Add TAGS to your cases to easily locate them or to build your SYLLABUS.
Please SIGN IN to use this feature.
Highlight text as FACTS, ISSUES, RULING, PRINCIPLES to generate case DIGESTS and REVIEWERS.
Please LOGIN use this feature.
Show as cited by other cases (4 times)
Show printable version with highlights
23 Phil. 315

[ G. R. No. 7011, October 30, 1912 ]




This is an appeal from an order of the Court of First Instance of Cebu  recommitting the appellant,  Tranquilino Roa, to the custody of the Collector of Customs and declaring the Collector's right to effect appellant's deportation to China as being a subject of the Chinese Empire  and without right to enter and reside in the Philippine Islands.  There is no dispute as to the facts.

The  appellant, Tranquilino Roa, was born in  the town of Luculan, Mindanao, Philippine Islands, on July 6,  1889. His father was Basilto Roa Uy Tiong Co, a native of China, and  his mother was Basilia Rodriguez,  a native of this country.  His parents were legally married in the Philippine Islands  at the time of his birth.  The father  of  the appellant went to China about the year 1895, and died there about 1900.  Subsequent to the death of his father, in May, 1901, the appellant was sent to China by his  mother  for the sole purpose of studying (and always with the intention  of returning)  and returned to the Philippine Islands on the steamship  Kaifong, arriving at the port of Cebu October 1,1910, from Amoy, China, and sought admission to the Philippine  Islands.  At this time  the appellant was a few  days under 21 years and 3 months of age.

After hearing the evidence the  board of special inquiry found  that the appellant was a Chinese person  and a subject of  the Emperor of China  and  not entitled to land. On appeal  to the Insular Collector of Customs this decision was  affirmed, and the Court of First  Instance of Cebu in these habeas corpus proceedings remanded the  appellant to the Collector of Customs.

On appeal  the appellant, through his counsel, assigns the following errors: 

"1. The  lower court erred in holding that the  petitioner is not entitled to enter the Philippine Islands upon his claim that he is a native inhabitant who has  on attaining  his majority exercised his right of election as between the jus sanguinis and jus soli. 

2. That the board of special inquiry at Cebu abused its authority and discretion in ignoring the declaration of the  appellant of his  election  to be and of his  being a citizen of the Philippine Islands."

The question presented is whether a child born in the Philippine Islands in July, 1889, of parents,  one of whom  (the  father)  was a  Chinaman and the other a Filipina, who at the time of his birth were permanently  domiciled and resided in the Philippine Islands and were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under  the Emperor of China, becomes, at the time of his birth,  a  citizen of the Philippine Islands, by virtue of law, and  whether he can, on reaching  his  majority, elect to become a citizen of the country of his birth.

The pertinent part of the decision of the board of special inquiry reads: 

"In view of the fact that the applicant for admission was born in lawful wedlock, he takes the nationality of his father,  and as his  father was not  a  subject  of the King of Spain  on April  11,  1899, the  applicant, acquiring the nationality of his father, becomes a subject of the Emperor of China and not a citizen of the Philippine Islands."

Upon  appeal  the Insular Collector of Customs in his decision dated February 17, 1911, said: 

"Under the laws of the Philippine Islands, children, while they remain under parental authority, have the nationality of their parents.  Therefore, the legitimate children  born in the Philippine Islands of a subject of the Emperor of China are  Chinese subjects and  the same  rule obtained during Spanish sovereignty.  Therefore, the provisions of the Treaty of Paris and of the Philippine  Bill with reference to Spanish subjects have no application in determining the citizenship or nationality of the children of Chinese subjects in the Philippine Islands. Under the  Chinese Exclusion Laws, a person of the Chinese race and descent is not entitled to enter the Philippine Islands except under the terms and conditions expressly provided for.  "No abuse of authority or discretion on the part of the members  of the board of special inquiry having been  claimed or appearing:, their decision in this matter is  sustained as being correct and proper on the showing made and in accordance with the law. The said Tranquilino Roa is therefore refused landing."

In the Chinese and Immigration Circular No. 288, issued July 19, 1909, the Insular Collector of Customs said : 

"In the Wong Kim Ark case (169 U. S., 649), it was held that the Constitution of the  United States must be interpreted in the light of  the common law.  It would  seem reasonable therefore that the Acts of Congress should be construed in the same light and it would necessarily follow that  the Act of Congress of July 1,  1902, should, as far as possible, have applied to its construction and enforcement the common law doctrine of citizenship by birth, and unless such Act  clearly excludes from  its  terms persons  born within the Philippine Islands, such persons should be considered as citizens thereof.

"Attention  is also invited to  the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution  of the United States, and to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, both of which set forth in the  most explicit  and comprehensive terms  the principle of citizenship by birth, and to the fact that the courts have construed both  of these to be but a reiteration of the common law doctrine on the subject of citizenship."

Section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution, of the United States reads:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State  wherein they reside.  *  *   *"

The provisions of the  Spanish Civil Code on this subject which were in force in the Philippine Islands on April 11, 1899, are as follows: 

"Art. 17. The following  are  Spaniards: 

"1. Persons born in Spanish territory. ' 

"2, Children of a Spanish father or mother, even though they were born out of Spain.

"3. Foreigners who may  have  obtained naturalization papers.

