1

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila
EN BANC

A.M. No. 533

April 29, 1968

IN RE: FLORENCIO MALLARE.

REYES, J.B.L., Actg. C.J.:
The respondent, Florencio Mallare, was admitted to the practice of law on 5
March 1962. In his verified petition to take the bar examinations in 1961, he alleged
that he is a citizen of the Philippines and that "his father is Esteban Mallare and his
mother is Te Na, both Filipino citizens". (Personal Record, No. 17450, Bar Division)
On 16 July 1962, the then Acting Commissioner of Immigration Martiniano P.
Vivo denounced the respondent to this Court as a Chinaman masquerading as a
Filipino citizen and requested that the matter be investigated thoroughly and if the
respondent fails to show that he has legally become a Filipino, steps be taken for
striking his name from the roll of persons authorized to practice law. Acting upon the
request, this Court, on 9 August 1962, referred the matter to its Legal OfficerInvestigator for investigation and report. An investigation was thus held wherein the
relator or complainant and the respondent appeared and adduced their respective
evidence.
The position of the respondent-lawyer is that he is a Filipino citizen based on
the supposed citizenship of his father, Esteban Mallare, alleged to be a Filipino
citizen by choice, because he was the illegitimate son of a Chinese father and a
Filipina mother, Ana Mallare and that the respondent's mother, Te Na, a Chinese,
followed the citizenship of her husband upon their marriage.
The respondent's second theory is that, having been declared a Filipino
citizen in a final judgment in 1960 by the Court of First Instance of Quezon province,
in its Civil Case No. 329-G (entitled, Vitaliano Itable vs. Artemio, Florencio,
Paciencia, Esperanza and Raymundo Mallare) and his birth record, wherein he was
originally registered as a Chinese, has likewise been ordered corrected to Filipino, by
final judgment in Special Proceeding No. 3925 of the same court, 1 his Filipino

2
citizenship is conclusive, res judicata and binding to the government and to the
world.
Complainant Vivo disputed, on the facts, the respondent's first theory, and,
on the second theory, claimed that the aforestated Civil Case No. 329-G (Itable vs.
Mallare) was a simulated action calculated to obtain a judicial declaration of
Philippine citizenship and, after having obtained the said declaration, the
respondent, together with his brothers and sisters, utilized the declaration to
change their birth and alien registration the better to hide their true nationality,
which is Chinese.
The respondent denies the charge of simulating an action; and by way of
defense, points out that Civil Case No. 329-G and Special Proceeding No. 3925 are
not subject to collateral attack and, since his birth record and alien registration (and
that of his brothers and sisters) have been corrected and cancelled, respectively,
the question of their citizenship is now moot and academic.
On respondent's first claim to citizenship by blood, the earliest datum that
can be stated about the respondent's supposed ancestry is that in 1902, 2 exmunicipal president Rafael Catarroja, then eight (8) years old, met for the first time
Ana Mallare, the supposed paternal grandmother of the respondent, in Macalelon,
Quezon. He had not seen her deliver or give birth to the baby boy, Esteban Mallare,
father of the respondent, but met the supposed Filipina mother and Esteban Mallare
years later when the boy was already eight (8) years old. (Annex "8," pp. 10-12,
t.s.n., Sept. 24, 1959, Civil Case No. 329-G, CFI of Quezon Province). There is no
evidence that Ana Mallare was an "inhabitant of the Philippine Islands continuing to
reside therein who was a Spanish subject on the eleventh day of April, eighteen
hundred and ninety-nine", as required by the Philippine Bill of July 1, 1902 and she
cannot, therefore, be considered a Filipina. That witness Catarroja, the respondent,
and the latter's brothers and sisters, stated that Ana Mallare was a Filipina, as well
as their testimonies in the civil case that she had not married her Chinese husband
and that she is the true mother of Esteban Mallare, are more of opinion or
conjecture than fact, utterly insufficient to overcome the presumption that persons
living together as husband and wife are married to each other (Rule 131, par. bb).
"Every intendment of law and fact", says Article 220 of our Civil Code "leans toward
the validity of marriage and the legitimacy of children."

