Santiago vs. Commissioner of Immigration

There is no action or proceeding under Philippine law for the judicial declaration of an individual’s citizenship; a petition for cancellation of an alien certificate of registration that necessarily rests on a claim of Filipino citizenship is not a proper remedy.

Ricardo Santiago had been registered as an alien in the Bureau of Immigration, a registration periodically renewed, the last being in 1950. He claimed Philippine citizenship by birth to a Filipina mother and a Chinese father. The legal backdrop is that declaratory relief is a special civil action limited to deeds, wills, contracts, other written instruments, or rights affected by statute or ordinance, and no law establishes a standalone action to declare citizenship.

Ricardo Santiago was born on September 28, 1904, in La Carlota, Negros Occidental, out of wedlock to Apolonia Andrade, a Filipina, and Tomas Santiago, a Chinese who could not marry Apolonia because he had a lawfully wedded wife in China. When Santiago was four, his father sent him to China on vacation. Upon his return to the Philippines in 1915, he was issued Landing Certificate Residence No. 13939, which showed he was a Filipino.

In 1924 he returned to China and married Ty Sek Nio, a Chinese woman, whom he brought to the Philippines in 1925; she was granted Landing Certificate of Residence No. 69033, which showed she was the wife of a Filipino citizen. Santiago and his family lived in Hamamaylan, where he operated a sari-sari store. During the Japanese occupation, he and his family evacuated to the swamps. After liberation, they stayed for a short time in Andangan, Quezon, where they engaged in the copra business. In 1956 they returned to Bacolod, and in August 1957 they transferred to Sipalay, Negros Occidental, where they were living at the time of the hearing. Aside from the sons born to him and his wife in China, they had five other children born in the Philippines.

Despite Santiago’s claim of Filipino citizenship, his father, before his death in 1928, erroneously registered him as an alien. The registration was periodically renewed, the last being in 1950, when Alien Certificate of Registration No. 97013, Exhibit M, was issued to him. This was the certificate he later sought to cancel.

On June 15, 1957, Santiago filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental praying that he be declared a Philippine citizen and that his alien certificate of registration be cancelled; the petition was later amended to make the Commissioner of Immigration a respondent and omitted the prayer to declare him a Filipino citizen. The lower court found that Santiago had established the allegations of his amended petition.

• Nature of Action: Petitioner argued that his suit is merely for the cancellation of his alien certificate of registration, not one for declaratory relief.
• Reliance on Cited Cases: Petitioner invoked U.S. vs. Ong Tian Se, Santos Ko vs. P.P.I., and Luis Serra vs. Republic, which the lower court had relied upon.

• Improper Remedy: Respondent contended that the petition is one for declaratory relief, a remedy not available in seeking a declaration of one’s status or citizenship.
• Insufficient Evidence: Respondent assigned error to the lower court in declaring appellee a Filipino citizen based on the allegedly meager evidence of record.

• Propriety of Remedy and Judicial Declaration of Citizenship: Whether a petition for cancellation of an alien certificate of registration, which necessarily depends on a declaration of Philippine citizenship, is a proper action or proceeding.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Whether the lower court erred in declaring appellee a Filipino citizen based on the evidence of record.

• Propriety of Remedy and Judicial Declaration of Citizenship: No. There is no proceeding, by declaratory relief or otherwise, for the express purpose of obtaining a judicial declaration of citizenship; a petition for cancellation that implicitly seeks such a declaration is not proper.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Not reached. The Court found it unnecessary to determine whether the evidence proved appellee’s Filipino citizenship after concluding that the remedy was improper.

• Propriety of Remedy and Judicial Declaration of Citizenship: The original petition prayed that appellee be declared a Filipino citizen; although the amended petition omitted that prayer, the plea remained implicit in the request for cancellation of the alien certificate of registration, because cancellation could not be based on any ground other than that appellee is a Filipino citizen. The lower court itself originally declared appellee’s citizenship, and when it reinstated its order after eliminating that declaration, the order for cancellation was left without support. Whether or not the suit is interpreted as one for declaratory relief, appellee directly or indirectly sought a declaration of his supposed Philippine citizenship. The Court held that no proceeding, by declaratory relief or otherwise, exists for the express purpose of obtaining a judicial declaration of citizenship. Declaratory relief is a special civil action available only when a person interested under a deed, will, contract, or other written instrument, or whose rights are affected by statute or ordinance, demands construction thereof for a declaration of rights; none of those circumstances existed. Courts may pass upon status only as an incident of adjudicating rights in a justiciable controversy; otherwise, the pronouncement is beyond judicial power. The Court cited Eleuteria Feliseta Tan vs. Republic for the rule that there can be no action or proceeding for the judicial declaration of an individual’s citizenship, and that while naturalization by judicial decree is permitted, no similar legislation authorizes a judicial proceeding to declare that a person is part of the citizenry. The cases cited by the lower court and appellee were inapplicable: U.S. vs. Ong Tian Se was a deportation case in which the person alleged Filipino citizenship; Santos Co and Luis Serra vs. Republic were naturalization cases where the evidence showed the persons were born Filipinos and need not be naturalized. The remedy was therefore improper.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Because the remedy sought was not proper, the Court found it unnecessary to determine whether the evidence proved that appellee is a Filipino citizen.

