JOSE TAN CHONG, petitioner-appellee
SECRETARY OF LABOR, respondent-appellant
G.R. No. 47616. October 15, 1941. EN BANC.
FACTS:
Petitioner Jose Tan Chong, was born in San Pablo, Laguna, in July 1915 of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother, who were legally
married. Sometime in 1925 when Chong was about ten years old he was taken by
his parents to China. On January 25, 1940, he arrived at the port of Manila and
sought entry as a native born citizen. The Board of Special Inquiry assigned to
hear his case, denied him admission on the alleged ground that he is a Chinese
citizen. On appeal, the Secretary of Labor affirmed the decision of the Board
and ordered the deportation of Chong to the port from whence he came. Chong
sued for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of First
Instance of Manila which was granted.
ISSUE:
WON Chong is a Filipino citizen.
RULING:
Yes, Chong having been born in the Philippines
before the approval of our Constitution, of a Chinese father and a Filipino
mother, is a Filipino citizen. His sojourn in China did not adversely affect
his Philippine citizenship, it appearing that ever since he was twelve years
old he wanted to return to the Philippines but his father would not allow him
to come, and he did not have the means to pay for his transportation back to
the Philippines until the date of his return. Animus revertendi existed
here.
an opinion of HILADO, J (https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1947/sep1947/gr_47616_1947.html)
ReplyDeleteAt the time the petitioner in G.R. No. 47616 was born (1915) the law on Philippine citizenship was contained in the Philippine Bill, section 4, as amended by the Act of Congress of March 23, 1912. Under this provision said petitioner could not be a Filipino citizen upon the date of his birth because his father, who was legally married to his mother, was a Chinese citizen and not a subject of Spain. If his father had been a subject of Spain on April 11, 1899, like his mother, who was a native Filipina, before their marriage — and in that 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 the Philippine Bill, as amended, said parents of said petitioner would have become citizens of the Philippines unless they should have elected to preserve their allegiance to Spain in the manner and within the period therein prescribed; and then, too, the petitioner upon being born in 1915 would automatically have acquired Philippine citizenship. But such was not the case.