G.R. No. L-21855 January 30, 1968
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ANDRES SINGSON TO BE ADMITTED OR TO BE DECLARED A CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. ANDRES SINGSON, petitioner-appellant, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellee.

FACTS

Petitioner Andres Singson filed a petition for naturalization on October 12, 1959, with an alternative prayer to be declared a Filipino citizen based on evidence of his existing citizenship. After publication and hearing, with no opposition from the government, the Court of First Instance of La Union received his evidence. On August 9, 1960, the court rendered a decision, finding from the evidence that petitioner was already a Filipino citizen. The court noted he had considered himself Filipino in his residence certificates, did not register as an alien, exercised the right of suffrage, and made a declaration of intention to elect Filipino citizenship in 1941. It found he was born in the Philippines to a Filipino mother and a Chinese father who were not legally married. Citing the Sy Quiamsuan case, the court granted his alternative prayer and declared him a citizen, dismissing the naturalization petition as unnecessary. The State did not appeal this decision. Over two years later, on December 17, 1962, the Solicitor General filed a petition to set aside the decision as null and void, alleging that petitioner had registered as a Chinese alien with the Bureau of Immigration and had executed an affidavit on October 19, 1948, expressly renouncing any rights as a Filipino citizen and considering himself a Chinese citizen. Petitioner opposed, denying the affidavit’s genuineness. The parties submitted a stipulation of facts, which did not include an admission regarding the affidavit but raised the legal issue of whether the government could reopen the case. On July 15, 1963, the lower court issued an order declaring its previous decision void, principally based on the 1948 affidavit. Petitioner appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in setting aside its previous decision declaring petitioner a citizen of the Philippines without affording him a chance to present evidence to rebut the allegation of fraudulent representation based on the 1948 affidavit of renunciation.

RULING

Yes, the lower court erred. The Supreme Court set aside the order of July 15, 1963, and remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings on the Solicitor General’s motion to annul the decision. The Court noted that the original 1960 decision, which declared petitioner a citizen in a naturalization proceeding, was based on jurisprudence (Sy Quiamsuan and Sen cases) that had already been modified by subsequent rulings (Suy Chan and Yu Chin cases) holding that courts cannot make a declaratory judgment of citizenship in naturalization proceedings; such a pronouncement can only be made as an incident to adjudicating a justiciable controversy. While this error did not automatically render the 1960 decision void, it could be set aside on grounds such as fraud in its procurement, which the Solicitor General alleged based on the 1948 affidavit. However, the genuineness and due execution of that affidavit were specifically denied by petitioner in his opposition. The stipulation of facts submitted by the parties did not show any admission by petitioner of the affidavit’s genuineness. By setting aside its original decision without allowing petitioner to present evidence to rebut the allegation of fraudulent representation, the lower court deprived him of his day in court. Therefore, further proceedings were necessary to resolve the issue of fraud.