Bosque, In re
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The case concerns J. Garcia Bosque's petition for admission to the practice of law in the Philippine Islands following the cession of the territory from Spain to the United States. The core issue revolves around the petitioner's nationality status after the Treaty of Paris, specifically whether he retained his Spanish nationality or became a subject of the new sovereign. Procedural History: The petitioner, J. Garcia Bosque, was a resident of the Philippine Islands who departed on May 30, 1899, and returned in January 1901. This absence occurred during the eighteen-month period stipulated by the Treaty of Paris for residents to elect to retain their Spanish nationality or be presumed to have adopted the new sovereign's nationality. The petitioner did not make an express declaration to retain his Spanish nationality during his absence. The Petition: J. Garcia Bosque petitions for admission to the bar of the Philippine Islands. The Supreme Court must determine if he is a Spanish subject or a subject of the new sovereign. The Court finds that by departing the Islands during the option period, Bosque elected to retain his Spanish nationality, as the conditions for presumptive change of nationality (residence and failure to declare) were not met. Consequently, he cannot be considered to have adopted the new nationality and thus lacks the qualifications for admission to the bar under the applicable laws for foreigners.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioner, J. Garcia Bosque, retained his Spanish nationality after the cession of the Philippine Islands to the United States under the Treaty of Paris. Whether the petitioner, as a Spanish subject residing in the Philippine Islands, could be admitted to the practice of law.
Ruling
The petition for admission to the practice of law was denied. The Court held that the petitioner could not be considered as having lost his Spanish nationality by reason of his absence from the Islands during the period stipulated for the exercise of the right of option under the Treaty of Paris. However, it was also determined that as a foreigner, he could not practice law under the existing laws, which were the same as those applicable to other foreigners.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court ruled that the petitioner retained his Spanish nationality. Article 9 of the Treaty of Paris granted Spanish subjects residing in the ceded territories a right of option to either leave the country or remain. If they chose to remain, they would become subjects of the new sovereign unless they made an express declaration to retain their Spanish nationality within eighteen months from the exchange of the treaty's ratifications (April 11, 1899). The petitioner absented himself from the Islands on May 30, 1899, and remained absent throughout the entire eighteen-month period, returning only in January 1901. This absence was interpreted as an election to leave the territory, thereby preserving his Spanish nationality. The conditions for presumptive change of nationality, namely residence and the lapse of eighteen months without an express declaration to the contrary, were not met due to his absence. Therefore, he did not lose his Spanish nationality and was not considered a Filipino subject. On Issue 2: The Court held that even if the petitioner retained his Spanish nationality, he could not be admitted to the practice of law. The treaty stipulated that Spanish subjects could continue to reside in the territory and carry on their professions, but they would be subject to the laws applicable to other foreigners. Prior to the treaty, the Law of Foreigners for the Ultramarine Provinces (July 4, 1870) and Article 27 of the Civil Code governed the rights of foreigners. Article 39 of the Law of Foreigners allowed foreigners to engage in industry and practice professions for which a Spanish diploma was not required. The legal profession, however, required a diploma granted by Spanish authorities. Furthermore, the Code of Civil Procedure in force prohibited foreigners from practicing law. Consequently, as a Spanish subject in the same footing as other foreigners, the petitioner was barred from practicing law under the existing legal framework.
Main Doctrine
Following the cession of territory under a treaty, individuals who were subjects of the ceding power and resided in the ceded territory are granted a right of option to retain their original nationality or adopt the nationality of the new sovereign. This option is typically exercised by either making an express declaration to retain the original nationality within a specified period or by continuing to reside in the territory without such declaration, which leads to the presumptive acquisition of the new nationality. Absence from the territory during the period for exercising this option is construed as an election to leave, thereby preserving the original nationality and precluding the presumptive acquisition of the new one. Furthermore, the right to practice professions in the ceded territory by individuals of foreign nationality is subject to the laws of the new sovereign and any stipulations in the treaty of cession.