"4. Those who, without said papers  may  have acquired a domicile in any town in the Monarchy.

"Art.  18. Children, while they remain under the parental authority, have the nationality of their parents.

"In order that the children born of foreign  parents in Spanish territory may enjoy the benefits granted them by paragraph 1 of article 17, it shall be an indispensable requisite that the parents declare, in  the  manner and before the  officials specified in article 19, that they  choose, in the name of their  children, the Spanish nationality, renouncing any other.

"Art. 19. Children of foreign parentage born  in Spanish domains must state, within the year following their majority or emancipation, whether they desire to enjoy the Spanish nationality granted them by article  17.

"Those who are in the kingdom shall make this declaration before the official in charge of  the civil registry of the town in which they  reside; those who reside abroad, before one  of  the Consular or Diplomatic Agents of the Spanish Government,   *  *   *" The second  paragraph  of  Article IX of the  Treaty of Paris provides: "The civil rights and  political status of the  native inhabitants  of  the territories  hereby ceded to the  United States shall be determined by the Congress."

Section  4 of the Philippine Bill provides:

"That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands continuing to reside therein who were Spanish subjects on the eleventh day  of  April, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine,  and then resided in said Islands, and their  children born subsequent thereto,  shall  be  deemed  and held  to  be citizens  of the Philippine Islands and as such entitled to the protection o£ the  United States, (except) such as  shall have  elected to preserve their  allegiance to the Crown of Spain  in accordance with the provisions of the treaty of peace between the United  States  and Spain signed at  Paris December  tenth, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight."

All admit  (1) that  it is the inherent right of every  independent nation to determine for  itself and according to its own constitution and laws what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship; and (2) that if the appellant is a citizen of the Philippine Islands, the Chinese Exclusion Acts do not and cannot apply to him.

The  interpretation and construction of the first section of the fourteenth amendment  to the Constitution of the United States were involved in the leading case of United States vs. Wong Kim Ark (169 U.  S., 649.)  The facts in the case were: Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873 in the city of San Francisco  and  was a  laborer.   His father  and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China; they  were, at  the time of his birth, domiciled residents of the United States; and they continued to reside and remain there until 1890, when they departed for China.  During all the time of their residence in the United States they were engaged in business and were never employed in any  diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of  China.  Wong Kim Ark ever since his birth had but one residence, to wit, in California;  and had there resided, claimed to  be a citizen  of the United States, and had never lost or  changed  that residence  or gained or acquired another;  and neither he nor his parents acting for him ever renounced his allegiance to the United States or did or committed any act or thing to  exclude him therefrom. In  1890 when he was still a minor  he departed for China on  a  temporary visit and returned  in the same year and was permitted by  the Collector of  Customs  to  enter  the United  States upon the ground that he was a native-born citizen of that country.   After such return he remained in the United States claiming to be a citizen thereof until 1894, when he again departed for China on a temporary visit and with the intention of returning.  He did return in August, 1895, and applied to the Collector of Customs for permission to land and was denied such permission upon the sole ground that he  was  not a  citizen of the United States.  It  was conceded  that if he was a  citizen  of the United  States the Acts of Congress known as  the Chinese Exclusion Acts, prohibiting persons  of the Chinese  race, and especially Chinese laborers, from entering the United States, did not and could not apply to him.

Wong Kim Ark filed  a petition in the United States District Court for a writ of habeas corpus,  alleging1 that he  was a  citizen of the  United States  entitled to enter that country  as  such, and that  he was  illegally detained by  the Collector of Customs.  The writ  was issued, and after hearing the petitioner was directed  to be discharged from custody.  The respondent  appealed  to  the Supreme Court  of the United States. That court,  after a very exhaustive examination of the questions presented, affirmed the judgment of the district court, saying:

"The fourteenth amendment (to the Constitution of the United States) affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and  under  the  protection of  the country,  including all children here  born of resident aliens, with the exception or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children  of foreign sovereigns  or their ministers, or  born on foreign public  ships, Cor of enemies within and  during a hostile occupation  of  part of our territory, and  with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.   The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or  color, domiciled within  the United States."

The questions presented in this case were  definitely settled the Supreme  Court of the  United  States.  According to the  doctrine here enunciated,  it  is quite clear that  if the  appellant  in  the  case  at bar had been  born in the United States and was now trying to reenter  that country under the same circumstances  that he is now trying to reenter this Country, he would be entitled to land upon the ground that he was a citizen of the United  States. By the laws of the j United States, citizenship depends  generally upon the place of birth.   This  is the doctrine of jus soli,        and predominates.  Consequently, any person born in the United States (with certain specific exceptions) is a citizen of that country, owes  it allegiance,  and is entitled to its. protection.