3
The respondent relies on three documents as indicative of the alleged
Philippine citizenship of his father, Esteban Mallare. On 7 July 1926, Te Na,
respondent's Chinese mother, was described in a landing certificate of residence
issued to her, as "wife of P.I. citizen" and as wife of Dy Esteban, P.I. citizen". (Annex
"16", being Exh. "3" in Civil Case No. 329-G). On 20 February 1939, Esteban Dy
Mallare executed an affidavit stating therein that when he reached the age of
majority he had "definitely elected to be a Filipino citizen following the citizenship of
my mother." (Annex "4" being Exh. "1" in Civil Case No. 329-G) And, in 1928,
Esteban Mallare was a registered voter in Macalelon, Quezon. (Annex "7", being
Exh. "2" in Civil Case No. 329-G).
A landing certificate of residence issued under Section 7, Act 702 by the
Collector of Customs is based upon an administrative ex parte determination of the
evidence presented and the facts as stated by the applicant and, therefore, carries
little evidentiary weight as to the citizenship of the applicant's husband. In the
instant case, the truth of Te Na's declarations when she applied for the landing
certificate could have been inquired into had she been presented as a witness in
these proceedings, but this was not done.
The affidavit of Esteban Mallare, besides being self-serving, is not a substitute
for a duly recorded election of Philippine citizenship, assuming that the affiant was
qualified to so elect. When Esteban executed it, he was already thirty-six (36) years
old and he executed it for the purpose, stated in the last paragraph, of making a
change in a miscellaneous lease application wherein he had previously stated that
he is a citizen of China. Nor can it be regarded as a re-affirmation of an alleged
election of citizenship, since no such previous election was proven to have existed.
Esteban Mallare's registration as a voter indicates his desire to exercise a
right appertaining exclusively to Filipino citizens but this does not alter his real
citizenship, which, in this jurisdiction, is determinable by his blood ( jus sanguinis).
Against these pretensions of Philippine citizenship, all the five (5) known
children of the spouses Esteban Mallare and Te Na Artemio, Esperanza, Florencio,
Paciencia and Raymundo, were registered at birth as children of a Chinese father
and a Chinese mother and with the added detail that their parents were born in
China.

4
The birth certificate of Esperanza Mallare (Exh. "F") who was born on 25
October 1939, is particularly significant in this regard, because it bears the father's
own signature. If Esteban Mallare was indeed a Filipino by choice, as stated by him
in his aforementioned affidavit (Annex 4), then he should have so stated in this birth
certificate of his daughter, instead, he admits, against his own interest, that he is a
Chinese. Esteban Mallare's own death certificate (Exh. "C"), over the signature of his
son, Artemio Mallare, shows against Artemio's own interest that Esteban was a
Chinese, born in Fookiang, China; that he died on 5 June 1945, at the age of 42 and
is buried at the Chinese cemetery, having resided in the Philippines for 28 years
(Exh. "C"), i.e., only since 1917.
The affidavit of Artemio denying that the signature in the aforesaid death
certificate is his, is inadmissible and, therefore, should be rejected, as it was offered
in evidence for the first time after trial was closed, as an annex to the respondent's
memorandum with the investigator. The affiant was not examined thereon, and the
affidavit is self-serving besides.
The entire family, consisting of the father, mother and their four (4) children
(Raymundo was not yet born) were registered as aliens in 1942 in the then Division
of Alien Statistics, pursuant to the proclamation of the Commander-in-Chief of the
Imperial Japanese Forces in the Philippines and Executive Order No. 25 of the then
Executive Commission. (See letter of Jan. 18, 1963 from the Bureau of Immigration
to the Legal Officer-Investigator, see also pp. 171 and 180-181, Vol. I, No. 4, Official
Gazette, published during Japanese occupation.) .
In addition, the respondent himself was again registered as an alien in 1950,
his application thereto bearing his thumbprints and stating therein that he is a
Chinese; that he belongs to the yellow race and that he had used these other
names: "Tan Jua Gae", "Enciong" and "Jua Gac" (Exh. "N"). He had been a teacher in
the Candon Chinese School (t.s.n., p. 17, Oct. 3, 1962). His explanation that it was
his mother who registered him as an alien is flimsy; and, as stated hereinbefore, he
did not present his mother as a witness.
The evidence is thus clearly preponderant, if not overwhelming that the
respondent's father, Esteban Mallare or "Mallari", also known as "Esteban Dy",
"Esteban Dy Mallare" and "Esteban Tan", was and remained a Chinese until he died;

