FLORENTINA VILLAHERMOSA

VS. THE COMMISSIONER

OF IMMIGRATION
En Banc, G. R. No. L-1663 March 31, 1948
01 FACTS 04 REASON
02 ISSUE 05 CONCURRING OPINION
03 DECISION 06 DISSENTING OPINION
 It is an appeal from the order of Hon. Sotero
Rodas, denying the writ of habeas corpus
that is requested by Florentina Villahermosa
on behalf of her son Delfin Co.

FACTS
3

Delfin Co, 18 years

March 24, 1947 – a group of 69 old, born in
Chinese nationals landed on Sto. Paniqui, Tarlac, a
Domingo, Ilocos Sur secretly to avoid son of a Chinese
dealing with the immigration laws. national named
Co Suy (Yu Kui)
Co Suy died in July 1940, Delfin Co was atleast 10
years old by the time of the father’s death.

On February 1946, Delfin Co migrated back to

China as a repatriate (to restore his citizenship to
China) with a relative named, Co Chi Pe.

FACTS
4
 Due to financial On April 10,
difficulties, he is 1947 a formal
looking for ways to The attempt investigation was
come back, which Co of illegal enacted. It was
Soon Tiong has given immigration was recommended that
him information of a discovered, and Delfin would be
plan of leading their they were deported back to

FACTS
compatriots into the apprehended China as a Chinese 5
Philippines. upon arrival Citizen.
 ISSUE
On April 29, 1947, Florentina Villahermosa,
in full knowledge of the apprehension of her
son 2 weeks before, filed in the civil registry
of Tarlac under Commonwealth Act No. 63,
an oath of allegiance to acquire her lost
citizenship due to her marriage to Co 6
Suy (a Chinese Citizen).

Due to Delfin Co being a minor (whereby

one reaches he age of majority upon
reaching 21 years old) the citizenship of
her mother follows through, thereby
granting him Filipino citizenship.
 ISSUE
Whether or not Delfin Co is a
Filipino citizen at the time of
his apprehension.

ISSUE
7
DECISION
It is declared that Delfin Co is not
now a Filipino citizen. It also
declared that he is subject to
8
deportation due to having entered
the country clandestinely.

The decision of the lower court

denying his petition for habeas
corpus is affirmed.
 R E ASON

Delfin Co must be Under the Section 1 Since Delfin Co, 18

deported to China under of Article IV of the years of age, was not of
9
this reasons; a) He is not Constitution, that the major age, he does not
now a Filipino citizen; b) citizens of the Philippines have the opportunity to
At the time he entered are those; (Paragraph 4) elect Philippine
the country, he was a Those whose mothers are citizenship, therefore
Chinese already subject citizens of the Philippines he will be recognized
to deportation. A change and upon reaching the as a foreign national,
to the status of his age of majority, elect as per his father’s
citizenship will not void Philippine citizenship citizenship.
his act of illegal entry.
 CONCURRING OPINION
(HILADO, J)

The person taking the An oath of allegiance taken

oath of allegiance did for that end is, an affront to
so for the express the sovereign, besides the
purpose of legalizing, so criminal responsibilities it 10
to say, a most serious entails making Florentina
violation of the Villahermosa unworthy and
immigration laws of the disqualified to be
Philippines by her son. repatriated under
Commonwealth Act No. 63.
 DISSENTING OPINION
(PERFECTO, J.)

Children, while they remain under parental authority, have the

nationality of their parents (Article 18 of the Civil Code)

It provides that children under 20 years of age and residing in the 11

Philippines shall become citizens upon naturalization of their
parents (Naturalization Law, No. 2927, as amended by Act No. 3448)

Under express statutory provisions, Delfin Co follows the

nationality of his mother. His mother is a Filipino citizen. Delfin
Co is a Filipino citizen.
 That the petitioner had exercised a right
expressly granted to her by law for the benefit of
her son or for the purpose of protecting him
against an action harmful to him, is only logical.

DISSENTING OPINION
12

There is no law
punishing the act
Delfin Co is entitled to more pity than of Delfin of
blame, by his failure to resist the wiles rendering help to
of a scheming person, who took the smuggling of a
undue advantage of his immaturity. bunch of Chinese
in question.

DISSENTING OPINION
( TUASON, J.)
If a mother can and wants
to change her citizenship
daily, certainly it is natural
that her minor child, which
depends upon her for care
and support, should not be
left stranded.
To withhold Philippine
citizenship until the child
reaches the age of majority,
does not create an
exception to the general
rule.
Deferment of conferring 13
Filipino citizenship on such
a child extends only to
those cases in which both
parents are alive and retain
their foreign nationality, or
where the father having
died, the mother has not
chosen to regain her
original citizenship.
 DISSENTING OPINION
14
The conversion of the immigrant to Philippine
citizenship was entirely independent of his will
and of his presence in the Philippines. The bond
that binds the petitioner and her child existed
before the latter entered the Philippine territory
and not from the date of her repatriation only.
 THE COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION
Matt Reinier M. Canoza

FLORENTINA VILLAHERMOSA VS.

Janine C. Mandac
Mark Darenz A. Menor
Joshua M. Punu 15

Sophia C. Tapanan

BSA 1 - 2