G.R. No. L-4693; February 16, 1953
In the matter of the petition for the admission to Philippine citizenship. LEON RATUNIL SY QUIMSUAN, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Leon Ratunil Sy Quimsuan filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental. During the hearing on July 22, 1950, the fiscal objected, stating the six-month period from publication required by Republic Act No. 530 had not expired. On September 6, 1950, petitioner’s counsel moved to set the case for hearing on September 16, 1950, alleging discovery of new evidence proving petitioner is already a Filipino citizen. The fiscal opposed, reiterating the six-month requirement. On September 9, 1950, petitioner presented his evidence; the Government, represented by the fiscal, did not present counter-evidence. On September 16, 1950, the court issued an order dismissing the case, finding petitioner already a Filipino citizen based on the evidence, including a legal opinion from the Secretary of Justice. The Solicitor General appealed, contending the lower court erred in allowing proof of citizenship in the naturalization proceedings and in concluding appellee is a Filipino citizen.

ISSUE

1. Whether the lower court erred in allowing the appellee to adduce proof regarding his alleged Philippine citizenship in the naturalization proceedings.
2. Whether the lower court erred in concluding that appellee is already a Filipino citizen.

RULING

1. The Supreme Court found no error in allowing appellee to present proof of his Philippine citizenship. The law does not prohibit this alternative procedure. Precedents, such as Palanca vs. Republic of the Philippines and Santos Co vs. Government of the Philippine Islands, support this course of action, where evidence presented for naturalization rendered the petition unnecessary, leading to dismissal with a pronouncement on citizenship. This procedure is necessary to substantiate a claim for dismissal and avoid injustice if the citizenship claim is unsubstantiated.
2. The Supreme Court found no error in concluding appellee is a Filipino citizen. The uncontradicted evidence showed he was born in Iligan, Lanao, on February 20, 1898; his mother, Nicolasa Ratunil, was a Filipino citizen; his father, Simeon Sy Quimsuan, was a Chinaman; and his parents were not legally married. He resided continuously in his birthplace until 1925, except for a short visit to China. The Secretary of Justice’s opinion also affirmed his Filipino citizenship. Under applicable authorities, a child born of a Filipino mother and an alien father not legally married is a Filipino citizen. The order of dismissal was affirmed.