G.R. No. L-9539; January 26, 1915
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ONG TIANSE, defendant-appellant.

FACTS:
The provincial fiscal of Surigao filed a complaint against Ong Tianse, alleging he was a Chinese subject and laborer residing in the Philippine Islands without the certificate of registration required by Act No. 702 (the Chinese Exclusion Act). The fiscal sought his deportation. The prosecution’s evidence consisted of the fiscal’s testimony that Ong Tianse admitted to being born in China and lacking the required certificate, and that he had come to the Philippines only to attend the trial of his father’s murderer.

In his defense, Ong Tianse claimed Filipino citizenship. He presented evidence, uncontroverted by the prosecution, that he was the natural son of Barbara Dangculos, a Filipina, and a Chinese father named Manuel. He was born on February 20, 1890, in Liloan, Leyte, and was baptized as Baldomero Dangculos. At age four, his father took him to China, where he was known as Ong Tianse and remained for about 18-19 years. He returned to the Philippines in February 1913. The Court of First Instance of Surigao found him to be a Chinese subject without proper registration and ordered his deportation. Ong Tianse appealed.

ISSUE:
Whether Ong Tianse is a Chinese subject subject to deportation for lack of the registration certificate required by Act No. 702 , or a Filipino citizen entitled to remain in the Philippines.

RULING:
The Supreme Court REVERSED the judgment of the lower court and held that Ong Tianse is a Filipino citizen entitled to remain in the Philippines.

The Court applied the doctrine of jus soli (right of the soil), which was then prevailing, whereby citizenship is generally determined by place of birth. Since Ong Tianse was born in the Philippines, he was presumed prima facie to be a citizen. This presumption lies in favor of one claiming citizenship.

Furthermore, as the natural (illegitimate) son of a Filipina mother and a Chinese father who were not legally married, Ong Tianse, under the law, followed the status and nationality of his only known parenthis Filipino mother. The fact that his Chinese father took him to China during his minority and he remained there for many years did not operate to change or forfeit his status as a Filipino citizen born in the Philippines. The Court cited its precedent in Muñoz vs. Collector of Customs (20 Phil. Rep., 494) which held that a minor child born in the Islands to a Chinese father and Filipino mother does not lose his status as a citizen by being taken to and residing in China.

Therefore, Ong Tianse was ordered released and his bond canceled.