GR L 2007; (January, 1949) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2007; January 31, 1949
WILLIAM CHIONGBIAN, petitioner, vs. ALFREDO DE LEON, in his capacity as Commissioner of Customs, JOSE GALLOFIN, in his capacity as Collector of Customs of the Port of Cebu, and VICENTE DE LA CRUZ, in his capacity as General Manager of the Philippine Shipping Administration, respondents; PHILIPPINE SHIPOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, intervenor.
FACTS
Petitioner William Chiongbian sought to prohibit the respondent customs officials from cancelling the registration certificates of his vessels and the Philippine Shipping Administration (PSA) from rescinding the sale of three vessels to him. The respondents and the intervenor Philippine Shipowners’ Association alleged that Chiongbian was not a Filipino citizen and thus disqualified from owning vessels of Philippine registry. The PSA also claimed misrepresentation in the contract of sale, as Chiongbian stated his father was a naturalized Filipino. The core issue turned on Chiongbian’s citizenship. It was established that his father, Victoriano Chiongbian, a Chinese citizen, was elected municipal councilor of Plaridel, Occidental Misamis in 1925. At the time of the adoption of the 1935 Constitution, William was still a minor.
ISSUE
Whether William Chiongbian is a Filipino citizen, thereby entitling him to own and operate vessels of Philippine registry.
RULING
Yes, William Chiongbian is a Filipino citizen. Under Article IV, Section 1(2) of the 1935 Constitution, those born in the Philippines of foreign parents who, before the adoption of the Constitution, had been elected to public office are citizens. Victoriano Chiongbian, having been elected municipal councilor in 1925, became a Filipino citizen upon the Constitution’s adoption. Consequently, under Section 1(3), his legitimate minor child William also became a Filipino citizen, as citizenship follows that of the father. The Court rejected the argument that the citizenship privilege under Section 1(2) was strictly personal and non-transmissible, holding that the constitutional provisions must be read together. The deletion of the phrase “and their descendants” from the draft was not conclusive, as transmission is already covered by Section 1(3). The claim of misrepresentation was deemed a mere error, not a deliberate falsehood. The writ of prohibition was granted, enjoining the cancellation of vessel registrations and the rescission of the sale.
AI Generated by Armztrong.