"The right of  expatriation is a  natural  and inherent right of all  people."   (Act of Congress, July 27, 1868.) Expatriation is the voluntary renunciation or abandonment of nationality and allegiance.  The Act of Congress of 1868 does apt define what steps must be taken by a citizen before it  can be  held that he has become denationalized. In fact, there is  no mode of renunciation of citizenship prescribed by law in the United States.   Whether expatriation has taken place in any instance in that country must be determined by the facts and circumstances of the particular case.  No  general rule that will apply to all  cases  can be laid down.  (Once a person becomes an American citizen, either  by birth or naturalization, it is  assumed  that he desires to continue to  be a citizen of the United States, and  this assumption stands until the contrary is shown by some voluntary act on his part.) But when he voluntarily denationalizes or expatriates himself, he then becomes an alien to the United States, and can regain his lost citizenship only by virtue of the same laws, and the same formalities, and  by the same process by which other aliens are enabled to become citizens.  The result is that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents^as in the case of Wong Kim Ark, supra, is  a citizen  of  that country and continues  to be such until his  parents, during  his minority, expatriate him, or he, after becoming of age, by some voluntary overt act or acts, expatriates himself,  If this is done by his parents during his minority, it might be (a question we do not decide) that he could, on becoming of age, elect the nationality of his birth  (the United States).

A reading of article 17 of the Civil  Code,  above copied, is sufficient to show  that the first paragraph affirms  and recognizes  the principle of nationality by  place of birth, jus soli.   The second, that of jus sanguinis; and  the  last two  that  of free election, with the first  predominating. Article 18 provides that children,  while they remain undei parental  authority, have the  nationality of their parents. A married woman follows the condition and nationality of her> husband.   (Article  22.)  Consequently,  according to those provisions, the children, during their minority  and while they are under parental authority, have, as a general rule, the nationality of their father.  In order that children born of foreign parents in Spanish territory might enjoy the benefits appertaining to  Spanish nationality,  it was necessary for  their parents, if they were minors, to make a formal declaration  before  the proper authorities to the effect that  they choose for their children that nationality and renounce  all others,  The children, within one year after  becoming of age or after emancipation,  could elect the  nationality of their  birth and enjoy the benefits pertaining thereto by making the declaration required in article 19 and in the manner set forth therein.  In either instance  a positive, overt act was essential.  In the absence of any  such acts, it was not  assumed that the children or their  parents for them elected the nationality of the country of their birth.   The contrary rule prevails in the United States.

According to the second paragraph of article 22 of  the Civil Code, a Spanish woman who married a foreigner could, upon the dissolution of the marriage,  recover her Spanish nationality by complying with the requisites mentioned in article 21. (This latter article provided that a Spaniard who had lost his citizenship by acquiring the  nationality of a foreign  country could recover it upon returning  to  the Spanish Kingdom by indicating before the proper  officials the domicile which  he elected as  his residence and by  renouncing the protection of the flag of said country. As a general rule under Spanish law there was no question about the nationality of a married woman following that of her husband. THere might have been cases of marrlage, however, where   neither the nationality of the wife nor that of the children would follow that of the husband and father. Such, for instance, would be the case if the laws governing citizenship .of the country  of  the father prohibited the        nationalizing  of  the wife and children.  It would  there necessarily follow that the wife did not lose her nationality upon marriage, nor would the nationality of the children follow that of the father.  But with this class, if there be such, we are not  now dealing.

Section 1994 of the Revised Statutes of the United States provides that "any woman  who  is now or may hereafter be married to a  citizen  of the United  States,  and  who might hereafter be lawfully nationalized, shall be deemed a citizen."  The phrase "shall be deemed a citizen" in said section, or as it was  in the Act of 1855, "shall be deemed and  taken to be  a citizen," while it may imply that the person to whom it relates has not actually become a citizen by the  ordinary  means or  in the usual way,  as by the judgment of a competent court upon a proper application and  proof, yet it does  not  follow that such personals on that account any  the less a citizen.  The word "deemed" is the equivalent of "considered"  or "judged," and therefore, whatever an Act Congress requires to be deemed or taken as true of  any person or thing must in law be considered as having been duly adjudged  or established concerning such person  or thing, and have force and effect accordingly.  When Congress declared that an alien woman shall, under certain circumstances, be deemed an  American citizen, the effect, when the contingency occurs, is equivalent to her being nationalized directly by an Act of  Congress, or in the usual  mode  thereby prescribed.  (Leonard vs. Grant, 6 Sawy., 603;  5 Fed., 16.)

The Supreme Court of the United States said in Kelley vs. Owen, 7 Wall., 496, that the object of the Act was to allow the citizenship of the wife "to follow that of her husband without the necessity of any application for naturalization on her part."

Under the statute  and these decisions, an alien woman who marries a citizen  of the  United States is  "deemed" a citizen.  Is the converse  of this rule  true?   Does an American woman become an alien by  marriage to a foreigner?  There is no, statutory declaration  to that effect.

This question is one which has not been definitely solved, and the contrariety of opinion upon it shows it to be difficult of solution.  The doubt arises  as to what effect should be given to modern statutes on naturalization and expatriation. In the case of Shanks vs. Dupont (28 U. S., 242), decided in 1830, the Supreme  Court of  the United States said:

"Neither did the marriage  with Shanks  produce that effect; because marriage with an alien, whether a friend or an enemy, produces  no dissolution of the native allegiance of the wife.   It  may change her  civil rights, but it does not  affect  her political rights  or privileges.   The general doctrine is, that no persons  can,  by  any act of their own, without the consent  of the government, put off their allegiance and become aliens.   If  it were otherwise, then a feme alien would by her marriage become, ipso facto, a citizen, and would be dowable of the estate of her husband; which are clearly contrary to law."

