Delumen vs. Republic

A petition for declaratory relief must be dismissed where it does not allege a justiciable controversy between adverse parties; the cause of action must be made out by the petition itself, and the opposing party's answer cannot supply the missing controversy. Mere doubts or fears about citizenship do not confer a cause of action.

Antonio, Juan, and Julito Delumen are legitimate children of Pacencia Pua, a Filipino woman, and Mariano Delumen, who had been declared a Filipino citizen by the Court of First Instance of Samar in an order dated August 7, 1950. The Delumens' citizenship claim rested on that family relationship and prior declaration.

Antonio, Juan, and Julito Delumen, claiming to be legitimate children of Pacencia Pua, a Filipino woman, and Mariano Delumen, filed a petition on October 9, 1951 in the Court of First Instance of Samar. They alleged that Mariano Delumen had been declared a Filipino citizen by the same court in an order dated August 7, 1950, and prayed that the CFI Samar determine whether they are Filipino citizens and declare their corresponding rights and duties. They further alleged that they had continuously resided in the Philippines since birth, considered themselves Filipinos, exercised the right to vote in the general elections of 1946 and 1947, and were registered voters for the elections in 1951.

The Solicitor General, on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines, filed an answer alleging that the petition stated no cause of action because there was no adverse party against whom the petitioners had an actual or justiciable controversy. The petition did not allege that any specific person or authority had questioned or denied the Delumens' citizenship; instead, it alleged that they considered themselves and were considered by their friends and neighbors as Filipino citizens, voted in the 1946 and 1947 general elections, and were registered voters for the 1951 elections, without any pretense that their citizenship was controverted on those occasions. The Delumens sought to remove all doubts in their minds as to their citizenship.

After hearing, the CFI Samar ruled in favor of the Delumens, and the Solicitor General appealed.

• Justiciable Controversy Created by Answer: Petitioners argued that, by virtue of the answer filed by the Solicitor General opposing the petition for declaratory relief, a justiciable controversy arose.

• No Cause of Action / No Adverse Party: Respondent argued that the petition states no cause of action because there is no adverse party against whom petitioners have an actual or justiciable controversy, and no specific person was mentioned as having or claiming an adverse interest.
• Requisites of Declaratory Relief: Respondent cited Tolentino and contended that a justiciable controversy requires an active antagonistic assertion of a legal right on one side and a denial thereof on the other concerning a real, not a mere theoretical, question or issue, and that the petition failed the requisites.
• Improper Use of Declaratory Relief: Respondent contended that the CFI Samar erred in holding that a petition for declaratory relief may be utilized to obtain a judicial pronouncement as to appellees' citizenship.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Respondent contended that the evidence does not support the conclusion in the appealed decision that the appellees are Filipino citizens.

• Justiciable Controversy: Whether a petition for declaratory relief to determine citizenship presents a justiciable controversy where no specific person or authority has questioned or denied petitioners' citizenship and the petition seeks only to remove doubts.
• Effect of Answer: Whether the Solicitor General's answer opposing the petition creates a justiciable controversy.

• Justiciable Controversy: No. A petition for declaratory relief must be predicated on a justiciable controversy between persons with adverse interests; the petition alleged no specific person or authority that questioned or denied petitioners' citizenship, and mere doubts or fears do not confer a cause of action.
• Effect of Answer: No. The cause of action must be made out by the allegations of the petition without the aid of the answer; the Solicitor General's answer alleging no cause of action did not create an actual controversy.

