Therefore, the inquiry is - Did meaningless.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual
Congress intend to say that all of the inhabitants who were law library
not included in section 4 are to be "deemedand held to be"
aliens to the Philippine islands? (Pp. 333-334.) (Emphasis We are not unmindful of the importance of the question
supplied.) submitted to us for decision. We know that the decision
upon the motion for reconsideration in these cases is
In answering the question in the negative, this Court cited momentous. We have given the time and the thought
the case of an unmarried woman, a native of Porto Rico, 20 demanded by its importance. While birth is an important
years of age, who arrived in New York by steamer from element of citizenship, it alone does not make a person a
Porto Rico on 24 August 1902. She was detained at the citizen of the country of his birth. Youth spent in the
Immigrant station, examined by a board of special inquiry, country; intimate and endearing association with the citizens
and excluded. The writ for habeas corpus having been among whom he lives; knowledge and pride of the country's
denied by the Circuit Court, for the reason that she might past; belief in the greatness and security of its institutions,
become a public charge, she appealed to the Supreme Court in the loftiness of its ideals, and in the ability of the
of the United States which held that she was not an alien to country's government to protect him, his children, and his
the United States. But the decision of the Supreme Court of earthly possessions against perils from within and from
the United States in the case cited does not answer without; and his readiness to defend the country against
negatively the question asked by this Court, because it does such perils, are some of the important elements that would
not appear that she is of alien parentage and it appears that make a person living in a country its citizen. Citizenship is a
she was a resident of Porto Rico on11 April 1899. (192 U.S. political status. The citizen must be proud of his citizenship.
1.) Further commenting on section 4, this Court said: He should treasure and cherish it. In the language of Mr.
Chief Justice Fuller, "the question of citizenship in a nation is
of the most vital importance. It is a precious heritage, as
This section declares that a certain class of inhabitants shall well as an inestimable acquisition." (U.S. vs. Wong Kim
be citizens of the Philippine Islands. It does not declare that Ark, supra.) Citizenship, the main integrate element of which
other inhabitants shall not be citizens. Neither does it is allegiance, must not be taken lightly. Dual allegiance must
declare that other inhabitants shall be deemed to be aliens be discouraged and prevented. But the application of the
to the Philippine Islands, and especially it does not declare principle of  jus soli to persons born in this country of alien
that aperson situated as in the appellant shall not be nor parentage would encourage dual allegiance which in the long
shall not elect to be a citizen of the country on his birth. The run would be detrimental to both countries of which such
appellant could, as we have said, elect to become a citizen persons might claim to be
of the United States had he been born in that country under citizens.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law
the same circumstances which now surround him. All the library
laws and the rulings of the courts on the subject so declare,
and this has been the declared policy of the United States.
While it has been decided that the Constitution and acts of The pinciple of stare decisis does not mean blind adherence
Congress do not apply ex proprio vigore  to this country, but to precedents. The doctrines or rule laid down, which has
that they must be expressly entended by Congress, been followed for years, no matter how sound it may be, if
nevertheless, some of the basic principles upon which the found to be contrary to law, must be abandoned. The
government of the United States rests and the greater part principleof stare decisis does not and should not apply when
of the Bill of Rights, which protects the citizens of that there is conflict between the precedent and the law. The
country, have been extended to the Philippine Islands by the duty of this Court is to forsake and abandon any doctrine or
instructions of the President to the first Philippine rule found to be in violation of the law in
Commission and the Philippine Bill. (P. 339-340.) force.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law
library

The declaration that a certain class of inhabitants shall be

citizens of the Philippines is tantamount or equivalent to It appears that the petitioner in the first case was born in
declaring that those who do not belong to that class shall not San Pablo, Laguna, in July 1915, of a Chinese father and a
be. Realizing the weakness of the position taken, in view of Filipino mother, lawfully married, left for China in 1925, and
the express provisions of section 4 of the Philippine Bill, as returned to the Philippines on 25 January1940. The applicant
amended, and of the fact that the Constitution of the United in the second case was born in Jolo, Sulu, on 8 May 1900, of
States and Acts of Congress do not apply ex proprio a Chinese father and a Filipino mother. It does not appear
vigore  to the Philippines, the Court hastened to add another whether they were legally married, so in the absence of
proof to the contrary they are presumed to be lawfully