In Pequignot  vs. Detroit  (16 Fed., 211) it was decided (in 1883) by the United States Circuit Court that an alien woman who has once become an American citizen by marriage which is subsequently dissolved, may resume her alienage  by marriage to a native of her own  country.  In this case, Judge Brown  (later associate justice of the United States Supreme  Court)  expressed  doubt  as to the binding force of Shanks vs. Dupont (supra), because, as he said, the two reasons given for that decision have ceased to exist, viz.: (1) that the general doctrine is  "that no persons can by any act of their own without  consent  of the government, put off  their allegiance  and become aliens;" (2) that "if it were otherwise, then a feme alien would by marriage become ipso facto  a citizen  and would be dowable of the estate of het husband,  which are  clearly contrary to  law."   In view of the Act of  July  27, 1868,  expressly recognizing the right of expatriation, and the Act of February 10,1855, declaring that any woman married to an American citizen shall  be "deemed" a citizen, Judge Brown continued by saying it seemed to him "that we ought to apply the maxim, Cessante ratione legis, cessat et ipse lex, to this case, and are not bound to treat  as controlling authority the  case of Shanks vs. Dupont.  We should regard the sections above mentioned as announcing the views of Congress upon this branch of international law, and ought  to apply the same rule of decision to a case where a female American citizen marries an alien husband that we  should to a case where an alien woman marries an American citizen."

In Ruckgaber vs. Moore (104 Fed., 947) the United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of New York  held that the political status of a native bom American woman who married a citizen  of France  and removed with  him to that country followed that of her husband.  The woman having died in France, the court declared that she must be regarded as having  been a non-resident alien  at the time of her death.  Upon this point the court said:

"By the several statutes of America, France, and Great Britain, the marriage of a citizen of such country with an alien  wife confers upon  the  latter the  citizenship  of the husband; and this policy of the three great powers, in  connection with section 1999 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, which proclaims that expatriation is an inherent right, establishes that the political status of the wife follows that of her husband with the modification that there must be withdrawal  from her native country, or equivalent act expressive of her election to renounce her former citizenship as a  consequence of  her marriage.  Some serious objections to this, or even the opposite conclusion, exist, but it has been reached after due consideration of the  sublect, and  pertinent  authorities,  including  Shanks vs.  Dupont (supra), Pequignot  vs. Detroit (supra), and  Comitis vs.. Parkerson  (56 Fed.,  556)."

In Comitis vs. Parkerson  (supra), decided in 1893, the plaintiff, a native citizen  of  Louisiana,  married a native born subject of Italy who had come to Louisiana and engaged in business without intending to ever return to Italy.  He never became naturalized.  After the marriage, the woman and her husband, until his death, lived together in Louisiana with no intention on the part of either to depart from the United States.  After the husband's death the widow continued to reside in Louisiana.  The court held that expatriation must  be effected by removal from that country and that in the absence of any Act of Congress authorizing it, there can be no  implied renunciation of citizenship by an American woman marrying an alien.

In Jenns vs. Landes (85  Fed., 801) it appears that the complainant  was  born in the State of Washington, lived with her father until the year 1896, when she permanently removed from the State of Washington, and was married to a  British  subject.  That she and her husband resided in Canada and had  their domicile in the city of Victoria. The Canadian statute of 1886  declared  that "a married woman shall within Canada be deemed to be a subject of the state of which her husband is, for the time being, a subject." The court  held that the complainant  became an  alien as respects the United States, so as to enable her to sue in a federal court.

Secretary Fish, in a letter to the President, dated August 25,1873, said:

"Chief Justice Marshall (Murray vs. The Charming Betsy, 2 Cranch, 119) says  that when a citizen by his own act has made himself the subject of a foreign power, his status is completely  changed, and the act certainly places him out of the protection of the United States while within the territory of the sovereign to whom he has sworn allegiance.  Hence, it would seem that the marriage of a female citizen of the United  States with a free subject of a country by whose laws  marriage confers citizenship upon  the wife  of its subject, and her removal, to and residence in the country of her husband's  citizenship, would divest her  of her native character of an.American citizen."   (Van Dyne on Citizenship of the United States, 134.)

In 1886 Mr. Bayard, in the case of Mrs.  Zografo, held that a native-born American woman who marries a Turkish subject  and takes up her residence in Turkey becomes a Turkish subject.  Upon the death of her husband, in order      to revive her American nationality, she must leave Turkey and take up an American residence.   (Idem, 136.)

In  February, 1890, in the  case of Carl  Heisinger, Mr. Blaine, then Secretary  of State, said that the  Department had several times taken the view  that the marriage  of an American woman to a foreigner does not completely divest her of her original nationality; that her American citizenship was held for most purposes to be  in abeyance during coverture, but to be susceptible to revival on her return to the jurisdiction and allegiance to the United States.  (Idem, 137.)

In  an instruction to  the United States consul at Sagua la Grande, June 7,1895, Acting Secretary Uhl said:

"The view has been taken by this Department in several cases that  the  marriage of an American woman to a foreigner  does not completely  divest  her of her American citizenship, but that the same is  only suspended during coverture, and reverts upon the death of her husband,  if she is residing in the United States, or upon her returning to this country if she is residing  abroad."   (Idem, 137.)

