G.R. No. L-9602; April 25, 1957
In the Matter of the Petition of TEOTIMO RODRIGUEZ TIO TIAM to be admitted a citizen of the Philippines. TEOTIMO RODRIGUEZ TIO TIAM, petitioner-appellee, vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.

FACTS

Teotimo Rodriguez Tio Tiam filed a petition for naturalization in the Court of First Instance of Cebu. During the hearing, he presented evidence to claim he already possessed Filipino citizenship status long before filing the petition. The lower court found this evidence sufficient and declared him a Filipino citizen without requiring compliance with the two-year suspension period under Republic Act No. 530 . The Government appealed. The evidence showed petitioner was born in Cebu City on January 12, 1904, to Chinese parents, never left the Philippines, married a Chinese woman, had eleven children, voted in several elections, took an oath of allegiance in 1945, joined a guerrilla unit during the occupation, had children studying in recognized schools, was a businessman with substantial income, owned real properties, and possessed all qualifications and none of the disqualifications under the naturalization law. The Government’s only evidence was the testimony of an NBI Chief regarding an agent’s report of an alleged illicit relationship based on a sworn statement from Sonia Tiu, who failed to appear in court.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court correctly declared Teotimo Rodriguez Tio Tiam a Filipino citizen based on the principle of jus soli as applied in the overruled case of Roa vs. Collector of Customs.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court modified the decision. It held that petitioner could not invoke the Roa decision, which applied the principle of jus soli, as it had been expressly overruled by Tan Chong vs. Secretary of Labor. The Court clarified that the principle of jus soli never extended to the Philippines, and citizenship at the time of petitioner’s birth was governed by specific acts which did not confer citizenship on those born of alien parentage. Furthermore, petitioner could not benefit from the Roa decision as he had not been declared a Filipino citizen by judicial pronouncement before its overruling. However, the Court found that petitioner possessed all qualifications and none of the disqualifications for naturalization. The Government’s evidence of disqualification based on moral character was hearsay and incompetent. Therefore, the Supreme Court granted petitioner Philippine citizenship, subject to the requirements of Republic Act No. 530 .