Antonio Delumen et al…Petitioners-Appellees, vs. Republic of the Philippines, Oppositor-Appellant, G. R. No. L5552. January 28, 1954 [Supreme Court Decisions]

Title

Identifier

Supreme Court Decisions

Language

English

Source

The Lawyers Journal XIX (5) May 31, 1954

Year

1954

Subject

Citizenship

Court of First Instance -- Samar

Rights

In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted

Abstract

[This refers to the petition of Antonio, Juan and Jullto, sumamed Delumen, filed in the Court of First Instance of Samar, alleging that they are legitimate children of Paciencia Pua, a Filipino woman, and Mariano Delumen who was declared a Filipino citizen by the same court in an order dated August 7, 1960, and praying said court to determine whether they are Filipino citizens and to declare their corresponding rights and duties.]

Fulltext

SUPREME COURT DECISIONS Antonio Delumen et al.. Petitioners-Appellees, 'VB. Republic of the Philippines, Oppositor-Appella:nt, G. R. No. L-6662. Jan'UM"'ll 28, 1954. 1. RULES OF COURT; REQUISITES FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF. - A petition for declaratory relief must be p1·edicated on the following requisites: (1) there must be a justiciable . controversy; (2) the controversy must be between persons whoSP interests are advei-se; CS> the party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy; and (4) the issue invoked must be ripe for judicial determination. 2. IBID; ACTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF IMPROPER IN THE CASE AT BAR. - In essence, the appeUees merely wanted to remove all .doubta in their minds as to their citizenship, but an action for deClaratory judgment cannot be invoked solely t.o determine or try issues or to determine a moot, abstract or theoretical question, or to decide claims which art'! un· certain or hypothetical. (1 C. J. S., p. 1024.) And the fact that appellees' desires are thwarted by their ''own doubts, or by fears of others x x x does not confer a cause of action." Solicitor General Juan R. Liwag and Solici.Uw Florencio Villa. mor for appellant. Romeo M. Eacareo.l for appellefis. DECISION PARAS, C. J.: On October 9, 1951, Antonio, Juan and Jullto, sumamed. Delumen, filed a petition in the Court of First Instance of Samar, allqing that they are legitimate children of Paciencia Pua, a Filipino woman, and Mariano Delumen who was declared a Filipino citizen by the same court in an order d'ated August 7, 1960, and praying said court to determine whether they are Filipino citizens and to declare their corresponding rights and duties. It is further alleged in the petition that the petitionei:s have continuously resided in the Philippines since their birth, have considered themselves _ as Filipinos, had exercised the right to vote in the general elections of 1946 and 1947, and were registered voters for the elections in 1951. The Solicitor General, in behalf of the Republic o( the Philippines, filed an answer alleging that the petition states no cause of action, there being nc· ~dverse party against whom the petitioners have an actual -or justiciable controversy. After hearing, the Court of First Instance ol Samar rendered a decision declaring the appellees to be Filipinos by birth and blood. From this decision the Solicitor General had (lppealed. Under the first assignment of error, the appellant cites ou1· deei&'lon in Hilarion G. Tolentino vs. The BoGrd ot AceoW'l.tanc-y, et. al., G. R. No. L-3062, September 28, 19~1, wherein we held that: "A petition for declaratory i·elief must be predicated on the foUowing requisites: n> there must be a justiciable controversy; C2) the controversy must be between persons whose interests a.re adverse; <3> the party seeking declaratory relief must have a legal interest in the controversy; and <4> the issue invoked must be ripe for judicial determination." While the Solicitor General contends that a justiciable controversy is one involving 11an active antagonistic assertion of a ·1epl right on one side and a denial thereof -on the other concerning a real, and not a mere theoretical question or issue (C. J. S.,. p. 1026>,'' and that in the present case 11 no specific person