Secretary Sherman, in an instruction to the United States minister at St. Petersburg, March 15, 1897, said:

"By our statute, an  alien  wife of an American citizen shares his  citizenship.   By the usual rules of continental private international law a woman marrying an alien shares his status, certainly during his life, but thereafter, on widowhood,  reverts to her original status unless she abandons the country of her origin and returns to that of her late husband."  (Idem, 138.)

From the foregoing it appears  that  the  decided weight of authority is  to the effect that the marriage of an American woman to an  alien confers upon  her  the nationality of her husband during coverture; but that thereafter on the dissolution  of the marriage by death, she reverts ipso facto to her  original status  unless  her conduct or acts  show that she elects the  nationality of her deceased husband. The rule under the Spanish law was to the effect that the widow must not only returti to the kingdom but she must also make a declaration before the proper oficials that she renounced the protection of the flag of the country of her deceased husband, and desired to resume Spanish citizenship.

The result is that both the United States and Spain have recognized, affimed, and adopted the doctrine or principle of citizenship by place of birth, by blood, and by election, with the first predominating.  Children born in the United States of foreign parents, are citizens of that country, and it is assumed that they and their parents desire that such citizenship  continue;  and  this assumption stands until the contrary is shown.   Under Spanish law,  the contrary rule prevails.  In both countries, the nationality  of the wife follows  that of the  husband.  In the  United States, the wife, on the dissolution  of  the  marriage by death, ipso facto, reacquires her original status unless she elects  otherwise.  In Spain, the widow must regain her Spanish citizenship in the manner prescribed by law.  In the United States, the nationality of the children does not, by operation of law, follow that of the parents, while  in Spain the converse is true,  In both countries, the parents may elect the nationlity of their children while they are under parental authority, and after the children are released from such authority they may elect for themselves their nationality.   The mode of making the election in both countries  is materially different.   What changes in these matters have taken  place in the Philippine Islands by reason of the acquisition of the territory by the United States? Articles 17 to 27, inclusive,, of the Civil Code deal  entirely with the subject of Spanish citizenship.  When these provisions were enacted,  Spain was and is now the sole and exclusive judge as to who shall and who shall not be subjects of her  kingdom,, including her territories.   Consequently, the said articles,  being political laws (laws regulating the relations sustained by the inhabitants to the former sovereign) , must be held to have been abrogated upon the cession of the Philippine Islands to the United States.

"By well-settled public law, upon the cession of territory by one nation to another, either following a conquest or otherwise,   *   *   *  those laws which are political in their nature and pertain  to the prerogatives of the former government  immediately cease  upon  the transfer of  sovereignty."   (Opinion, Atty. Gen., July 10, 1899.)

While municipal laws of the newly acquired territory not in conflict with the laws of the new sovereign continue in force without the express assent or affirmative act of the conqueror, the political laws  do not.  (Halleck's Int. Law, chap. 34, par. 14.)  However, such political laws of the prior sovereignty  as are not in conflict with the constitution or institutions of the new sovereign, may be continued in force if the conqueror shall so declare by affirmative act of the commander-in-chief during the war, or by Congress in time of peace.   (Ely's Administrator vs.  United States, 171 U. S. 220,  43 L. Ed.  142.)  In the case of American  and  Ocean Ins.  Cos. vs. 356 Bales of Cotton (1 Pet. (26 U.  S.)  511, 542,  7 L. Ed. 242), Chief Justice Marshall said:

"On such  transfer (by cession) of territory, it has never been held that  the  relations  of the inhabitants with each other undergo any change. Their relations with their former  sovereign are dissolved, and new relations are created between  them  and  the  government which  has  acquired their territory.   The same act which transfers their country, transfers the allegiance of those who remain in it; and the law which may be denominated political, is necessarily changed,  although that which regulates the intercourse and general conduct of individuals, remains in force, until altered by the newly-created power of the State."

Again, said articles of the Civil  Code were laws  which pertained to the prerogatives of the Crown of Spain.

"It cannot be admitted that the King of Spain could, by treaty or otherwise, impart to the United States any of his royal prerogatives; and much less can it be  admitted that they (the United States) have capacity to  receive or  power to exercise them."   (Pollard's Lessee vs. Hagan, 3 How. (44 U. S.), 212, 225. 11 L. Ed,, 565,  571.)

And  again, we now have  no  governmental  machinery by means of which the provisions of the second paragraph of article 18 can be enforced.  The only express provisions of law now in force in the Philippine Islands touching citizenship are those contained in the Treaty of Paris, and the Acts of Congress of July 1, 1902, and of March 23, 1912, the latter being a reenactment of section 4 of the former, with the addition of a proviso reading as follows:

"Provided,  That the  Philippine  Legislature is,, authorized to provide by law for the acquisition of Philippine citizenship by those natives of the Philippine Islands who do not come within tKe foregoing provisions, the natives of other Insular possessions of the United States, and such other persons residing in the Philippine Islands who could become  citizens of the United States under the laws of the United States, if residing therein."

