VOL.

82, JANUARY 31, 1949 773

WILLIAM CHIONGBIAN, petitioner, vs. ALFREDO DE LEON, in his capacity as Commissioner Chiongbian vs. De Leon et al.
of Customs, JOSE GALLOFIN, in his capacity as Collector of Customs of the Port of Cebu, and
VICENTE DE LA CRUZ, in his capacity as General Manager of the Philippine Shipping Admin The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
          Tañada, Pelaez el Teehankee, Pendatun, Arches el Sayo,  and  De Santos, Herrera el
_______________ Delfino for petitioner.
          First Assistant Solicitor General Roberto A. Gianzonand  Solicitor Lucas Lacson  for
1 78 Phil., 122 respondents.
772      Roxas, Picazo el Mejia for intervenor.
     Mariano Jesus Cuenco, Miguel Cuenco and Nicolas Belmonte as amici curiæ.

772 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED MORAN, C.J.:

Chiongbian vs. De Leon et al This is a petition seeking to permanently prohibit respondent Customs officials from cancelling
the registration certificates of petitioner’s vessels, and respondent Philippine Shipping
Administration from rescinding the sale of three vessels to petitioner. The primary basis for
istration, respondents: PHILIPPINE SHIPOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, intervenor. respondents’ and intervenor’s acts is the allegation that petitioner is not a Filipino citizen and
therefore not qualified by law to operate and own vessels of Philippine registry. The Philippine
1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW;  ClTIZENSHIP;  HOLDING PUBLIC OFFICE THROUGH ELECTION Shipping Administration also alleges that petitioner violated the contract of sale of three vessels
BEFORE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION; LEGITIMATE MINOR CHILD.—Upon the executed between them, on the ground of misrepresentation, petitioner having alleged in said
adoption of the Constitution, V.C., father of herein petitioner, having been elected to a public office contract that his father was a naturalized Filipino citizen. The Philippine Shipowners’
in the Philippines before the adoption of the Constitution, became a Filipino citizen by virtue of Association was later allowed to intervene and it filed its answer against the petitioner.
Article IV, section 1, subsection 1, of the Constitution. W.C., the herein petitioner, who was then a The entire case hinges on whether or not petitioner William Chiongbian is ar Filipino citizen,
minor, also became a Filipino by reason of subsection 3. (Article IV) of the Constitution, his father and this Court holds that he is one.
having become a Filipino citizen upon the adoption of said Constitution. This is also in conformity Article IV of the Constitution provides:
with the settled rule in our jurisprudence that a legitimate minor child follows the citizenship of his
father. “SECTION 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:

2. ID.; ID.; INTENTION OF FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION; No PROVISION THEREIN WAS "(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of this Constitution.
INTENDED ONLY FOR BENEFIT OF ONE PERSON.—The members of the Constitutional "(2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before the adoption of this Constitution,
Convention could not have dedicated a provision of our Constitution merely for the benefit of one had been elected to public office in the Philippine Islands.
person without considering that it could also affect others. When they adopted subsection 2, they
permitted, if not willed, that said provision should function to the full extent of its substance and its 774
terms, not by itself alone, but in conjunction with all other provisions of that great document. They
adopted said provision fully cognizant of the transmissive essence of citizenship as provided in
subsection 3. Had it been their intention to curtail the transmission of citizenship in such a 774 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED
particular case, they would have so clearly stated.
Chiongbian vs. De Leon et al
3. ID.; ID.; DELETIONS IN THE PRELIMINARY DRAFTS OF THE CONVENTION, EFFECT OF.—
Deletions in the preliminary drafts of the Convention are, at best, negative guides, which cannot "(3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines.
prevail over the positive provisions of the finally adopted Constitution.
"(4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority, elect
4. CONTRACT OF SALE;  HONEST ERROR COMMITTED IS NOT MlSREPRESENTATION; CASE Philippine citizenship.
AT BAR.—Respondent’s allegation that the petitioner violated the contract of sale with the "(5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
Philippine Shipping Administration on the ground of misrepresentation, petitioner having alleged in
said contract that his father was a naturalized Filipino, is without merit. Held: That such was not a “SEC. 2. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law.”
deliberate misrepresentation but an error which any person not versed in the law is prone to commit.
It is clear that petitioner merely meant that his father was a Filipino citizen by operation of law and In 1925, Victoriano Chiongbian, a Chinese citizen and father of the herein petitioner William
not by birth. Chiongbian, was elected to and held the office of muncipal councilor of the town of Plaridel,
Occidental Misamis. This fact is sufficiently established by the evidence submitted to this Court;
ORIGINAL ACTION in the Supreme Court. Prohibition. by the findings of the National Bureau of Investigation cited in Opinion No. 27, s. 1948, of the
Secretary of Justice; and as admitted by respondents in their pleadings. It is also shown and
773
admitted that at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, petitioner William Chiongbian was Li Kim Tho vs. Go Siu Kao et al
still a minor.
It is conclusive that upon the adoption of the Constitution, Victoriano Chiongbian, father of In view of all the foregoing, the petition for the issuance of the writ of prohibition is hereby
herein petitioner, having been elected to a public office in the Philippines before the adoption of granted and respondent Customs officials are hereby enjoined from cancelling the registration
the Constitution, became a Filipino citizen by virtue of Article IV, section 1, subsection 1, of the certificates of petitioner’s vessels and respondent Philippine Shipping Administration is hereby
Constitution. William Chiongbian, the herein petitioner, who was then a minor, also became a enjoined from rescinding the sale of the three vessels made to petitioner. No costs. It is so
Filipino citizen by reason of subsection 3. (Article IV) of the Constitution, his father having ordered.
become a Filipino citizen upon the adoption of said Constitution. This is also in conf ormity with
the settled rule of our jurisprudence that a legitimate minor child follows the citizenship of his      Parás, Pablo, Perfecto, Bengzon, Briones, Tuason,and Montemayor, JJ., concur.
father.
It is argued by respondents that this privilege of citizenship granted by subsection 1, (Article I certify that Mr. Justice Feria voted for the issuance of the writ.—MORAN, C.J.
IV, Constitution) is strictly personal and does not extend to the children of the grantee. In Writ granted.
support of this contention they offer two principal arguments. Firstly, that this subsection was
adopted by the Constitutional Convention merely to grant Filipino citizenship to Delegate Caram
and thus obviate the possibility of a non-Filipino signing the Constitution as one of its framers.
Secondly, it is argued that the original draft
775

VOL. 82, JANUARY 31, 1949 775

Chiongbian vs. De Leon et al

of said subsection 2. contained the phrase—"and their descendants,"—which was deleted from the
final draft, thus showing that this privilege of citizenship was intended to be strictly personal to
the one who had been elected to a public office and did not extend to his descendants.
With regard to the first argument, it may be said that the members of the Constitutional
Convention could not have dedicated a provision of our Constitution merely for the benefit of one
person without considering that it could also affect others. When they adopted subsection 2, they
permitted, if not willed, that said provision should “f unction to the full extent of its substance
and its terms, not by itself alone, but in conjunction with all other provisions of that great
document. They adopted said provision fully cognizant of the transmissive essence of citizenship
as provided in subsection 3. Had it been their intention to curtail the transmission of citizenship
in such a particular case, they would have so clearly stated.
The second argument of respondents is similarly untenable. The mere deletion of the phrase
—"and their descendants,"—is not determinative of any conclusion. It could have been done
because the learned framers of our Constitution considered it superfluous, knowing full well that
the meaning of such a phrase was adequately covered by subsection 3. Deletions in the
preliminary drafts of the Convention are, at best, negative guides, which cannot prevail over the
positive provisions of the finally adopted Constitution.
Respondents’ allegation that the petitioner violated the contract of sale with the Philippine
Shipping Administration on the ground of misrepresentation, petitioner having alleged in said
contract that his father was a naturalized Filipino,. is without merit. Such was not a deliberate
misrepresentation but an error which any person not versed in the law is prone to commit. It is
clear that petitioner merely meant that his father was a Filipino citizen by operation of law and
not by birth.
776

776 PHILIPPINE REPORTS ANNOTATED