2
married. From the date of his birth up to 16 November 1938, Tranquilino Roa in that case was born in the Philippines in
the date of filing of his application for naturalization, and up theyear 1889, when articles 17 et seq. of the Civil Code
to the date of hearing, he had been residing in the were yet in force here and made him a Spanish subject, the
Philippines. He is married to a Filipino woman and has three said petitioner and applicant in the instant cases were born,
children by her. He speaks the local dialect and the Spanish although also in the Philippines, 1915 and 1900,
and English languages.chanroblesvirtualawlibrarychanrobles respectively, i. e., after the abrogation of said articles, due
virtual law library to their political character, upon the changeof sovereignty
following the treaty of Paris ending theSpanish-American
war (Roa vs. Insular Collector of Customs, 23 Phil., 315,
Considering that the common law principle or rule of  jus 330; Halleck's International Law, Chapter 34, par. 14;
soli obtaining in England and in the United States, as American and Ocean Insurance Companies vs. 356 Bales of
embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution Cotton, 1 Pet. [26 U.S.], 511 542, 7 Law.ed., 242). As
of the United States, has never been entended to this declared in the majority opinion, the citizenship of said
jurisdiction (section 1, Act of 1 July 1902; sec. 5, Actof 29 petitioner and applicant should be determined as of the
August 1916); considering that the law in force and dates of their respective
applicable to the petitioner and the applicant in the two births.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law
cases at the time of their birth is sec. 4 of the Philippine Bill library
(Act of 1 July 1902), as amended by Act of 23 March 1912,
which provides that only those "inhabitants of the Philippine
Islands continuing to reside therein who were Spanish At the time the petitioner in G.R. No. 47616 was born
subjects on the 11th day of April, 1899, and then resided in (1915) the law on Philippine citizenship was contained in the
said Islands, and their children born subsequent thereto, Philippine Bill, section 4, as amended by the Act of Congress
shall be deemed and held to be citizens of the Philippine of March 23, 1912. Under this provision said petitioner could
Islands," we are of the opinion and so hold that the not be a Filipino citizen upon the date of his birth because
petitioner in the first case and the applicant in the second his father, who was legally married to his mother, was a
case, who were born of alien parentage, were not and are Chinese citizen and not a subject of Spain. If his father had
not, under saidsection, citizens of the Philippine been a subject of Spain on April 11, 1899, like his mother,
Islands.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law who was a native Filipina, before their marriage - and in that
library case, after said marriage, she would have acquired the
citizenship of her husband even if she had been a foreigner -
then under section 4 of thePhilippine Bill, as amended, said
Needless to say, this decision is not intended or designed to parents of said petitioner would have become citizens of the
deprive, as it cannot divest, of their Filipino citizenship, Philippines unless they should have elected to preserve their
those who had been declared to be Filipino citizens, or upon allegiance to Spain in the manner and within the period
whom such citizenship had been conferred, by the courts therein prescribed; and then, too, the petitioner upon being
because of the doctrine or principle of res born in 1915 would automatically have acquired Philippine
adjudicata.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law citizenship. But such was not the
library case.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Accordingly, the decision of this Court in the first case The applicant in G.R. No. 47623 could not possibly be a
confirming the lower court's judgment is set aside; the Filipino citizen upon his birth (1900) because, aside from the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila appealed fact that his father, who is presumed to have been legally
from is reversed; the petitioner is recommitted to the married to his mother, was a Chinese subject, there was no
custody of the Commissioner of Immigration to be dealt with law on Philippine citizenship at that time, because, firstly,
in accordance with law; and the decision of this Court in the even the aforecited articles of the Civil Code had previously
second case is set aside; the decree of theCourt of First been abrogated, as already stated by the change of
Instance of Zamboanga appealed from granting the sovereignty in the Philippines following the Spanish-
applicant's peition for naturalization filed on16 November American war, secondly, said articles at any rate did not
1938 is affirmed, for the applicant comes under section 1 regulate Philippine citizenship nor did they make said
(a), Act 2927, as amended by Act 3448, and possesses the applicant's father a Spanish subject, and, thirdly, the
qualifications required by setion 3 of the same Act, as Philippine Bill was not enacted until July 1,
amended, which was the law in force at the time of the filing 1902.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law
of the petition for naturalization. No costs shall be taxed in library
both cases.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law
library
In the case of the applicant in G.R. No. 47623, his father
was a Chinese subject on April 11, 1899. And his mother,
Moran, C. J., Paras, Feria, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Briones, upon her marriage with her Chinese husband, acquired his
and Hontiveros, JJ., concur. nationality. So that when said applicant was born in 1900 his
parents were Chinese subjects. When the Philippine Bill was
enacted on July 1, 1902, therefore, said applicant and his
parents were not subjects of Spain and consequently could
not have acquired Philippine citizenship by virtue of section 4
thereof. It was only after the Philippine Naturalization Law
was enacted, pursuant to the Act of Congress of August 29,
Separate Opinionschanrobles virtual law library
1916 (Jones Law), that the said applicant had his first
opportunity to become a naturalized citizen of this
HILADO, J.,  concurring:chanrobles virtual law library country.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law
library

I concur in the entire majority opinion. I concur inthe

revocation of the doctrine of jus soli enunciated, among Consequently, I reach the same conclusion as the majority.
other cases, in Roa vs. Insular Collector of Customs, 23
Phil., 315. Besides, the ruling in that case can not be
invoked in favor of the petitioner in G.R. No. 47616 nor of
the applicant in G.R. No. 47623 for the reason that, while