An American citizen or Spanish subject means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the United  States or Spain.  Permanent allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of an American  citizen or Spanish subject from the allegiance of an alien who, because he is domiciled within the domains of either one of these countries, owes a qualified temporary allegiance  to that country. A natural  born American citizen or  Spanish subject means an  American citizen or Spanish subject who has become such at the moment of his birth J Citizenship, says Moore on International Law, strictly speaking, is a term of municipal law and denotes the possession within the particular state of full civil and political rights subject to special disqualifications, such as minority, sex, etc.   The conditions on which citizenship are acquired are regulated by municipal law. There is no  such thing as international  citizenship nor international law (aside from that which might be contained in treaties) by which citizenship  may be  acquired.  It  therefore follows that the only law applicable to the questions presented in the case at bar is the Treaty of Paris and the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902.

The relations which  the inhabitants of ceded  territory shall bear to the acquiring state are generally determined by the treaty of cession. Every  treaty of cession to which the United States has been a party, with the exception of the  Treaty of Peace of 1898 with Spain, ceding Porto Rico and the  Philippine Islands to  the United States; contains a stipulation providing that the the inhabitants of the territory ceded may in whole or in part become citizens of United States either immediately or under certain conditions. In the Treaty of Paris the high contracting parties agreed that the civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the Philippine Islands shall be determihed by the Congress of  the  United States.  The  contracting  parties  further agreed that  all Spanish  subjects,  natives of the Peninsula, who  were residing in the Philippine  Islands at the  time   Spain relinquished  her sovierignty  over this country may continue to reside here  and preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain by so declaring within the time and in the manner set forth in article 9. In conformity with the provisions of this Treaty, Congress, by the Act of July 1, 1902, providing for the admmistration of  the  affairs  of  civil goverment in the Philipipine Islands, enacted section 4, above quoted. Here Congress declared that all inhabitants of the  Bhilippine Islands  continuing  to reside therein who were Spanish subjects on the 11th of April, 1899, and then resided in this country, and their children born subsequent thereto, shall be deemed and held to be citizens of this country. According to those provisions it is not necessary for such persons to do anything whatsoever in order that they may acquire full citizenship. The same is true with reference to Spanish subjects who subjects «were born in  Spain proper and who had not elected to retain their allegiance to the crown. By section 4 the doctrine or princliple of citizenship by place of birth which prevails in the United States was extended to the Philippine Islands, but with limitations. In the United States every person, with certain specific exceptions, born in the United States is a citizen of that ocuntry. Under section 4 every person born after the 11th of April, 1889, of parents who were Spanish subjects on that date and who continued to reside in this country are at the moment of their birth  ipso facto citizens of the Phi;ippine Islands. From the reading  of section 4  and taking into consideration the Act of March 23,  1912, it  is clear that Congress realized that there were inhabitants  in the Philippine Islands who did not  come within the provisions of said section, and also that Congress did not then by express legislation  determine the political status of  such persons.  Therefore, the inquiry is - Did Congress intend to say that all  of the inhabitants who were not included in section 4 are to be "deemed and held to be" aliens to the Philippine Islands?

Congress by the Act of April 12,  1900, establishing civil vernment for Porto Rico provided that:

"All inhabitants continuing to  reside therein  who. were Spanish subjects on the 11th day of April, 1899, and then resided in Porto Rico, and their children born subsequent thereto, shall be deemed and held to be citizens of Porto Rico, and as such entitled to the protection of the United States, except such as shall have elected to preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain .on or before the 11th day of April, 1900,  in accordance with the provisions of the treaty of peace between the United States and Spain entered into on the 11th day  of April, 1899; and they, together  with  such citizens of the United States as may reside in Porto Rico, shall constitute a body politic under the name of The People of Porto  Rico,  with governmental  powers as hereinafter conferred, and with power to sue and be sued as such."

The treaty  provisions and the Act of Congress of April 12, 1900, were construed by the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern  District of  New  York in October, 1902, in the case of Gonzalez  (118  Fed., 941) upon a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.  The  facts in this case were as follows: The petitioner, an unmarried woman,  a native of Porto Rico, 20 years of age, arrived in the bay of New York by steamer from  the island of Porto Rico on August 24, 1902.  She was  detained at the immigrant station, was duly examined by  a board  of special inquiry, and was excluded  from admission into the United States upon the ground that she was liable to become a public charge. The court said that the only question open for discussion on that application was whether or not the petitioner was an alien.   After examining the law applicable to the case the court concluded by saying:  "This legislation (Act of April 12, 1900) has certainly not operated to effect a naturalization of the  petitioner  as a citizen of  the United  States. Being foreign born and not naturalized, she remains an alien, and subject to the provisions of law regulating the admission Of aliens who come to the United States."

The  writ was dismissed.   Upon  appeal  the  Supreme Court  of the United States  reversed the  decision  of the Circuit Court and held  that Miss Gonzalez was not an  alien to the United States within  the meaning of the laws governing the subject.   (192  U. S., 1.)

