G.R. No. 167569; G.R. No. 167570; G.R. No. 171946 – 614 Phil. 451 – 598 SCRA 266 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – General Principles – Elements of a State – Citizens; Citizenship – Election of Filipino Citizenship; When done – No res judicata in citizenship cases
Remedial Law – Civil Procedure – Parties – Indispensable Parties
Jimmy Go, also known as Jaime Gaisano (a sugarcane magnate), is a son of Carlos Go, Sr. In April 2000, a complaint for deportation was filed against Jimmy by Luis Ramos who alleged that Jimmy is a Chinese and an undesirable alien. Luis presented the birth certificate of Jimmy where his citizenship was listed as “FChinese.” Luis further alleged that the birth certificate was tampered due to inconsistent typography (other entries were typewritten while others were handwritten). Luis likewise presented the birth certificate of the siblings of Jimmy which show that they are Chinese.
Jimmy countered that Luis was merely harassing him to oust him from his business dealings with him. Jimmy explained that his parents are Filipinos which makes him a natural-born Filipino; that Carlos is a Filipino even though his father was a Chinese because Carlos took an oath of allegiance in July 1950 (two years before Jimmy was born); that Carlos is a registered voter and had voted in previous elections; that Carlos was born and raised in the Philippines who speaks fluent Ilonggo and Tagalog; and that Jimmy’s “FChinese” citizenship in his birth certificate was erroneous and was merely brought upon by the wrong presumption of those persons attending to his birth.
In March 2001, the Immigration Board issued an order deporting Jimmy. To stay the deportation order, Jimmy and Carlos filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition seeking the annulment of the March 2001 Resolution issued by the BI.
The RTC denied the petition as it ruled that they are not Filipino citizens; that Carlos failed to elect Philippine citizenship within the reasonable period of three years upon reaching the age of majority. Carlos and Jimmy filed a certiorari petition against the RTC. They imputed grave abuse of discretion by the trial court for passing upon their citizenship, claiming that what they asked for in their petition was merely the nullification of the March 2001 Resolution.
The CA dismissed the petition. The CA ruled that there is no merit to the argument of Jimmy and Carlos that the issue of citizenship should proceed only before the proper court in an independent action; that the BI has the exclusive authority and jurisdiction to try and hear cases against an alleged alien, and in the process, determine their citizenship.
Carlos and Jimmy now comes to the SC arguing that the deportation proceedings should be nullified for failure to implead Carlos as an indispensable party therein. Jimmy posits that the deportation case against him was made to depend upon the citizenship of his father, Carlos, in that the Board found justification to order his deportation by declaring that his father is a Chinese citizen even though the latter was never made a party in the deportation proceedings. They argue that the Board could not simply strip Carlos of his citizenship just so they could question the citizenship of Jimmy. To do so without affording Carlos the opportunity to adduce evidence to prove his claim to Philippine citizenship would be the height of injustice. For failing to accord him the requisite due process, the whole proceeding should perforce be stuck down.
ISSUE: Whether or not Carlos and Jimmy are right.
HELD: No. The SC affirmed the findings of the Court of Appeals. Carlos is not an indispensable party in the deportation case against Jimmy. An indispensable party is a party in interest without whom no final determination can be had of an action, and who shall be joined either as plaintiff or defendant. To be indispensable, a person must first be a real party in interest, that is, one who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment of the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Carlos clearly is not an indispensable party as he does not stand to be benefited or injured by the judgment of the suit. What is sought is the deportation of Jimmy on the ground that he is an alien.
Jimmy claims that he is a Filipino under the 1935 Constitution because Carlos, his father, is allegedly a citizen. Since his citizenship hinges on that of his father’s, it becomes necessary for the BI to pass upon the citizenship of Carlos. However, whatever will be the findings as to Carlos’ citizenship will in no way prejudice Carlos.
Citizenship proceedings are a class of its own, unlike other cases, res judicata does not obtain as a matter of course. Every time the citizenship of a person is material or indispensable in a judicial or administrative case, whatever the corresponding court or administrative authority decides therein as to such citizenship is generally not considered as res judicata; hence, it has to be threshed out again and again as the occasion may demand. The exceptions to this rule are:
- a person’s citizenship must be raised as a material issue in a controversy where said person is a party;
- the Solicitor General or his authorized representative took active part in the resolution thereof; and
- the finding or citizenship is affirmed by the SC.
The mere fact that Carlos was able to vote does not validate his irregular election of Philippine citizenship. At most, his registration as a voter indicates his desire to exercise a right appertaining exclusively to Filipino citizens but does not alter his real citizenship, which, in this jurisdiction, is determined by blood (jus sanguinis). The exercise of the rights and privileges granted only to Filipinos is not conclusive proof of citizenship, because a person may misrepresent himself to be a Filipino and thus enjoy the rights and privileges of citizens of this country.