• Justiciable Controversy: The SC adopted the requisites in Hilarion C. Tolentino vs. The Board of Accountancy, et al.: (1) there must be a justiciable controversy; (2) the controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse; (3) the party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy; and (4) the issue invoked must be ripe for judicial determination. It also accepted the Solicitor General's description of a justiciable controversy as an active antagonistic assertion of a legal right on one side and a denial thereof on the other concerning a real, not a mere theoretical, question or issue. The petition did not intimate that the Delumens' alleged status as Filipino citizens had ever been questioned or denied by any specific person or authority. It alleged that they considered themselves and were considered by friends and neighbors as Filipino citizens, voted in the 1946 and 1947 general elections, and were registered voters for the 1951 elections, but it did not pretend that their citizenship was controverted on any of those occasions. The SC held that declaratory judgment cannot be invoked solely to determine or try issues, to determine a moot, abstract, or theoretical question, or to decide uncertain or hypothetical claims. The Delumens merely wanted to remove doubts in their minds about their citizenship, and desires thwarted by their own doubts or fears of others do not confer a cause of action. Hence, no justiciable controversy existed.
• Effect of Answer: The SC rejected the argument that the Solicitor General's answer opposing the petition created an actual controversy. A cause of action must be made out by the allegations of the complaint or petition, without the aid of the answer. The answer itself alleged that the petition stated no cause of action. Therefore, the opposition of the Solicitor General did not supply the missing adverse party or convert the petition into a justiciable controversy. Because the petition failed at the threshold, the SC reversed the CFI decision and dismissed the petition. It found it unnecessary to discuss the Solicitor General's second contention that declaratory relief could not be used to obtain a judicial pronouncement on citizenship, and his third contention that the evidence did not support the conclusion that the appellees were Filipino citizens.

• Requisites of Declaratory Relief — A petition for declaratory relief must be predicated on: (1) a justiciable controversy; (2) the controversy must be between persons whose interests are adverse; (3) the party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy; and (4) the issue invoked must be ripe for judicial determination. The SC applied this and found none because no specific person or authority questioned the Delumens' citizenship.
• Justiciable Controversy — It requires an active antagonistic assertion of a legal right on one side and a denial thereof on the other concerning a real, not a mere theoretical, question or issue. The SC held that the Delumens' petition did not present such a controversy; no adverse interest was alleged.
• Cause of Action from Petition, Not Answer — A cause of action must be made out by the allegations of the complaint or petition, without the aid of the answer. The SC held that the Solicitor General's answer opposing the petition did not create a justiciable controversy.
• Declaratory Judgment Cannot Resolve Moot, Abstract, or Hypothetical Questions — An action for declaratory judgment cannot be invoked solely to determine or try issues, determine a moot, abstract, or theoretical question, or decide uncertain or hypothetical claims. The SC held that the Delumens merely wanted to remove doubts about their citizenship, which did not confer a cause of action.
• Doubts or Fears Do Not Confer Cause of Action — The fact that a party's desires are thwarted by its own doubts or by fears of others does not confer a cause of action. The SC applied this to the Delumens' desire to remove doubts about citizenship.

• "A petition for declaratory relief must be predicated on the following requisites: (1) there must be a justiciable controversy; (2) the controversy must be between persons whose interest are adverse; (3) the party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy; and (4) the issue invoked must be ripe for judicial determination." — The SC quoted this from Tolentino and used it as the framework for denying the petition.
• "It is not accurate to say, as appellees do, that an actual controversy arose after the filing by the Solicitor General of an opposition to the petition, for the reason that the cause of action must be made out by the allegations of the complaint or petition, without the aid of the answer." — The SC rejected the argument that the Solicitor General's answer created a justiciable controversy.
• "In essence, the appellees merely wanted to remove all doubts in their minds as to their citizenship, but an action for declaratory judgment cannot be invoked solely to determine or try issues or to determine a moot, abstract or theoretical question, or decide claims which are uncertain or hypothetical." — The SC characterized the petition as seeking an advisory declaration rather than resolving a live controversy.

• Hilarion C. Tolentino vs. The Board of Accountancy, et al., G.R. No. L-3062, September 28, 1951 — The SC cited this as the controlling precedent for the four requisites of a petition for declaratory relief, which it applied to dismiss the petition.
• Willing vs. Chicago Auditorium Assn., 277 U.S. 274, 48 Sup. Ct. 507 — Cited through Moran for the rule that a party's desires thwarted by its own doubts or fears of others do not confer a cause of action; the SC relied on it to reject the Delumens' attempt to remove doubts about citizenship.