Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-47623 October 15, 1941
LAM SWEE SANG, petitioner-appellee,
vs.
COMMONWEALTH OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant.
Felix F. Catis for petitioner.
Assistant Solicitor-General B. L. Reyes and Solicitor Letargo for respondent.
LAUREL, J.:
This is an appeal taken by the Solicitor-General from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga dated July 24, 1939, granting the petition for naturalization filed by Lam Swee Sang on November 16, 1938.
It appears that the petitioner herein, Lam Swee Sang, was born on May 8, 1900, at Jolo, Sulu, of a Chinese father and a Filipino (Moro) mother, and that he has been continuously residing in the Philippines ever since. He has married a Filipino woman by whom he has three children all of whom are residing in the Philippines. The Solicitor General opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner's father being a Chinese citizen, petitioner is also a Chinese citizen and hence ineligible to Philippine citizenship by naturalization under paragraph (e) of section 1 of the Naturalization Law (Act No. 2927).
The trial court after declaring Lam Swee Sang to be a citizen of the Philippines, on the authority of the cases relied upon, ordered the issuance in his favor of the corresponding certificate of naturalization. It should be observed that if the petitioner is already a Filipino citizen, the present proceedings would be superflous, and it would be absurd to issue in his favor a certificate of naturalization as a Filipino citizen. (Basilio Santos Co vs. The Government of the Philippine Islands, 52 Phil., 543.) The trial court correctly held that the petitioner is a Filipino citizen. (Roa vs. Collector of Customs, 23 Phil., 315; Torres vs. Tan Chim, G. R. No. 46593, promulgated February 3, 1940; Gallfin vs. Ordoñez vs. Secretary of Labor, G.R. No. 47616, promulgated October 15, 1941.)lawphil.net
In view of this conclusion, the instant proceedings are dismissed without pronouncement regarding costs. So ordered.
Avanceña, C.J., Abad Santos, and Diaz, JJ., concur.
Moran and Horilleno, JJ., dissented on the grounds expressed in Torres vs. Tan Chim.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