5
consequently, the respondent's mother, admittedly a Chinese, retained her original
citizenship and their offspring, respondent, Florencio Mallare, together with his
brothers and sisters, are likewise Chinese nationals, through and through.
We now turn to respondent's second defense of res judicata. There are
certain marks of simulation that attended Civil Case No. 329-G, and indicating that
it was brought to circumvent a previous unfavorable opinion of the Secretary of
Justice denying cancellation of Mallare's alien registration (Op. No. 90, Ser. of 1955,
dated March 31, 1955). The said civil case was instituted by the vendor (Vitaliano
Itable) of a certain parcel of land to rescind the sale and recover the land sold from
the vendees, who are the herein respondent and his brothers and sisters, on the
ground that the said vendees are Chinese. The vendor-plaintiff practically
abandoned the case; the vendees-defendants submitted evidence purporting to
show their Filipino citizenship, and plaintiff neither cross examined nor presented
rebuttal proof. After trial, the court, declaring the vendees as natural-born Filipino
citizens, decided for the validity of the sale of the parcel of land.
On the basis of the foregoing declaration by the Court of First Instance of
Quezon Province, the respondent and his brothers and sisters filed Special
Proceeding No. 3925, in the same court, but in a different branch, for the
"correction" of their birth records. The local fiscal, representing the Solicitor General,
appeared but did not oppose the petition; wherefore, after hearing, the court
granted the petition. Based on the same judicial declaration, the then Commissioner
of Immigration De la Rosa (not the complainant) cancelled on June 8, 1960, the alien
registration of the herein respondent and that of his brothers and sisters, and issued
to them identification certificates recognizing them as Filipino citizens. Then
Solicitor General Alafriz took the same position.
Civil Case No. 329-G and Special Proceeding No. 3925 are not modes of
acquiring Philippine citizenship; neither is the Chinese citizenship of the respondent
converted to Filipino because certain government agencies recognized him as such.
He remains, by jus sanguinis, a Chinese until he is naturalized.
It is noted that the declaration that the respondent and his brothers and
sisters are Filipino citizens is stated in the dispositive portion of the decision in Civil
Case No. 329-G, which was an action in personam. The pronouncement was not

6
within the court's competence, because the declaration of the citizenship of these
defendants was not the relief that was sought. At the time, the pronouncement was
beyond judicial power, there being no law authorizing the institution of a judicial
preceding to declare the citizenship of an individual (Danilo Channie Tan v. Republic,
L-14159, April 18, 1960; Paralaran v. Republic, L-15047, Jan. 30, 1962; Tan Yu Chin v.
Republic, L-15775, April 29, 1961; Tan v. Republic, L-16108, October 31, 1961;
Santiago vs. Commissioner, L-14653, Jan. 31, 1963; Comissioner vs. Domingo, L21274, July 31, 1963; Lao Yap Diok, et al. v. Republic, L-19107-09, Sept. 30, 1964).
In the basic case Channie Tan vs. Republic, ante, this Court ruled as follows:
Under our laws, there can be no action or proceeding for the judicial declaration of
the citizenship of an individual. Courts of justice exist for the settlement of
justiciable controversies, which imply a given right, legally demandable and
enforceable, an act or omission violative of said right, and a remedy granted or
sanctioned by law, for said breach of right. As an incident only of the adjudication of
the rights of the parties to a controversy, the court may pass upon, and make a
pronouncement relative to, their status. Otherwise, such a pronouncement is
beyond judicial power. Thus, for instance, no action or proceeding may be instituted
for a declaration to the effect that plaintiff or petitioner is married, or single, or a
legitimate child, although a finding thereon may be made as a necessary premise
to justify a given relief available only to one enjoying said status. At times, the law
permits the acquisition of a given status, such as naturalization, by judicial decree.
But, there is no similar legislation authorizing the institution of a judicial proceeding
to declare that a given person is part of our citizenry. (Tan vs. Republic, G.R. No. L14159, April 18, 1960, reiterated in G.R. No. L-15775, April 29, 1961).

The said judicial declaration 3 was merely an incident to the adjudication of

the rights of the parties to the controversy over land ownership. Their citizenship
was not the thing adjudicated in the judgment and the declaration that they are
Filipinos was but a necessary premise for the court to arrive at a conclusion that the
sale of the realty was valid as between the parties. Not being the thing directly
adjudicated, their declared citizenship is not res judicata, and cannot become
conclusive.
The appearance of the fiscal, representing the Solicitor General, in Special
Proceeding No. 3925 does not bind the state to the order of "correction" of the birth
records because the proceeding was not instituted as in rem and, under no law had
the state given its consent to be party thereto. For this reason, the fiscal's
appearance was an unauthorized one.

