DIGET HANNAH GRACE/IN RE: THE PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF OF HOSPICIO OBILES AND FOR CANCELLATION OF ERRONEOUS REGISTRATION AS ALIEN. HOSPICIO OBILES, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLEE.

IN RE: THE PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF OF HOSPICIO OBILES AND FOR CANCELLATION OF ERRONEOUS REGISTRATION AS ALIEN. HOSPICIO OBILES, PETITIONER AND APPELLANT, VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, OPPOSITOR AND APPELLEE.

 

G. R. No. L-5204, March 27, 1953

 

FACTS:

This case commences from a petition filed by the petitioner who claims to be a Filipino citizen registered in 1941 as a Chinese alien with the office of the treasurer in a municipality because according to him, there was an "erroneous belief and fear of criminal prosecution." This case now presents a petition for declaratory relief that registration might involve the loss of his Filipino citizenship.

Particularly, this case is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Albay wherein it dismisses petitioner-appellant's petition for declaratory relief. The petitioner alleges that he is a Filipino citizen by birth and parentage, residing in Bacacay, Albay in the year 1941, because "of erroneous belief and fear of criminal prosecution," petitioner registered himself with the municipal treasurer of Bacacay as Chinese alien, but he never intended to give up his Filipino citizenship by said registration, and that he continued to hold himself out as a Filipino citizen.

The Solicitor-General then filed an opposition stating that the petition has no cause of action and that no actual controversy has arisen against anyone and if the petitioner desires to establish his Filipino citizenship, he should do so in another separate proceeding. The court sustained the opposition stating that there was no actual controversy involved in petitioner's petition because no one disputes the claim of the petitioner, that any declaration the court might render in the premises will not terminate the controversy, and it, therefore, dismissed the petition.

Petitioner claimed in this appeal stating (1) that the lower court erred in holding that no justiciable controversy existed, inasmuch as the Solicitor General, in representation of the Government, has joined issue by filing an opposition, an actual controversy has arisen which is concrete and real, which justifies every specific relief in the form of a pronouncement by the court as to whether the petitioner is a Filipino citizen or not and (2) that the decision will not terminate the controversy.

ISSUE:

Whether or not declaratory relief was the proper action to be instituted.

 

RULING:

The Supreme Court ruled that the registration is not a deed or written instrument on which an action for declaratory relief may be instituted and that the instrument is not a contract in which another party or person is involved. The registration was a unilateral act of the petitioner himself not affecting or binding anyone else but himself, nor creating any right or obligation on the part of any other party or on that of the State and therefore no one has an interest therein except himself. The supposed fear in the mind of the petitioner is not what the law considers as an actual controversy, or a justifiable controversy, which requires the intervention of the courts of justice to predetermine the rights, obligations or liabilities arising therefrom.

The Supreme Court further ruled that the Solicitor General's opposition was not presented to deny the allegations of his complaint but instead, show that he has no cause of action because nobody has ever contested petitioner’s pretensions.  The claim of the appellant that a controversy has arisen because the Solicitor General has opposed his petition is clearly unfounded.

Finally, what the petitioner desires is to be declared a Filipino citizen in spite of his registration as a Chinese citizen. By the contention of the Solicitor General, the petitioner’s remedy is clearly not by an action for declaratory relief.