Tan Chong v. Secretary of Labor
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Jose Tan Chong, born in San Pablo, Laguna, in 1915 to a Chinese father and a Filipino mother, was taken to China by his parents around 1925. Upon his return to Manila in January 1940, he sought entry into the Philippines as a native-born citizen. Procedural History: The Board of Special Inquiry denied Jose Tan Chong's admission, classifying him as a Chinese citizen. This decision was affirmed on appeal by the Secretary of Labor, who subsequently ordered the petitioner's deportation. Jose Tan Chong then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of First Instance of Manila, which granted the writ, leading to the present appeal by the Solicitor-General. The Petition: The Solicitor-General appeals the lower court's decision granting the writ of habeas corpus. The core issue is whether Jose Tan Chong, born in the Philippines to a Filipino mother and a Chinese father, and who sojourned in China for a period, retains his Philippine citizenship. The petitioner argues he is a Filipino citizen, a claim supported by the lower court's ruling, which the Solicitor-General contests.
Issue(s)
Whether Jose Tan Chong, born in the Philippines of a Filipino mother and a Chinese father before the approval of the Constitution, is a Filipino citizen. Whether his sojourn in China adversely affected his Philippine citizenship.
Ruling
The judgment of the lower court is affirmed. The writ of habeas corpus is granted, and Jose Tan Chong is to be released from custody.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether Jose Tan Chong is a Filipino citizen: The Court held that Jose Tan Chong, having been born in the Philippines before the approval of the Constitution, of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother, is a Filipino citizen. This conclusion aligns with the policy embodied in the Constitution. The Court cited previous rulings in Torres vs. Tan Chim and Gallofin vs. Ordoñez to support this determination. The principle of jus soli (right of soil) combined with the citizenship of the mother, under the prevailing laws and constitutional policy at the time of birth, established his Filipino citizenship. The Court emphasized that the citizenship of the mother was a significant factor in determining the citizenship of the child in such circumstances. On whether his sojourn in China adversely affected his Philippine citizenship: The Court ruled that his sojourn in China did not adversely affect his Philippine citizenship. It was established that ever since he was twelve years old, he desired to return to the Philippines, but his father prevented him from doing so. Furthermore, he lacked the financial means to return until the date he did. The Court found that the animus revertendi (intention to return) existed. This was supported by jurisprudence from cases such as Lim Teco vs. Collector of Customs, Muñoz vs. Collector of Customs, and Lorenzo vs. McCoy, which recognize that a temporary absence from the Philippines, especially when involuntary or accompanied by a clear intent to return, does not divest a person of their native-born citizenship.
Main Doctrine
A person born in the Philippines of a Filipino mother and a Chinese father, before the approval of the Constitution, is a Filipino citizen. His sojourn in China did not adversely affect his Philippine citizenship if he possessed the animus revertendi.