7/28/2019 Torres vs. Tan Chim, G.R. No. L-46593.docx

1/1

G.R. No. L-46593 February 3, 1940

RAMON TORRES, in his capacity as Secretary of labor,and JOSE GALLOFIN, as Acting Collector of Customs of Cebu, Petitioners,vs. TAN CHIM,Respondent.

Ponente: LAUREL, J .

Facts

R Tan Chim, a minor son of Filipino-Chinese Alejandro Tan Bangco, was denied admission to the Philippinesdue to his fathers status that had not been passed upon by the Labor Secretary.

CFI Cebu approved the petition for habeas corpus since the Rs father was a Filipino citizen, jus soli (born inManila on Feb. 27, 1893).

CA affirmed the ruling of CFI Cebu, declining to overrule the doctrine in Roa vs. Collector of Customs re:jus soli.

The Solicitor-General does not dispute the analogy made between the case of Roa vs. CoC and the case athands; hence, the doctrine is to be adhered to, granting Filipino citizenship to R.

Nevertheless, SGs request to reexamine and reverse the said doctrine is duly acted upon by the SC for the factthat the principle of territoriality orjus soliadopted in Roa Collector of Customs does not have to be set aside bythis Court for the reason that the principle is no longer pre-dominating in this jurisdiction after taking effect of theConstitution of the Philippines, which has mainly adopted the contrary principle ofjus sanguinis.

* JUS SOLI. The law of the place of one's birth as contrasted with jus sanguinis, the law of the place of one's descent

or parentage. It is of feudal origin. (Blacks Law Dictionary, 4th ed.)

Issue

Whether or not the case should be decided on the authority of Roa vs. Collector of Customs? Yes.o The facts determinative of citizenship in both cases relate to events which had taken place before

the advent of American sovereignty. Roa cannot be converted into an alien after finalpronouncement in 1912 that he was a Filipino.

o The Roa ruling has been established for more than 20 years and has been abided by not only SCbut also inferior courts ever since.

o The declaration of Tranquilino Roas citizenship was a statement of general principle applicable toall those who were in the same situation.

o In the case of Commonwealth of the Phils. vs. Gloria Baldello in 1935, it was concluded that theRoa ruling had become a legal provision in Commonwealth Act No. 63, Art. 1 (7), to the effect thata Filipino woman does not lose her citizenship by marrying a foreigner belonging to a nation the

laws of which do not allow her to acquire the husband's nationality."

HeldCA ruling is affirmed, no pronouncement re: costs.

Ratioconsidering the fact that the mother of Alejandro Tan Bangco, who is the father of the herein applicant, is aFilipina, and, under our Constitution, Alejandro Tan Bangco would have the option, upon reaching majority, to adoptFilipino citizenship (par. 4, sec. 1, Art. IV, Constitution); considering the benign policy of giving greater politicalrecognition to women, to the extent that in United States marriage of an American woman to a foreigner does notoperate loss of her citizenship; and in view of Commonwealth Act No. 63, which is indicative of this politicalrecognition, however partial, accorded to Filipino women; considering further the limited number of people who wouldbe benefited by the application of the doctrine as qualified in Roa vs. Collector of Customs; , we are of the opinionand so hold that the applicant, being a minor child of Alejandro Tan Bangco who was a Filipino citizen at the time ofthe adoption of the Constitution, is a Filipino citizen.