ROA VS COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

Facts: This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Cebu recommitting the
appellant, Tranquilino Roa, to the custody of the Collector of Customs and declaring the
Collector's right to effect appellant's deportation to China as being a subject of the Chinese
Empire and without right to enter and reside in the Philippine Islands. There is no dispute as
to the facts.
Tranquilino Roa, was born in the town of Luculan, Mindanao, Philippine Islands, on July 6,
1889. His father was Basilio Roa Uy Tiong Co, a native of China, and his mother was Basilia
Rodriguez, a native of this country. His parents were legally married in the Philippine Islands
at the time of his birth.
The father of the appellant went to China about the year 1895, and died there about 1900.
Subsequent to the death of his father, in May, 1901, the appellant was sent to China by his
mother for the sole purpose of studying (and always with the intention of returning) and
returned to the Philippine Islands on the steamship Kaifong, arriving at the port of Cebu
October 1, 1910, from Amoy, China, and sought admission to the Philippine Islands. At this
time the appellant was a few days under 21 years and 3 months of age.
After hearing the evidence the board of special inquiry found that the appellant was a
Chinese person and a subject of the Emperor of China and not entitled to land.
In view of the fact that the applicant for admission was born in lawful wedlock
On appeal to the Insular Collector of Customs this decision was affirmed, and the Court of
First Instance of Cebu in these habeas corpus proceedings remanded the appellant to the
Collector of Customs
Under the laws of the Philippine Islands, children, while they remain under parental
authority, have the nationality of their parents. Therefore, the legitimate children born in the
Philippine Islands of a subject of the Emperor of China are Chinese subjects and the same
rule obtained during Spanish sovereignty
Issue: Whether or not Roa is a citizen of the Philippines
Held: YES, The nationality of the appellant having followed that of his mother, he was
therefore a citizen of the Philippine Islands on July 1, 1902, and never having expatriated
himself, he still remains a citizen of this country.
We therefore conclude that the appellant is a citizen of the Philippine Islands and entitled to
land. The judgment appealed from is reversed and the appellant is ordered released from
custody, with costs de oficio.

TAN CHONG VS SEC. LABOR

Facts: A decision was promulgated in the case of Tan Chong vs. Secretary of Labor, ,whereby
this Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila, which had granted
the writ of habeas corpus applied for by tan Chong, on the ground that he, being a native of
the Philippines, of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother, is a citizen of the Philippines .On
the same date, in the case of Lam Swee Sang vs. Commonwealth of the Philippines, this
Court rendered a decision dismissing the petition of the applicant for naturalization filed in
the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga, on the ground that the applicant, having been
born in Sulu, Philippines, of a Chinese father and Filipino mother, is a citizen of the
Philippines. The dismissal of the petition implies and means that there was no need of
naturalization for the applicant who is a Filipino citizen.cA motion for reconsideration was
filed in both cases by the Solicitor General. The latter contends that even if the petitioner in
the first case and the applicant in the second were born in the Philippines, of a Chinese
father and a Filipino mother, lawfully married, still they are not citizens of the Philippines
under and pursuant to the laws in force at the time of their birth, and prays that both
decisions be set aside and the judgments appealed from be reversed. This motion for
reconsideration was pending in this Court when the Pacific was broke out. During the battle
for liberation, the records of both cases were destroyed.
Issue: Whether or not the petioners can invoke the principle of jus soli?
Held: The law principle or rule of jus soli obtaining in England and in the United States, has
never been intended to this jurisdiction since the law in force and applicable to the petitioner
and the applicant in the two cases at the time of their birth is sec. 4 of the Philippine Bill (Act
of 1 July 1902), as amended by Act of 23 March 1912, which provides that only those
"inhabitants of the Philippine Islands continuing to reside therein who were Spanish subjects
on the 11th day of April, 1899, and then resided in said Islands, and their children born
subsequent thereto, shall be deemed and held to be citizens of the Philippine Islands," we
are of the opinion and so hold that the petitioner in the first case and the applicant in the
second case, who were born of alien parentage, were not and are not, under the said section
citizens of the Philippine Island. Needless to say, this decision is not intended or designed to
deprive, as it cannot divest, of their Filipino citizenship, those who had been declared to be
Filipino citizens, or upon whom such citizenship had been conferred, by the courts because
of the doctrine or principle of res adjudicate.
lPrinciple: Jus soli -"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
Citizenship is a political status. The citizen must be proud of his citizenship. He should
treasure and cherish it.
Citizenship, the main integrate element of which is allegiance, must not be taken lightly.
Dual allegiance must be discouraged and prevented. But the application of the principle of
jus soli to persons born in this country of alien parentage would encourage dual allegiance
which in the long run would be detrimental to both countries of which such persons might
claim to be citizens.