• No judicial declaration of citizenship — Under Philippine law, there is no action or proceeding for the judicial declaration of an individual’s citizenship. Courts may pronounce on citizenship only as an incident of adjudicating rights in a justiciable controversy, not as a standalone relief. The Court applied this rule to dismiss Santiago’s petition because it necessarily sought a declaration of Filipino citizenship.
• Declaratory relief limited to specified instruments or statutes — Declaratory relief is a special civil action that may lie only when a person interested under a deed, will, contract, or other written instrument, or whose rights are affected by statute or ordinance, demands construction thereof for a declaration of rights. None of these circumstances existed in Santiago’s case, so declaratory relief was unavailable.
• Cancellation of alien certificate implicitly requires citizenship declaration — Where cancellation of an alien certificate of registration cannot be based on any ground other than that the petitioner is a Filipino citizen, the petition implicitly seeks a judicial declaration of citizenship and is not a proper remedy. The Court applied this to Santiago’s amended petition.
• Status as incident, not independent action — A court may pass upon and make a pronouncement relative to a party’s status only as an incident of the adjudication of the rights of the parties to a controversy; otherwise, the pronouncement is beyond judicial power. The Court used this principle to reject a standalone citizenship declaration.
• Inapplicability of deportation and naturalization precedents — Cases involving deportation where the person alleged citizenship, or naturalization where the evidence showed birth as a Filipino, are not authority for a standalone judicial declaration of citizenship. The Court distinguished U.S. vs. Ong Tian Se, Santos Co, and Luis Serra vs. Republic on this ground.

• "There is no proceeding, by declaratory relief, or otherwise, available for the express purpose of obtaining a judicial declaration to that effect." — This is the Court’s core holding, stating that no remedy exists for a standalone judicial declaration of citizenship.
• "Declaratory relief in this jurisdiction is a special civil action which may lie only when 'any person interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, or whose rights are affected by statute or ordinance,' demands construction thereof for a declaration of his rights thereunder." — This defines the limited scope of declaratory relief and explains why Santiago’s citizenship claim did not fall within it.
• "As an incident only of the adjudication of the rights of the parties to a controversy, the court may pass upon, and make a pronouncement relative to, their status. Otherwise, such a pronouncement is beyond judicial power." — This states the rationale that citizenship status may be adjudicated only incidentally to a justiciable controversy.
• "The order appealed from is hereby reversed and the petition is dismissed, with costs." — This is the dispositive portion of the decision.

• Eleuteria Feliseta Tan vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-16108, October 31, 1961 — Controlling precedent cited for the rule that there is no proceeding for the judicial declaration of citizenship; the Court quoted its reasoning that courts exist for justiciable controversies and may pass upon status only as an incident.
• Tan vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-14159, April 18, 1960, reiterated in G.R. No. L-15775, April 29, 1961 — Cited in the same discussion as authority that no action or proceeding exists for a judicial declaration of citizenship.
• U.S. vs. Ong Tian Se, 29 Phil. 352 — Cited by the lower court and appellee but distinguished; it was a deportation case in which the person successfully alleged Filipino citizenship, not a standalone citizenship declaration.
• Santos Ko vs. P.P.I., 52 Phil. 562 — Cited by the lower court and appellee but distinguished; the decision describes it as a naturalization case where the evidence showed the persons were born Filipinos and need not be naturalized.
• Luis Serra vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-4223, May 12, 1952 — Cited by the lower court and appellee but distinguished; it was a naturalization case, not a proper authority for the remedy sought.

Bengzon, C.J.; Padilla; Bautista Angelo; Labrador; Concepcion; Reyes, J.B.L.; Barrera; Paredes; Dizon; and Regala, JJ.