7
It is noteworthy that in neither case relied upon by the respondent does it
appear that his claim for citizenship was given adequate publication so as to apprise
all concerned and give them opportunity to contest it or supply the corresponding
public office any derogatory data that might exist against the alleged citizenship.
Hence, neither decision constitutes res judicata on the issue of respondent's alleged
Filipino nationality.
And certainly, the Supreme Court, acting pursuant to its inherent and
constitutional authority, may not be precluded from inquiring into the citizenship of
persons admitted to the practice of law, independently of any other court's findings
in the cases or proceedings brought or instituted therein.
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the respondent Florencio Mallare is hereby
declared excluded from the practice of law; his admission to the Philippine bar is
revoked and he is hereby ordered to return immediately to this Court the lawyer's
diploma previously issued to him.
Let a copy of this decision be furnished, when it becomes final, to the
Secretary of Justice, for such action as may be deemed warranted; and let another
copy be sent to the Local Civil Registrar of Macalelon, Quezon, for purposes of
record in the corresponding civil registry of births.
So ordered.
Dizon, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez, Castro, Angeles and Fernando,
JJ.,
concur.
1wph1.t Concepcion, C.J., is on leave.
Footnotes:
1

Petition for Correction of Civil Registry of Birth: Artemio, Florencio and Esperanza Mallare, petitioners.

Catarroja was 65 when he testified in 1959; therefore, he was born in 1894. Adding his age of 8 to his year of birth equals 1902.

In Civil Case No. 329-G (Itable vs. Mallare).

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila

EN BANC
A.M. No. 533 September 12, 1974

8
IN RE: FLORENCIO MALLARE, respondent,

RESOLUTION
FERNANDEZ, J.:
On complaint of then Acting Immigration Commissioner, Martiniano P. Vivo,
this Court ordered the investigation of the matter of citizenship of Florencio Mallare,
who was admitted to the Philippine Bar on March 5, 1962, for the purpose of
determining whether his name should be stricken from the roll of persons
authorized to practice law in the Philippines.
After an investigation conducted by this Court's Legal Officer Investigator, a
decision was rendered by this Court on April 29, 1968, holding that by
preponderance of evidence, it appeared that respondent Mallare's father, Esteban
Mallare, was a Chinese up to his death; and his mother admittedly being a Chinese,
respondent is likewise a Chinese national. Consequently respondent Florencio
Mallare was declared excluded from the practice of law; his admission to the bar
was revoked, and he was ordered to return to this Court, the lawyer's diploma
previously issued to him.
Respondent moved for reconsideration of the decision, which was denied by
the Court in its resolution of January 10, 1969. On February 4, 1969, respondent
petitioned the Court for the reopening of the case and for new trial on the ground,
inter alia, of newly discovered evidence, the introduction of which could alter the
decision previously promulgated. The evidence proposed to be presented consisted
of (1) an entry in the registry of baptism of the Immaculate Concepcion Church at
Macalelon, Quezon, purporting to show that Estaben Mallare (respondent's father) is
the natural son of Ana Mallare, a Filipino; and (2) testimonies of certain persons who
had a known Esteban Mallare and his mother during their lifetime.
By resolution of July 31, 1969, this Court ruled:
Considering that the respondent, as a duly admitted member of the bar,
should be given ample opportunity to establish the true facts about his
citizenship and that no effort should be spared to ascertain the truth before
strippling him of the privilege granted to him by this Court since 1962, and
denying him the practice of his chosen profession which he has honorably
discharged as far as the records show:
The Court Resolved to set aside the decision of April 29, 1968 and to grant the
re-opening and new trial prayed for, which shall take place before the Court's
Investigating Officer on the days specified by him upon notice to respondent

9
Mallare, the Commissioner of Immigration and the Solicitor General, wherein
said parties may adduce all proper additional evidence that they may desire
to present. The proofs taken at the original investigation shall not be retaken,
but considered as part of the evidence in the new trial. Thereafter, the Court
Investigator shall submit his report on this Tribunal. (Emphasis supplied)