It will be noted that section 7 of the Act of April 12, 1900,  provided that "all inhabitants  continuing to reside therein who Were Spanish subjects on  the 11th of April, 1899, and then resided in Porto Rico" shall be deemed to be citizens of that country, It was contended by some that all native  Porto Ricans whdcwere not actually residing in the Island  of Porto Rico on the 11th day of April, 1899, do not come within the provisions of the Act and cannot be "deemed and held to be citizens" of  Porto Rico.  The State Department, jiasjieJCotherwise^ In the casSoFMarrero, a native o Porto Rico, who had resided in Chile since 1884, and who proposed in 1901 to  return to Porto  Rico to  perform the duties of citizenship there>  it was held by Acting Secretary Hill  that the language of section 7 of the Act o£. April 12, 1900,  was construed in its general legal sense, in which continued personal presenceis not necessry to constitute continuous residence, and that a native of Porto Rico who males it his permanent domicile does not therefore lose the benefits of this law because he was temporarily abiding elsewhere when it went into effect. (Acting Secretary Hill to Mr. Lenderink.April 29, 1901). And Attorney-General Knox (24 Opinions Attorney-General, 40) held that  Ntve Porto Rican temprarily leaving in France who was not in Porto Rico on April 11, 1899>uis; under; section 7 ©fyAct of April 12,1900, a citizen of Porto Rico.

The cession of the Philippine Islands definitely transferred the allegiance of the native inhabitants  from Spain to  the United States (articles 3 and 9 of Treaty of Paris).Filipinos remaining in this country who were not natives of the Peninsula could not, according to  the terms of  the treaty, elect to retain  their allegiance to Spain.  By the cession their allegiance became due to the United States and they became entitled to its protection. The nationality of the Islands became American instead of Spanish.

The Philippine Islands prior to April 11, 1809, had been for many months under military occupation by the United States as a conquered country when by the third article of the Treaty of Paris the whole archipelago was ceded to the United States.  The  President, in the exercise of his war power, proceeded to  establish a civil government and for that purpose appointed the Philippine Commission, consisting at first  of a  president and four members.  This Commission acting under instructions the Secretary of War, established the  three independent land coordinate departments of the government - executive, legislative and judicial  and provided means for the carrying  on of a complete civil government. The governor-general and vice-governor-general were appointed and qualified.  Positions of secretaries of the  various  departments  were  made and  filled. Courts were provided for, with power to hear and determine all cases arising in the Philippine Islands.  In fact, a complete government was established with all the necessary departments for the; protection pf the life, liberty and property of all the inhabitants. The government  thus  established was administered through American and  Filipino officials and classified civil service employees, all  of  whom before entering upon the duties  of their office took an oath  of allegiance to the. United States. Thereupon Congress by the Act of July 1, 1902, approved, ratified and affirmed the acts of the President in establishing the civil government.  Provisions weref made m this act for the bringing into existence of the Philippine Assembly and for the election of Resident Commissioners who should receive their salary from the United States.  Other provisions were made for the disposition of public lands,  both agricultural and  mineral, and the Act sets forth the bill of rights for this country.  The Philippine Islands is and has been since the passage of said Act completely under the control  of  the Congress of the United States and all the inhabitants owe complete and full allegiance  or a qualified temporary allegiance, as the case may be, to the United States.

The appellant was, as we have stated, born in the Philippine Islands  in 1889.   His father was a domiciled alien and his mother a native  of this country.   His father died  in China about the year 1900 while he was still a minor.  His mother sent him  to China for the sole purpose of studying and on reaching his  majority  he returned to the  country of his birth  and  sought admission.  From the date of his birth to the time he returned to this country he had  never in a  legal sense  changed  his  domicile. A  minor cannot change his own domicile.   As minors  have the domicile  of their father  he may change their domicile by changing his own,  and after his death  the  mother, while she remains a widow, may likewise by changing her domicile  change the domicile of the minor.  The domicile of the children in either case follows the domicile of their parent. (Lamar vs. Miccu, 112 U. S., 452.)   After the death of the father the widowed mother became  the  natural  guardian  of  the appellant. The mother before she married was a Spanish  subject and  entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities pertaining thereto.  Upon the death of her husband, which occurred after the Philippine  Islands  were ceded to the United States, she, under the rule prevailing in the United States, ipso facto reacquired the  nationality of the Philippine Islands, being that of her native  country.  When she  reacquired the nationality  of the country of her birth the  appellant was a minor and neither he nor his mother had  ever left this country.

Again, it is insisted that as the appellant was born in the Philippine Islands he under Spanish law became a Spanish subject by reason of the place of his birth,  but that  the rights and privileges incident thereto could not be exercised during his minority unless the father made the declaration required by law.  Taking this view of the case.the Spanish nationality of the appellant was suspended during his  minority in the absence of a declaration on the part of  his father.  If this were not  true (a question which  we do not decide)  the appellant, by reason of the  place  of  his birth, acquired at least an inchoate right  to Spanish nationality.  He could have within  one year after  reaching  his majority become a Spanish subject, but conditions have so changed (not through any act on the part of the appellant) that he can not now acquire  Spanish nationality.   Under these  circumstances can it be said that Congress in enacting section  4 of  the  Philippine Bill  intended to  prohibit  the appellant who happened to be temporarily absent from  the Philippine Islands from reentering this  country?  Surely, such  could not have  been the intention  of Congress.  To so hold would have  the effect of excluding the appellant from  his native  country, from home and all that home means, from  his mother, brothers, and sisters, and compel him to  live in practically  a strange country and among strange people.  If he had actually remained in the Islands, no one would ever have thought of deporting him as being a subject of the Chinese Empire.

