Co v Civil Register of Manila

Facts: in the birth cert of the petitioners, it is stated that their

parents are Chinese citizens. Their father filed an application for his
naturalization as a citizen of the Philippines under LO no !"# and his
app $as granted under P% &#''. Petitioners alleged in their petition
that:
&( the) $ere born in the phil and legiti*ate children of Co +oon Peng
,petitioners father(
!( co boon Peng is a for*er Chinese citizen but $as naturalized as
Filipino citizen
-( at the ti*e of their birth, their father $as still a Chinese citizen
that.s $h) entr) in their birth cert as to their father citizenship $as
Chinese
/( upon granting of phil citizenship b) naturalization to their father,
petitioners $ho $ere born in the phil and still *inors at that ti*e
beca*e Filipino citizens thru the derivative *ode of naturalization. 0s
stated in naturalization la$ ,co**on$ealth act /"-( 1*inor children of
persons naturalized under this la$ $ho have been born in the phil shall
be considered citizens thereof1
'( the naturalization of petitioners. father $as an act affecting their
civil status that *ust be recorded in the civil register. The provision
in the ne$ civil code provides that 1acts, events and 2udicial decrees
concerning the civil status of persons shall be recorded in the civil
register1
Petitioners pra)ed that the trial court render 2udg*ent correcting and
changing the entries in their birth cert as to the citizenship of their
father, fro* Chinese to Filipino. Court dis*issed the case. Petitioners
filed a reconsideration $ith the rtc but it $as also denied.
3eld: sol gen contends that the court did not err in issuing the
assailed orders bec LO !"# ,deals $ith the re4uire*ents and procedure
for naturalization b) presidential decree( and C0 /"- ,deals $ith the
re4uire*ents and procedure for naturalization b) 2udicial decree( are
separate and distinct la$s5 therefore, not in pari *ateria. Further*ore,
the) cannot invo6e art /#" of the 7CC and rule &#8 of rules of court
because it *ust be one that reflects a fact e9isting or at the ti*e of
birth. Moreover, LO !"#, the naturalization of their father did not
render the* also naturalized.
The rule on statutor) construction provides that:
:tatutes in pari *ateria should be read and construed together because
enact*ents of the sa*e legislature on the sa*e sub2ect are supposed to
for* part of one unifor* s)ste*5 later statutes are supple*entar) or
co*pli*entar) to the earlier enact*ents and in the passage of its acts
the legislature is supposed to have in *ind the e9isting legislations on
the sub2ect and to have enacted its ne$ act $ith reference thereto.
:tatutes in pari *ateria should be construed together to attain the
purpose of an e9pressed national polic), thus:
On the presu*ption that $henever the legislature enacts a provision it
has in *ind the previous statutes relating to the sa*e sub2ect *atter,
it is held that in the absence of an) e9press repeal or a*end*ent
therein, the ne$ provision $as enacted in accord $ith the legislative
polic) e*bodied in those prior statutes, and the) all should be
construed together. Provisions in an act $hich are o*itted in another
act relating to the sa*e sub2ect *atter $ill be applied in a proceeding
under the other act, $hen not inconsistent $ith its purpose. Prior
statutes relating to the sa*e sub2ect *atter are to be co*pared $ith the
ne$ provisions5 and if possible b) reasonable construction, both are to
be construed that effect is given to ever) provision of each. :tatutes
in pari *ateria, although in apparent conflict, are so far as reasonabl)
possible construed to be in har*on) $ith each other.