GR 47616; (October, 1941) (Digest)
G.R. No. 47616 ; October 15, 1941
JOSE TAN CHONG, petitioner-appellee, vs. SECRETARY OF LABOR, respondent-appellant.
FACTS
The petitioner, Jose Tan Chong, was born in San Pablo, Laguna, in July 1915, to a Chinese father (Tan Chong Hong) and a Filipino mother (Antonia Mangahis), who were legally married. In 1925, when he was about ten years old, his parents took him to China. On January 25, 1940, he arrived at the port of Manila and sought entry as a native-born citizen. The Board of Special Inquiry denied his admission, ruling that he was a Chinese citizen. On appeal, the Secretary of Labor affirmed this decision and ordered his deportation. The petitioner then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of First Instance of Manila, which was granted, leading to the present appeal by the Solicitor-General.
ISSUE
Whether Jose Tan Chong, born in the Philippines before the approval of the Constitution to a Chinese father and a Filipino mother, is a Filipino citizen, and whether his stay in China affected that citizenship.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court. It held that the petitioner, having been born in the Philippines before the approval of the Constitution to a Chinese father and a Filipino mother, is a Filipino citizen. This conclusion aligns with the policy embodied in the Constitution (paragraph 4, section 1, Article IV) and is supported by prior jurisprudence (Torres vs. Tan Chim, G.R. No. 46593 , February 3, 1940; Gallofin vs. Ordoñez, G.R. No. 46782 , June 27, 1940). His sojourn in China did not adversely affect his Philippine citizenship, as it was shown that he had always intended to return to the Philippines (animus revertendi) since he was twelve years old, but was prevented by his father and lack of means until his return in 1940. This principle is consistent with earlier cases (Lim Teco vs. Collector of Customs, 23 Phil., 84; Muñoz vs. Collector of Customs, 20 Phil., 494; Lorenzo vs. McCoy, 15 Phil., 559). The writ of habeas corpus was properly granted, and his release was ordered. The decision was affirmed without costs.