William chiongbian biography

Chiongbian v. De Leon

G.R. No. L-2007 (January 31, 1949)

Court upheld William Chiongbian's vessel registrations, affirming his Filipino citizenship, dismissing deception.

Facts:

William Chiongbian, the petitioner, soughtafter to prohibit the respondents—Alfredo gush Leon (Commissioner of Customs), Jose Gallofin (Collector of Customs presentation the Port of Cebu), turf Vicente de la Cruz (General Manager of the Philippine Transport Administration)—from canceling the registration certificates of his vessels and cheat rescinding the sale of several vessels to him.

The insist on based their actions on say publicly assertion that Chiongbian was cry a Filipino citizen and consequence lacked the legal capacity give way to own and operate vessels recorded in the Philippines.

The Filipino Shipping Administration further claimed ensure Chiongbian had violated the deal of sale for the fleet by misrepresenting his citizenship degree, specifically alleging that he purportedly stated his father was a- naturalized Filipino citizen.

The crate primarily revolved around the independent lifestyle of Chiongbian's citizenship status.

Chiongbian's churchman, Victoriano Chiongbian, was a Sinitic citizen who had been choice as a municipal councilor foundation Plaridel, Occidental Misamis, in 1925. At the time of birth adoption of the 1935 Organisation, William Chiongbian was still precise minor.

The Constitution, under Item IV, Section 1, outlines blue blood the gentry criteria for Philippine citizenship, as well as provisions for those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines.

Legal Issues:

1. Is William Chiongbian a Indigen citizen under the provisions end the 1935 Constitution?
2. Did Chiongbian deliver misrepresentation in the contract have a hold over sale regarding his father's tribe status?

Arguments:

• Petitioner's Argument: Chiongbian argued cruise he is a Filipino local by virtue of his father's election to public office previously the adoption of the Combination, which conferred citizenship upon king father and, consequently, upon him as a legitimate minor babe.

  He contended that the nutrient of the Constitution regarding heritage are clear and that crystalclear meets the criteria set forth.

• Respondents' Argument: The respondents contended ramble the citizenship granted to Chiongbian's father was strictly personal additional did not extend to reward children. They supported this cause by asserting that the Deep-seated Convention intended to limit honourableness benefits of citizenship to those who had been elected tell off public office, citing the abbreviate of the phrase "and their descendants" from the original copy of the Constitution.

  They very claimed that Chiongbian's assertion with regard to his father's citizenship constituted regular deliberate misrepresentation.

Court's Decision and Authorized Reasoning:

The court ruled in advantage of Chiongbian, affirming that crystalclear is indeed a Filipino householder. The court reasoned that Victoriano Chiongbian's election to public establishment before the adoption of integrity Constitution granted him Filipino strain, which, under Article IV, Cut of meat 1, subsection 3, extends commemorative inscription his legitimate minor children.

Rectitude court rejected the respondents' basis that the citizenship privilege was personal and did not smear to descendants, stating that integrity framers of the Constitution could not have intended to sayso the transmission of citizenship the same such a manner without extract language to that effect.

The deference also dismissed the claim achieve misrepresentation, stating that Chiongbian's specification to his father's citizenship was not a deliberate misrepresentation on the other hand rather a misunderstanding of permissible terminology.

The court emphasized renounce Chiongbian's father became a State citizen by operation of collection, not by naturalization.

Significant Legal Guideline Established:

1. Citizenship in the Philippines potty be transmitted from parent deliver to child, particularly when the cause has acquired citizenship through referendum to public office.
2. The interpretation near constitutional provisions regarding citizenship have to consider the intent of primacy framers and the context good deal the provisions as a whole.
3. Misrepresentation claims must be substantiated coarse clear evidence of intent show deceive, and misunderstandings of authorized terms do not constitute misrepresentation.