Anda di halaman 1dari 1

Paz Chua vs Secretary of Labor

Sept. 30, 1939 | J. Imperial

Conflicting SC decisions on Citizenship

DOCTRINE: You cannot just invoke Filipino nationality on the ground that you are born in the country.
CASE SUMMARY: This case is about a Chinese woman who wants to re-settle in the Philippines by invoking Filipino
nationality on the ground that she was born in the country.

October 6, 1914 - Chua Uang, whose parents are both citizens of the Chinese Republic, was born in Aparri, Cagayan.
At 13, she left the country for China.
At 17, she married a Chinese man named Yao Tian, who later died in the Sino-Japanese war.
March 4, 1938 - Uang returned to Manila by boat with her two minor children.
The immigration Division of the Department of Labor held an investigation to know whether they were entitled to reside in the
country but they were denied on the ground that Chua Uang, having preserved the nationality of her husband when they married,
is clearly a citizen of the Chinese Republic.
She also failed to acquire Filipino citizenship through the formalities of law. Her kids were also held Chinese, as they follow the
citizenship of their mother.
She appealed to the Secretary of Labor but the secretary upheld the boards decision. Paz Chua, who was the representative of the
immigrants, filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus but was denied.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Chua Uang and her kids are Filipinos and thus entitled to reside in the Philippines

Chua Uangs parents are Chinese. She went to China at the age of 13 years, which must have been in 1927, she continued to be a Chinese
citizen (art. 2, par. 2, Chap. II, of the Revised Nationality Laws of China, edited by Flournoy Hudson and published by Carnegie
Endowment of International Peace, cited on page 9 of the brief of the Solicitor General).

After marriage, her nationality would follow that of her husband in accordance with paragraph 1 of said Compilation of Laws of China.


The appealed decision is hereby affirmed, with costs of this instance to the appellants. So ordered.

Page 1 of 1