GR L 15100; (December, 1960) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-15100, December 29, 1960
In the matter of the declaratory relief on citizenship status, VICENTE TIU NAVARRO, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION, respondent.
FACTS
Vicente Tiu Navarro filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Surigao, alleging that he is the illegitimate son of Cecilia Laygo (a Filipina) and Tiu Kiang (a Chinese merchant); both parents are deceased. He claimed continuous residence in the Philippines except for two occasional visits to China, and that his physical features resemble those of a Filipino. He was registered as a Chinese citizen in his landing certificate. He prayed for the cancellation of his alien papers and the issuance of a certificate of identity as a Filipino citizen. The Solicitor General opposed the petition, arguing that it stated no cause of action for declaratory judgment and that mandamus did not lie to control the discretionary powers of the immigration commissioner. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, held a hearing, and declared Navarro a Filipino citizen. The Solicitor General appealed.
ISSUE
Whether an action for declaratory relief is the proper remedy for a judicial pronouncement on citizenship status.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision and dismissed the petition. The Court held that the petition failed to allege sufficient facts to support an action for declaratory relief under Section 1, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court. Specifically, there was no allegation of a necessity to determine any question of construction or validity arising under an instrument or statute, nor any declaration of rights or duties thereunder. There was also no allegation that any private or official party had contested Navarro’s claim to citizenship, or that any controversy had arisen regarding it. The Court cited precedents (In Re Hospicio Obiles, 92 Phil. 864, and Antonio Delumen vs. Republic of the Philippines, 94 Phil. 287), which established that declaratory relief cannot be invoked solely to resolve doubts, moot, abstract, theoretical, uncertain, or hypothetical questions. The fact that a petitioner’s desires are thwarted by personal doubts or fears does not confer a cause of action. Costs were imposed on petitioner-appellee.