Case Digest (G.R. No. 138496)
Facts:
Hubert Tan Co and Arlene Tan Co, G.R. No. 138496, February 23, 2004, the Supreme Court En Banc, Callejo, Sr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are siblings Hubert Tan Co and Arlene Tan Co; the respondent is the Civil Register of Manila (and any person having or claiming an interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought). Their father is Co Boon Peng and their mother is Lourdes Vihong K. Tan.
Hubert was born on March 23, 1974 and Arlene on May 19, 1975; both birth certificates recorded their father’s citizenship as Chinese. Their father, Co Boon Peng, applied for and was granted Philippine citizenship under Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 270, later implemented by Presidential Decree No. 1055; Certificate of Naturalization No. 020778 issued February 15, 1977 and he took his oath that day. The petitioners completed college in the Philippines (architecture and accountancy, respectively).
On August 27, 1998 petitioners filed a petition under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court (Special Proceedings No. 98-90470) seeking correction of the entries in their birth certificates to change their father’s citizenship from Chinese to Filipino. They pleaded that, although their father was a Chinese citizen at the time of their births, his 1977 naturalization under PD No. 1055/LOI No. 270 made them Philippine citizens by virtue of Section 15 of Commonwealth Act No. 473 (the petition alleged they were legitimate, born in the Philippines, and still minors when their father was naturalized).
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 26, Manila, dismissed the petition outright by Order dated September 23, 1998 on the ground that the father was naturalized under LOI No. 270/PD No. 1055 and not under Commonwealth Act No. 473, and therefore Section 15 of CA No. 473 did not apply. Petitioners moved for reconsideration; the RTC denied the motion by Order dated April 27, 1999, explaining (a) LOI No. 270 and CA No. 473 are distinct and LOI lacks a Section 15 counterpart; (b) LOI and its implementing rules speak of qualified individuals only; (c) Section 15 of CA No. 473 should not be read into LOI No. 270; and (d) legislative grants are to be strictly construed.
The petitioners brought the case to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari. The Solicitor General filed a Comment arguing LOI No. 270 and CA No. 473 are separate, CA No. 473 regulates judicial naturalization while LOI...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the trial court err procedurally in dismissing the petition under Rule 108 without complying with the notice/publication and adversarial requirements of Section 4, Rule 108?
- Are LOI No. 270/PD No. 1055 and Commonwealth Act No. 473 statutes in pari materia such that Section 15 of CA No. 473 applies to those naturalized under LOI No. 270?
- Were petitioners entitled as a matter of law to derivative Philippine citizenship from their father’s naturalization, or did they still have the burden to prove legitimacy, birth in the P...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)