Scribd
Upload
364 views2 pages

Republic Vs Lim

The Supreme Court denied the Republic's petition and upheld the Court of Appeals' ruling. The Court held that as an illegitimate child of a Filipino mother, the respondent automatically became a Filipino citizen at birth, and was not required to elect citizenship upon reaching adulthood like legitimate children of a Filipino mother and foreign father. Additionally, the Court found that the Court of Appeals correctly allowed the respondent to continue using her father's surname, which she had used since childhood.

Uploaded by

Jm Santos
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
364 views2 pages

Republic Vs Lim

The Supreme Court denied the Republic's petition and upheld the Court of Appeals' ruling. The Court held that as an illegitimate child of a Filipino mother, the respondent automatically became a Filipino citizen at birth, and was not required to elect citizenship upon reaching adulthood like legitimate children of a Filipino mother and foreign father. Additionally, the Court found that the Court of Appeals correctly allowed the respondent to continue using her father's surname, which she had used since childhood.

Uploaded by

Jm Santos
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

201. REPUBLIC VS.

LIM
G.R No. 153883 | Ynares-Santiago, J.: | January 13, 2004
Article IV Citizenship

DOCTRINE: By being an illegitimate child of a Filipino mother, respondent automatically became a Filipino upon birth,
and as such, there was no more need for her to validly elect Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.

FACTS:
Chule Y. Lim, respondent, was an illegitimate child of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother. She filed a
petition to the court for correction of four erroneous entries in her birth certificate to wit: 1) her surname “Yu” was
misspelled as “Yo” 2) her father’s name was written as “Yo Diu To” (Co Tian) when it should have been “Yu Dio To” 3)
her nationality was entered as Chinese when it should have been Filipino 4) that she was a legitimate child when she
should have been described as illegitimate considering that her parents were never married. After the trial court
conducted the appropriate proceeding, it granted the petition sought by respondent to set the records straight and in
their proper perspective. However, petitioner herein filed an appeal specifically on the correction of her citizenship
(from Chinese to Filipino) not having complied with the legal requirements for election of citizenship. It cited Article IV,
Sec 1(3) of the 1935 Constitution and Sec 1, CA No. 625 which provides the election of citizenship of a legitimate
child of a Filipino mother and alien father upon reaching the age of maturity.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Court of Appeals erred in ordering the correction of the Citizenship of respondent Chule Y.
Lim from “Chinese” to “Filipino” despite the fact that respondent never demonstrated any compliance with the legal
requirements for election of citizenship.
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in allowing respondent to continue using her father’s username
despite its finding that respondent is an illegitimate child.

HELD:
1. No. The Republic avers that respondent did not comply with the constitutional requirement of electing
Filipino citizenship when she reached the age of majority as mandated in Article IV, Section 1(3) of the
1935 Constitution and Section 1 of the Commonwealth Act No. 625. The Supreme Court held that the two
above provisions only apply to legitimate children. These do not apply in the case of the respondent who
was an illegitimate child considering that her parents never got married. By being an illegitimate child of a
Filipino mother, respondent automatically became a Filipino upon birth, and as such, there was no more
need for her to validly elect Filipino citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. Also, she registered as
a voter inside the country when she reached 18 years old. The exercise of the right of suffrage and the
participation in election exercises constitute a positive act of election of Philippine citizenship.
2. No. The Republic’s submission was misleading. The Court of Appeals did not allow respondent to use her
father’s surname. What it did allow was the correction of her father’s misspelled surname which she has
been using ever since she can remember. The court held that prohibiting the respondent to use her
father’s surname would only sow confusion. Also, Sec. 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 142 which regulates
the use of aliases as well as the jurisprudence state that it is allowed for a person to use a name “by
which he has been known since childhood”. Even legitimate children cannot enjoin the illegitimate
children of their father from using his surname. While judicial authority is required for a chance of name or
surname, there is no such requirement for the continued use of a surname which a person has already
been using since childhood. The doctrine that disallows such change of name as would give the false
impression of family relationship remains valid but only to the extent that the proposed change of name
would in great probability cause prejudice or future mischief to the family whose surname it is that is
involved or to the community in general. In this case, the Republic has not shown that the Yu family in
China would probably be prejudiced or be the object of future mischief.

WHEREFORE, the petition brought by the Republic is DENIED.

You might also like