G.R. No. 138496 ; February 23, 2004
HUBERT TAN CO and ARLENE TAN CO, petitioners, vs. THE CIVIL REGISTER OF MANILA and any person having or claiming an interest under the entry whose cancellation or correction is sought, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Hubert and Arlene Tan Co, born in the Philippines, sought the correction of entries in their birth certificates to reflect their father’s citizenship as “Filipino” instead of “Chinese.” Their father, Co Boon Peng, originally a Chinese citizen, was conferred Philippine citizenship by naturalization under Presidential Decree No. 1055, pursuant to Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 270, and took his oath of allegiance on February 15, 1977. The petitioners, who were minors at the time of their father’s naturalization, claimed derivative citizenship under Section 15 of Commonwealth Act (CA) No. 473, which states that minor children born in the Philippines of naturalized persons become citizens. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila dismissed their petition outright, ruling that since their father was naturalized under LOI No. 270 and not under CA No. 473 , they could not avail of the benefits of Section 15. The RTC denied their motion for reconsideration, emphasizing that LOI No. 270 contained no provision on derivative citizenship and that legislative grants must be strictly construed.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the petition for correction of entries outright, and whether petitioners can claim derivative citizenship under Section 15 of CA No. 473 despite their father’s naturalization under LOI No. 270.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the RTC’s orders, and directed the reinstatement and continuation of the proceedings under Rule 108. The Court held that the trial court committed a grave error in dismissing the petition outright without conducting a hearing, as required by Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that the court set a hearing, notify interested parties, and issue an order only after such proceedings. On the substantive issue, the Court applied the principle of statutory construction that laws in pari materia, or relating to the same subject, should be harmonized. CA No. 473 and LOI No. 270 share the same objective of granting Philippine citizenship to qualified aliens. Therefore, Section 15 of CA No. 473 , concerning derivative citizenship for minor children, should be deemed incorporated into LOI No. 270 to give consistent effect to the legislative intent. Consequently, petitioners, as minor children born in the Philippines at the time of their father’s naturalization, are entitled to claim Philippine citizenship. The case was remanded to the trial court for proper adjudication in accordance with Rule 108.