Cueco vs. Secretary of Justice

Facts:

Alfonso Dy Cueco v. The Hon. Sec. of Justice and The Hon. Commissioner of Immigration, G.R. No. L-18069, May 26, 1962, Supreme Court, Concepcion, C.J., writing for the Court. The case is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila.

Petitioner Alfonso Dy Cueco sought cancellation of his alien certificate of registration on the ground that he had elected Philippine citizenship under Article IV, Section 1(4) of the Constitution (those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship). On May 15, 1951 petitioner executed an affidavit asserting birth in Surigao in 1923, that his mother Julita Duyapat (also identified as Julita Gonzaga in a baptismal certificate) was Filipina, that he renounced allegiance to the Republic of China, and that he took the corresponding oath of allegiance; counsel wrote the Commissioner of Immigration on May 19, 1951 requesting cancellation of petitioner’s alien registration certificate.

The Commissioner of Immigration referred the matter to the Secretary of Justice, who, by Opinion No. 129 dated June 18, 1957, concluded that petitioner had failed to prove his mother’s Philippine citizenship and that his election was legally ineffectual. Petitioner sought reconsideration; the Secretary denied it on January 27, 1959. On January 9, 1960 petitioner filed a petition for mandamus in the Court of First Instance of Manila to compel respondents to recognize his election and cancel his alien certificate. The trial court ruled for petitioner and ordered the relief sought. Respondents appealed to the Supreme Court.

The issues before the Supreme Court arose principally from stipulated facts (the parties agreed on the main facts) and therefore focused on legal questions: the adequacy of the proof of the mother’s citizenship and whether petitioner’s election s...(Pro-only)

Issues:

• Is petitioner entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling recognition of his election of Philippine citizenship?
• Did petitioner sufficiently prove that his mother was a citizen of the Philippines as required by Article IV, Section 1(4)?
• Was petitioner’s election of Philippine citizenship, made on May 15, 1951 when he was over twenty-eight years old, made “upon reaching the age of majority”...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

• (Pro-only)

Ratio:

• (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

• (Pro-only)