Consti II case digest: RAMON TORRES, in his capacity as Secretary of labor, and JOSE GALLOFIN, as Acting Collector of Customs of Cebu, petitioners, TAN CHIM, respondent.

TORRES VS TAN (Who are Filipino Citizens)

Keywords: ·         Tan Chim, son of  Alejandro Tan Bangco ·         Based on the ruling in if convert Roa vs Collector of Customs ·         Persons born in PH before the Treaty of US & Spain, with Chinese father and Filipino mother and residents of the Philippines at the time of treaty and going to China for study are FILIPINO.

FACTS: Petitioner Tan Chim arrived at the port of Cebu on January 18, 1937, and sought admission as a minor son of Alejandro Tan Bangco. After hearing, the Board of Special Inquiry decided to deny him entry on the ground that the status of his father had not been passed upon by the Secretary of Labor. A petition for habeas corpus was filed with the CFI of Cebu, which ruled that Alejandro Tan Bangco was a Filipino citizen jus soli, having been born in Manila on February 27, 1893. On appeal, the CA upheld the conclusion of the lower court and declined to overrule the doctrine in Roa vs. Collector of Customs on basis of stare decisis.

A comparison between this case and that of Roa v. Collector of Customs, will show the following similarities and dissimilarities: Similar (1) in that Roa was born in the Philippines in 1889, whereas Alejandro Tan Bangco (father of the petitioner) was born here in 1893, both before the advent of American sovereignty; (2) the fathers of both Roa and Tan Bangco were of Chinese nationality and their mothers, Filipino; (3) at the time of the ratification of the treaty of peace between the United States and Spain, both were minor residents of the Philippines; and (4) both, in their boyhood, went to China for the purpose of studying there, returning thereafter to the Philippines. The dissimilarities are: (1) Roa returned to the Islands after the attaining the age of maturity, whereas Tan Bangco returned to this country when still a minor; and (2) the father of Roa was domiciled in the Philippines until the year 1895 when he went to China and never returned, dying therein 1900, whereas, in the present case the record is silent on this point.

ISSUE: WON Tan Chim is a Filipino Citizen.

RULING: We cannot reverse the doctrine in Roa vs. Collector of Custom and convert Roa into an alien after our final pronouncement in 1912 that he was a Filipino. If we depart from the rule there established nothing short of legal anachronism (survival) would follow, and we should avoid this result.

When in Roa vs. Collector of Customs we declared the applicant therein to be a citizen of the Philippines, that declaration was a statement of a general principle applicable not only to Tranquilino Roa but to all those who were in the same situation, that is to say, to all persons born in the Philippines before the ratification of the treaty of peace between the United States and Spain, of Chinese father and Filipino mother; residents of the Philippines at the time mentioned in the treaty of peace, although in their minority; thereafter, going to China for the purpose of studying, and returning to the Philippines to live here. This was the rule at the time of the adoption of our Constitution. With it, the bench and the bar were familiar.

We have not failed to reflect on the far-reaching consequences of our decision in this case, but considering the fact that the mother of Alejandro Tan Bangco, who is the father of the herein applicant, is a Filipina, and, under our Constitution, Alejandro Tan Bangco would have the option, upon reaching majority, to adopt Filipino citizenship considering the benign policy of giving greater political recognition to women, we are of the opinion and so hold that the applicant, being a minor child of Alejandro Tan Bangco who was a Filipino citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, is a Filipino citizen.