Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

 G.R. No. L-301             April 7, 1948

CARLOS PALANCA, petitioner-appellee,
vs.
THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, movant-appellant.

Office of the Solicitor General Lorenzo M. Tañada and Solicitors Pedro S. Reyes and Felix V. Makasiar for movant-appellant.
Roxas, Picazo, and Mejia for petitioner-appellee.
Vicente Sotto as amicus curiae.

PADILLA, J.:

The facts

 

In 1941 Carlos Palanca applied for citizenship under the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 473 however, no decree was the Pacific War supervened. After the reconstitution of the record of the proceedings which had been destroyed as a result of the battle for the liberalization of Manila, the petitioner took the oath and was granted certificate of naturalization No. 1000.

That petitioner was informed of the royal decree of the Regent, Queen Maria Cristina, dated November 30, 1893, by which the applicant, Carlos Palanca was granted the Spanish citizenship to enter into effect upon his giving the corresponding oath (In this communication the text of the Royal Decree is quoted); that on the day following the receipt of Exhibit A, the petitioner repaired to Malacañang and there gave his oath of allegiance and received the corresponding certificate of Spanish citizenship, which was burned in his house at Taft Avenue during the battle for liberation of Manila on the return of the Americans in 1945.

 

That upon petitioner’s marriage with Cesarea Cano Torres, native and resident of the District of Binondo, Manila (Exhibit D); from then on the petitioner, Carlos Palanca, considered himself a Spanish subject, was registered as such in the Spanish Consulate General in Manila.

That because the petitioner, Carlos Palanca, believed himself to be a Spanish subject and desirous of acquiring Filipino citizenship by naturalization, he instituted this case in 1941.

He made it appear therein that he was of Spanish nationality; and that during the course of his application for Filipino citizenship by naturalization, he also adduced evidence to show that he had acquired the Spanish nationality during the Spanish regime in these Islands (Order of the Court of First Instance of Manila dated 7 January 1946.)

The Solicitor General filed a motion which he amended on 8 August, praying for the cancellation of the certificate of naturalization issued to the petitioner, on the ground that the latter does not and did not possess good moral character, that he has not conducted himself in an "irreproachable manner in his relation with the constituted government," that he is not loyal to the Commonwealth Government of which he desires to be citizen, and that citizenship being a political status, the decree granting it entered by a court exercising judicial powers under the authority of the enemy sponsored Government is null and void.

Issue:

Whether or not the certificate of naturalization is needed to prove citizenship.

Ruling

No. the Petitioner claimed that he is a Filipino citizen pursuant to section 4 of the Act of the Congress of 1 July 1902 and section 2 of the Act of Congress of 29 August 1916. The 2^nd paragraph Article IX of the Treaty of Paris which stipulated that, the civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the territories hereby ceded to the United States shall be determined by the Congress,

Section 4 of the Act of Congress of 1 July 1902, which provides

That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands, continuing to reside therein who were Spanish subjects on the eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, and then resided in said islands, ... shall be deemed and held to be citizens of the Philippine Islands

Section 2 of the Act of Congress of 29 August 1916, which provides —

That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands who were Spanish subjects on the eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, and then resided in said Islands, ... shall be deemed and held to be citizens of the Philippine Islands,

The trial court granted the motion for cancellation of the certificate of naturalization issued to the petitioner, not upon the grounds alleged in the motion but for the reason that the certificate of naturalization was unnecessary.

 

Fr. Cesar D. Tinga

ABC College of Law