Case Digest (G.R. No. 20809)
Facts:
Go Julian v. The Government of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 20809, October 22, 1923, the Supreme Court, Villamor, J., writing for the Court. The petitioner, Go Julian, a Chinese merchant born in Iloilo on September 7, 1899 of Chinese parents, filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo on November 17, 1922 for naturalization as a citizen of the Philippine Islands under Act No. 2927 (Naturalization Law) enacted March 26, 1920. The Attorney-General entered an opposition in the trial court, arguing primarily that subsection (c) of section 1 of Act No. 2927 limited eligibility to (i) citizens of the United States or (ii) foreigners who, under United States law, could become U.S. citizens if resident there — and that, as a Chinese subject, petitioner could not be naturalized under U.S. law.In the trial court the Attorney-General’s opposition was sustained and the petition was denied in a judgment dated March 6, 1923. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court. The record shows petitioner had resided in Iloilo except for two trips to China (one nine-year period for study and a later one-year sojourn); he was married to a Chinese woman with a child in Iloilo; he possessed a certificate of residence issued October 1, 1903 under the Act of Congress of April 29, 1902; and it did not appear that his parents had been considered Spanish subjects before the Treaty of Paris of 1898/ratification date referenced in the record.
On appeal the Court considered prior Philippine and U.S. precedents bearing on jus soli and the effect of the cession of the Islands on nationality law (notably United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649; Roa v. Collector of Customs, 23 Phil. 315; and U.S. v. Lim Bin, 36 Phil. 924), the provisions of the Treaty of Paris and subsequent Acts of Congress (including the Act of August 29, 1916, sec. 2), and the language of Act No. 2927...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Is petitioner a "native of the Philippine Islands" within the meaning of the word "natives" in section 1 of Act No. 2927 and therefore eligible for Philippine citizenship under that Act?
- Does subsection (c) of section 1 of Act No. 2927 exclude petitioner because, as a Chinese subject, he could not be naturalized as a citizen of the Un...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)