TALAROC V. UY (1952)
Facts: Alejandro Uy was elected as Municipal Mayor of Manticao, Misamis Oriental on Nov 13,
1951.One of the losing candidates Talaroc, field a petition for quo warranto against Uy. The
trial court granted quo warranto petition. Uy appealed and alleged that his father was a
subject of China (Uy Piangco) but had a Filipino mother. He was born in Iligan, Province of
Lanao in 1912. He never been to China. He voted in previous elections, held offices in the
government (inspector of Bureau of Plant Industry, public school teacher, filing clerk, acting
municipal treasurer). Her mother was born a Filipino citizen but was only required to be a
Chinese citizen by reason of his father's national laws. Upon the death of Uy's father (in
1917), his mother reacquired her Filipino citizenship.
Issue: Whether or not Uy is a Filipino Citizen
HELD: YES
He was already a Filipino citizen by reason of his birth - he was born in RP, and jus soli was
followed at the time of his birth
Though his father is Chinese, his mother is Filipina. Upon death of his father, his mother
reacquired her Filipino citizenship and he thus followed the nationality of his mom.
He already exercised rights of a Filipino citizen

Teotimo Roriguez Tio Tiam Vs Republic

Facts: Teotimo Rodriguez Tio Tiam filed this petition for naturalization before the Court of
First Instance of Cebu praying that he be granted Philippine Citizenship. During the hearing,
petitioner alleged that he was born in Cebu City of Chinese parents on January 12, 1904 and
has never left the Philippines since then. He is married to a Chinese woman with whom he
has eleven children. He considers himself Filipino and has voted in the elections. On 1945,
he took the oath of allegiance as a citizen of the Philippines before the Court of First Instance

of Cebu. His wife and children never registered as aliens in the Bureau of Immigration.
During the occupation, he joined the Cebu Guerrilla Command with the rank of second
lieutenant. He finished first year high school while all his children are presently studying in
schools recognized by the Government. He is at present a businessman and is a registered
owner of several real properties situated in Cebu City. He has evinced a sincere desire to
learn and embrace the customs, traditions, and ideals of the Filipino people. He has never
been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude. He is not opposed to organized
government nor is he affiliated with any person or association with subversive ideas. He is
not a believer in the practice of polygamy and is not suffering from any mental ailment or
any incurable contagious disease. He believes in the principles underlying the Philippine
Constitution and is able to speak and write English and Chinese languages and the Cebuano
dialect. And he was once brought to Camp Murphy, Philippine Army Headquarters, where he
was investigated for the charge of rebellion and multiple murder, but subsequently,
however, he was cleared by the army authorities. The Government contended that the
petitioner shold be disqualified since he does not possess good character. However, the
reposndents did not introduce any evidence except the testimony, Chief of National Bureau
of Investigation to cover the case of petitioner and that said agent obtained a sworn
statement that petitioner had illicit relations with another woman. But the said woman failed
to appear to substantiate the charge.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is qualified for the benefit of naturalization law?

Held: Petitioner can be given the benefit of our naturalization law considering that, as his
evidence shows, he possesses all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications
prescribed in the law for the acquisition of Philippine ciaractertizenship.

The claim of the Government that petitioner is disqualified to be naturalized because

he does not possess good moral character or has not behaved in a proper and
irreproachable manner during his stay in the Philippines, cannot therefore be sustained.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is modified in the sense that petitioner is granted
Philippine citizenship subject to the requirements of Republic Act No. 530.