Roa v. Insular Collector of Customs
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Tranquilino Roa, born in Luculan, Mindanao, Philippine Islands, on July 6, 1889, was the son of Basilio Roa Uy Tiong Co, a native of China, and Basilia Rodriguez, a native of the Philippines. His parents were legally married in the Philippines. His father died in China around 1900. In May 1901, Roa was sent to China by his mother for educational purposes with the intention of returning. He returned to the Philippine Islands on October 1, 1910, arriving at the port of Cebu from Amoy, China, seeking admission. At the time of his return, he was under 21 years and 3 months of age. Procedural History: A board of special inquiry found Roa to be a Chinese subject not entitled to land. The Insular Collector of Customs affirmed this decision. Subsequently, in habeas corpus proceedings, the Court of First Instance of Cebu ordered Roa's recommitment to the custody of the Collector of Customs, affirming the right to deport him to China. The Petition: Roa appealed the decision, assigning errors in the lower court's holding that he was not entitled to enter the Philippine Islands and that the board of inquiry abused its discretion by ignoring his declaration of election to be a citizen of the Philippine Islands.
Issue(s)
Whether a child born in the Philippine Islands in 1889 to a Chinese father and a Filipina mother, who were legally married and domiciled in the Islands, is a citizen of the Philippine Islands by birth. Whether such a child, upon reaching majority, can elect to become a citizen of the country of his birth. Whether the provisions of the Spanish Civil Code regarding nationality and the Treaty of Paris and the Philippine Bill affect the citizenship of the appellant.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, ordering the appellant's release from custody. It declared that Tranquilino Roa is a citizen of the Philippine Islands and is entitled to land.
Ratio Decidendi
On the citizenship of the appellant by birth: The Court affirmed the principle of jus soli (citizenship by place of birth) as recognized in the United States and, by analogy, applicable to the Philippine Islands. Citing United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Court established that persons born within the territory of the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens. Although the appellant's father was a Chinese subject, his mother was a native Filipina, and they were legally married and domiciled in the Philippines at the time of his birth. The Court noted that under Spanish law, children born in Spanish territory of foreign parents could acquire Spanish nationality by election, but the principle of jus soli was also recognized. The Court found that the appellant's birth in the Philippine Islands, coupled with his mother's native status and subsequent reacquisition of Philippine nationality, supported his claim to citizenship by birth. On the election of nationality upon reaching majority: The Court acknowledged the right of expatriation and the principle of election of nationality. While Spanish law required a formal declaration to elect Spanish nationality, the Court emphasized that the appellant's circumstances, including his father's death and his mother's reacquisition of Philippine citizenship, placed him in a position where his allegiance was to the Philippines. The Court reasoned that to deny him reentry and citizenship would be contrary to the spirit and intent of the laws and the policy of the United States, which generally favors the claimant of citizenship. On the applicability of Spanish law, the Treaty of Paris, and the Philippine Bill: The Court held that political laws of the former sovereign (Spain) that pertained to the prerogatives of the Crown ceased upon the cession of territory. However, municipal laws not in conflict with the new sovereign's laws remained in force. The Court found that the Treaty of Paris and the Philippine Bill (Act of Congress of July 1, 1902) were the controlling legal instruments. Section 4 of the Philippine Bill declared inhabitants residing in the Islands on April 11, 1899, who were Spanish subjects, and their children born thereafter, as citizens. The Court interpreted this broadly, considering the appellant's situation and the established policy of the United States to favor citizenship claims. The Court concluded that the appellant's nationality followed that of his mother, who reacquired Philippine citizenship upon her husband's death, making him a citizen of the Philippine Islands on July 1, 1902, and thus not subject to deportation as a Chinese subject.
Main Doctrine
A child born in the Philippine Islands to a Chinese father and a Filipina mother, who were legally married and domiciled in the Islands at the time of birth, is considered a citizen of the Philippine Islands by birth (jus soli), and upon reaching majority, can elect to retain this citizenship, especially when the father died abroad and the mother, a native, reacquired her Philippine nationality upon widowhood, with the child's domicile following that of the mother.