was mentioned in the petition pa having or claiming an ad.verse interest in the matter and with whom the appelleea have an actual controversy," the appellcies argue that, by virtue of the answer filed by the So. licitor General opposing the petition for declaratory relief, a ju.sticiable controversy thereby arose. We are of the opinion that appellant's contention is tenable, since there is nothing in the petition which even intimates that the alleged status of. the appellees as Fil_ipino citizens had in any instance been questioned or denied by any specific person or authority. Indeed, the petition alleges that the appellees have considered themselves and were considered by their friends and neighbors a.a Filipino oitizens, voted in the general eleCtions of 1946 and 1947, and were registered voters for the ~tections of 1951, and it is not pretended that on any of said occasions their citizenship was controverted. It is not accurate to say, as appellees do, that an actual controversy :>.ro~ after the filing by the Solicitor General of an opposition to the petition, for the reason that the cause of action must be made out by the allegations of the complaint or petition, without the aid of the answer. As a matter of fact, the answer herein alleges ·that the petition states no cause ·of action. In essence, the appellees merely wanted to remove all doubts in their minds as to their citizenship, but an action for declaratory judgment cannot be invoked solely to determine or try issues or to determine a moot, abstract or theoretical question, or to decide claims which are uncertain or hypothetical. (1 C.J .S., p. 1024.) And the fact that &ppellees' desires are thwarted by their "own doubts, or by fears of others x x x does not confer a cause of action.'' (Moran, Comments on the Rules of Court, 1952 ed., Vol. II, p. 148, citing Willing vs. Chieuo Auditorium Assn., 27'1 U. S. 2'14, 289, 48 Sup. Ct. 607, 609.> In 'fiew of what has been said, it becomes unnecesaary to discuss either the second contention of the Solicitor General that the trial 'court erred in holding that the petition for declaratory relief may be utilized to obtain a judicial pronouncement as to appellees' citizenship, or his third contention that the evidence <\oes not support the conclusion in the appealed decision that the appellees are Filipino citizens. Wherefore, the appealed decision is reversed and the petition dismissed without pronouncement as to costs. So ordered • Pablo, Beng~on, Padilla, Montemay07", Re11es, Jugo, Bsutieta Angelo and Labrador, JJ,, concur. II Pilar Bautists, etc. et al., Pla.intiffs.AppeUatr&ts, 1'B· Biia.ri'a U11 lsa.belo, etc., Defendant-Appellant, G. R. No. L-8007, September 29, 1968. CONSTITUTION; PROVISION THEREOF DISQUALIFYING ALIENS FROM ACQUIRING REAL PROPERTIES IN THE PHII.IPPINES. - The question is whether the defenda.nt spouses, assuming that they were Chinese citizens and that the sale was made to both and not solely to Hilaria Uy lsabelo, are disqualified to acquire and hold the property in question in view of section 1 of Article XII '>f the Constitution, as construed In Krivenko vs. Register of Deeds of Manila, 44 0. G. 471. In the case of Trinidad Gonza.ga de Cabauatan, et al. vs. Uy Hoo, et al., G. R. No. L-2207, decided on January 23, 1951, we already held that the Constitution was not in force during the Japantse military occupation and therefore the conatitutional pz:ovision disqualifying aliens from acquiring real propertic!s in the Philippines was not' applicable and the doctrine laid down in the Krivenko case cannot be invoked in a sale that took place during said occupation. This decision was followed in the latter case of Ricamara, et al. vs. Ngo Ki alias Sin Sim, G. R.- No. L-5836, decided on April 29, 1953. It resulia that the sale in quesfiion ha.a to be sustained, Quintin Paredes for defendants-appellants. Delgado and Flores and Alejandro de Sa.ntos for plaintiffsappellants. DECISION PARAS, C. J.: On August 18, 1943, Pilar T. Bautista ~ the owner of four parcels of land, with improvements, located at the corner of Azcarrag& and Ylaya Streets in the City of Manila, and more pR.rtiMay 31, 1954 LAWYERS JOURNAL

Media