And again, "no principle has been more repeatedly announced by the judicial tribunals of the country, and more constantly acted upon, than that the  leaning,  in questions of citizenship, should always be in  favor of the claimant of it."  Quoted with approval in  the case of Boyd vs. Thayer (143 U. S., 135).

Would it be in conflict with  the provisions of the Act of July 1, 1902,  any'other Act of Congress,  any  provision of the  Constitution, any doctrine enunciated by the Supreme Court  of  the United  States or the general policy of the United States, to now declare that the appellant is, by reason of the place of his birth, residence, the death of his father, the present nationality of his widowed mother, and his election, a citizen of the Philippine Islands? /§ectipfi 4 of the Philippine Bill  must be  read according to its spirit  and intent, for a thing which  is within  the intention of the makers of a  civil statute is as much within the statute as if within the letter; and a thing which is within  the letter of the statute  is not within the statute  unless within the intent of the lawmaker. The intent of the law-makers is the law.  The congressional meaning of section  4 is to be ascertained from  the Act as a whole.  This  section cannot be segregated, but every part of the Act must be construed with reference to every other part.  It should be construed to conform to  the well-settled governmental policy of the United  States  on the subject of citizenship.   It  is to be given that construction which best comports with the principles of reason and  justice.  This section declares that a certain class of inhabitants shall be citizens of the Philippine Islands. It does not declare that other inhabitantsnshall not be citizens. Neither does it declare that other inhabitants shall be deemed to be aliens to the Philippine Islands, and especially it  does not declare that a person situated as  is the appellant shall not be nor shall not elect to be a citizen of the country of his birth.   The appellant could,  as we have said, elect to become citizen  of ihe United States had he been born in that country under the same circumstances which now surround hm. All the laws and the rulings of the courts on the subject so declare, and this has been the declared policy  of  the  United States.   While it has been decided that the Constitution and acts of Congress do not apply ex propio vigore to this country, but that they must be expressly extended by Congress, nevertheless, some of the basic principles upon which the government of the United States rests and the greater  part  of the Bill of Rights, which protects the citizens of that  country, have been extended to the Philippine Islands by the instructions of the President to the first Philippine Commission and the Philippine Bill. The Act of July 1, 1902, a part of which is section  4, quoted supra, as before stated, ratified  and affirmed the civil government established in the Philippine Islands by the President. It extended the Bill of Rights to the inhabitants of this country.  It provided means for the disposition of the public lands and enacted mining laws.  In fact,  it approved of  and extended  the powers of  a republican form  of government modeled after that of  the United  States.   Then to hold, after all of this has been done, that Congress intended by section 4 to declare that the appellant  is an  alien and not entitled, under the  circumstances, to  reenter  the  land  of his birth  and become a citizen thereof, would be a holding contrary to the manifest intent of that body.  That  Congress did not so intend is irresistibly inferred  from these  facts.

Was the appellant a citizen of the  Philippine Islands on July 1, 1902?  If so, the Act of Congress of that date  did not denationalize him.  At the time this country was ceded to the United States, Basilio Roa, father of the appellant, was, let us say, a subject of the Emperor of China, and the nationality of the appellant, let us further say, followed absolutely that of his father.   Basilio Roa died in Chiiia in 1900.  Tranquilirio was then a minor and living with  his mother in this country.  His mother, before her marriage, was, as  we have said, a Spanish subject.  On  the death of her husband she  ipso facto reacquired the nationality of the country of her birth, as she was then living in that country and had never left it.  She was  then  the natural guardian of Tranquilino.   The question now arises, did the nationality of the appellant  follow that of his mother, admitting that before the  death of his father he was a Chinese subject? If his nationality followed that of his mother,  it must have been not by reason of the Spanish law, as tnere was none in force in this, country at the time on the subject, but  by  means of  analogous. principles  of  citizenship in America.  Upon the dissolution  of a marriage between a female citizen of the United States and a foreigner, she       ipso facto reacquires American citizenship, if at that time she is residing in the United States.  There is no statutory declaration on the question as to whether or not her minor children would follow that of their widowed  mother. If the children were born  in  the United States, they would be citizens of that country. If they were born in the country of which their father (and their mother during coverture) was a citizen, then they would be citizens of that  country until the death of their father.   But after his death, they, being minors and their mother being their natural guardian and she reacquiring her American nationality by returning to the United States, their  nationality would, as a logical consequence, follow that of their mother, she having changed their domicile and nationality by placing them  within the jurisdiction of the United  States.  But,  of course,  such minor children, on  reaching their  majority, could elect, under the principle that expatriation is an inherent right of all people, the nationality of the  country of their birth.

The nationality of the appellant having followed that of his  mother, he was  therefore  a citizen of the  Philippine Islands on July 1, 1902, and never having expatriated himself, he still remains a citizen of  this country.

We therefore conclude that the appellant is a citizen of the  Philippine Islands and entitled to land.  The judgment appealed from  is  reversed  and  the appellant  is ordered released from custody, with costs de oficio.

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Mapa, and Carson, JJ., concur.
Johnson, J., concurs in the result.

NOTE. - The inquiry jn this case was the status of the law upon the questions therein involved in the  absence of statutory enactment. The Act of Congress of March 2, 1907, being in part declaratory of what the law was in the United States, confirms the principles announced in the foregoing decision as applicable to cases arising in this country.  (Per Trent, J.)