GR L 22313; (March, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-22313 March 31, 1966
Bartolome Dy Poco, plaintiff-appellant, vs. The Commissioner of Immigration, and The Immigration Officer of Cebu, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
Bartolome Dy Poco filed a petition for declaratory relief in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. He alleged he is a Filipino citizen, born in 1910 in Cebu City out of wedlock to a Filipino mother, Susana Apura, and a Chinese father, Dy Poco. Initially believing himself to be Chinese, he secured alien certificates of registration in 1947 and 1951. In 1952, realizing his alleged mistake, he petitioned the Commissioner of Immigration for the cancellation of his name from the list of aliens, which was denied. The Secretary of Justice, upon reconsideration, sustained the Commissioner’s denial, opining that the nationality of the mother and the petitioner’s illegitimate status were not satisfactorily established. When subsequently required by immigration authorities to secure an immigrant certificate of residence, Dy Poco instituted the declaratory relief proceeding. The lower court dismissed the petition, ruling that a declaration of citizenship is not a proper subject of a proceeding for declaratory judgment.
ISSUE
Whether the lower court erred in dismissing the petition for declaratory relief, specifically: (1) in holding that the issue of citizenship cannot properly be passed upon in a declaratory relief proceeding, and (2) in not declaring Dy Poco exempted from the requirements of the Alien Registration Law.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court dismissing the petition.
1. The Supreme Court clarified that a proceeding for declaratory relief is, in fact, a proper and available remedy to secure a declaration of citizenship, contrary to the lower court’s reasoning.
2. However, the dismissal was sustained on other grounds. The Court found that Dy Poco’s claim to Philippine citizenship depended on material facts that were disputed and unsubstantiated by evidence, namely, the citizenship of his mother and his own illegitimate status. The rights and status he sought to have declared were entirely dependent on these disputed factual issues. The Court ruled that a declaratory relief proceeding is unavailable where the judgment would require a judicial investigation of disputed facts, as its purpose is to declare rights based on established facts, not to try or determine contested factual issues. Since the foundational facts were in controversy, no declaratory judgment could be rendered.