G.R. No. L-16108; October 31, 1961
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF REGARDING CIVIL STATUS, ELEUTERIA FELISETA TAN, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Eleuteria Feliseta Tan filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Misamis Occidental, alleging she is the illegitimate child of a Chinese father and a Filipina mother, and thus a Filipino citizen. She is the common-law wife of Tan King Pock, a Chinese citizen, with whom she has nine minor children. Both she and her children are registered as aliens. After the Commissioner of Immigration denied her request to cancel their Alien Certificates of Registration (ACR), she sought judicial relief. The trial court initially noted her original petition could not be granted, citing a controlling Supreme Court precedent. It then suggested, and she complied, by amending her petition into one for declaratory relief. The Solicitor General and the provincial fiscal opposed the petition, arguing it was an improper vehicle for determining citizenship and that the children lacked proper representation.
The lower court rendered judgment in favor of Tan, declaring her a Filipino citizen, characterizing the alien registrations as a mistake, and ordering the Commissioner of Immigration to cancel the ACRs of Tan and her children. The Republic of the Philippines appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether a petition for declaratory relief is a proper legal remedy to obtain a judicial declaration of Filipino citizenship and an order for the cancellation of Alien Certificates of Registration.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision and dismissed the petition. The Court held that a special civil action for declaratory relief is not an available remedy for obtaining a judicial declaration of citizenship. Under the rules, declaratory relief lies only when a person is interested under a deed, will, contract, or other written instrument, or whose rights are affected by a statute or ordinance, and seeks a construction of such instrument for a declaration of rights. None of these circumstances were present in Tan’s case.
The Court reiterated its settled doctrine that there exists no proceeding established by law or rules by which a person can directly obtain a judicial declaration of citizenship. Courts exist to settle justiciable controversies involving a legally demandable right, an act violative of that right, and a remedy for its breach. A declaration of status, such as citizenship, marital condition, or legitimacy, can only be made incidentally as a necessary premise for adjudicating an actual controversy or granting a specific relief available only to a person enjoying that status. While the law provides for the acquisition of status through judicial decree in specific instances like naturalization, no similar legislation authorizes a direct judicial proceeding solely to declare that a person is a citizen. Consequently, the lower court had no jurisdiction to issue the declaratory judgment. The proper remedy for Tan would be to assert her claim of citizenship in an appropriate ordinary action where her citizenship is a material issue in a justiciable controversy.