Lim Teco v. Insular Collector of Customs
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Victorino Lim Teco, born in Manila in 1885 to a Christian Chinese father and a Filipina mother, was sent to China at age five and remained there until his return to Manila in October 1910. His father, Apolonio Lim Teco, died in Manila in 1900, and his mother, Lucia Tiangco, a native of the Philippine Islands, continued to reside there. Victorino and his siblings were all Christians and members of the Catholic church. 2. Procedural History: Upon his arrival in Manila in October 1910, Victorino Lim Teco sought admission as a citizen of the Philippine Islands. A board of special inquiry denied his entry, citing his father's nationality and his prolonged residence in China after reaching majority as evidence of electing Chinese nationality. The Court of First Instance of Manila, through habeas corpus proceedings, ordered his discharge from custody. The Insular Collector of Customs appealed this order. 3. The Petition: The case before the Supreme Court concerns the appeal by the Insular Collector of Customs against the lower court's decision discharging Victorino Lim Teco. The core issue is whether Lim Teco retained his Philippine citizenship despite his prolonged absence in China after reaching majority, or if his failure to return to the Philippines within a reasonable time after attaining majority constituted an expatriation, thereby forfeiting his right to claim Philippine citizenship. The Court must determine if his conduct indicated an election of Chinese nationality over Philippine citizenship.
Issue(s)
Whether Victorino Lim Teco, born in the Philippine Islands to a Chinese father and a Filipina mother, is a citizen of the Philippine Islands. Whether Victorino Lim Teco, by remaining in China for approximately five years after reaching his majority, elected to abandon his claim to Philippine citizenship and embraced Chinese nationality.
Ruling
The judgment of the Court of First Instance is reversed. Victorino Lim Teco is ordered returned to the custody of the Collector of Customs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of citizenship by birth and the obligation of election: The Court reiterated the principle established in Tranquilino Roa that persons born in the Philippine Islands of Chinese fathers and Filipina mothers are citizens thereof, with exceptions. It acknowledged that such children may possess dual nationality if their father's country claims them under jus sanguinis. The Court noted that while some states follow jus soli (birthplace) and others jus sanguinis (descent), a principle recognized by civilized nations is that a child born of an alien may choose between the country of birth and the country of parents' birth upon reaching majority. The domicile of Victorino's father and mother, and his siblings, was in the Philippine Islands, and his legal right to claim domicile there until he became of age could not be denied. The crucial question thus became what actions he took from his majority until his return to the Philippines, indicating his choice of permanent domicile. On the issue of election of nationality and expatriation: The Court referenced the Act of 1868 and the Act of March 2, 1907, concerning expatriation. Section 2 of the 1907 Act provided methods for expatriation, including naturalization in another country or taking an oath of allegiance. Section 6 addressed children born outside the U.S. to U.S. citizens, requiring them to indicate their desire to retain citizenship and take an oath of allegiance. The Court found that a child born of alien parents who goes to the father's native land at a tender age and remains there during minority is, for practical purposes, as much a resident of the latter country as a native-born. Such a child, upon reaching majority, should indicate a desire to retain Filipino citizenship by exercising the right of election. A failure to express this desire within a reasonable time is regarded as a strong presumption of the purpose to become identified with the father's country. The Court emphasized that while legislation on the timeframe for election was absent, the U.S. State Department consistently held that election must be made within a reasonable time, best evidenced by an early return to the country of birth. Decisions uniformly held that an early return after attaining majority was essential to retain citizenship. The Court concluded that Victorino, having resided in his father's native country for five years after attaining majority without indicating a desire to retain Philippine citizenship, had irrevocably lost that right by his failure to exercise it within a reasonable time. He was therefore no longer a citizen of the Philippine Islands.
Main Doctrine
A child born in the Philippine Islands of alien parents, who is taken to the father's country during minority and remains there until majority, must, within a reasonable time after reaching majority, exercise the right of election to retain Philippine citizenship, evidenced by an early return to the Philippine Islands. Failure to do so constitutes a strong presumption of the intention to become identified with the father's country, resulting in the irrevocable loss of the right to Philippine citizenship.