Accordingly, the parties submitted their respective additional evidences

before the Court's investigator.
Respondent's petition to set aside the decision of this Court of April 29, 1968,
as well as the resolution of January 10, 1969, is premised upon three basic
arguments, to wit: (a) Respondent's father, Esteban Mallare, being the natural son
of Ana Mallare, a Filipino, was a Filipino citizen; (b) Esteben Mallare, the son of a
Filipino mother, by his own overt acts, had chosen Philippine citizenship; and (c)
respondent, a legitimate son of Esteban Mallare, is a Filipino citizen.
The determinative issue in this controversy, therefore, revolves around the
citizenship of respondent's father, Esteban Mallare, for if Esteban were a Filipino as
respondent claims, the latter axiomatically would also be a Filipino and the objection
against his inclusion in the Roll of Attorneys in the Philippines would lose legal basis.
After a painstaking study of the original and additional evidences herein
presented, the Court finds sufficient grounds to warrant a definite setting aside of
Our decision of April 29, 1968, and a definitive declaration that respondent Florencio
Mallare is a Filipino citizen and therefore with qualification and right to continue the
practice of law in the Philippines.
To support his contention that respondent Florencio Mallare is not a Filipino,
the Commissioner of Immigration presented:
Exhibits "A" and "B", Opinions Nos. 90 and 166 of the Secretary of Justice dated March
31, 1955 and July 10, 1959, respectively, to the effect that respondent and his brothers
and sisters had failed to establish their claim to Philippine citizenship;
Exhibit "C", the death certificate of Esteban Mallare dated June 7, 1945, wherein he was
reported to be of Chinese nationality;
Exhibits "D", "E", "F" and "G", the birth certificates of respondent, his brothers and
sisters, dated October 23, 1929, November 8, 1932, October 26, 1939, and February 10,
1943, respectively, stating that their father was a Chinese citizen, born in Amoy, China,
and wherein respondent was reported to be a Chinese, born in Macalelon, Quezon;
Exhibits "H" to "M" the records of Civil Case No. 329-G and Special Proceeding No.
3925, both of the Court of First Instance of Quezon; and
Exhibit "N", respondent's alien certificate of registration, dated August 25, 1950.

10
Upon the other hand, respondent submitted
Exhibit "1", the decision of the Court of First Instance of Quezon in Civil Case No. 329-G,
dated November 18, 1959, upholding the validity of a contract of sale, the vendees
therein (including respondent) being citizens of the Philippines;
Exhibit "2", an order by the Acting Commissioner of Immigration, canceling respondent's
alien certificate of registration on the strength of the court's decision in Civil Case No.
329-G; Exhibit "3", identification certificate No. 11712 issued by the Bureau of
Immigration, declaring respondent "as a citizen of the Philippines by birth being the
legitimate son of Esteban Mallare, a Filipino citizen as 'per order of this office dated 8
June 1960 CEBNO 4223-R'";
Exhibit "4", final order of the Court of First Instance of Quezon, dated November 28,
1960, in Special Proceedings No. 3925, ordering the Municipal Treasurer of Macalelon,
Quezon, to correct the entry in the Registry of Birth book of the municipality by changing
respondent's nationality from "Chinese" to "Filipino";
Exhibit "5", respondent's affidavit dated October 7, 1961 showing him to be a registered
voter of Macalelon, Quezon;
Exhibit "6", respondent's passport issued on March 5, 1962, showing that he is a citizen
of the Philippines;
Exhibit "7", opinion of the Solicitor General, dated July 25, 1962, recognizing respondent
Florencio Mallare as a Filipino citizen;
Exhibit "L", landing certificate of Te Na (respondent's mother), dated July 7, 1926,
wherein she was certified as "wife of P.I. citizen";
Exhibit "K-9", certification by the municipal treasurer of Macalelon, Quezon that Esteban
Mallare was registered in the Registry List of Voters on April 14, 1928; and
The entry in the baptismal registry of the Immaculate Concepcion Church at Macalelon,
Quezon, purporting to show that Esteban Mallare was the natural child of Ana Mallare, a
Filipina.

Respondent also presented the following residents of Macalelon, Quezon:

(a) Damiana Cabangon, 80 years old who declared that she was with her mother, the
"hilot" who attended to Ana Mallare during her delivery, when Esteban Mallare was born;
1
that she was present when Esteban was baptized; 2 that Ana Mallare had lived
continuously in Macalelon and was reputed to be unmarried; 3 that she had never met
(seen) Esteban's father, a certain Mr. Dy. 4
(b) Rafael Catarroja 77 years old and former mayor of Macalelon who declared that he
knew Esteban Mallare even as a child; 5 that Esteban was then living with his mother,

11
Ana Mallare, a Tagala, who was cohabiting with a Chinese; 6 that Esteban started voting
in 1934, and became one of his (the witness') campaign leaders when he ran for the
mayor ship in 1934. 7
(c) Salomon Gimenez, 75 years old and former mayor of Macalelon, who declared having
known Esteban Mallare; that in the elections of l925, when Esteban campaigned for a
rival candidate against him, he (the witness) wanted to seek for Esteban's
disqualification; that he sought the counsel of Judge Gaudencio Eleazar (a relative of the
witness), who advised him that a disqualification move would not prosper because
Esteban's mother was not married to Esteban's Chinese father; 8 that as of 1940, when
witness was municipal mayor, there were only about 3,000 residents in Macalelon. 9
(d) Joaquin Enobal, 69 years old, who declared that he was a classmate and playmate of
Esteban Mallare, whose house was only about five houses away from theirs; 10 that he
had not seen the husband of Ana Mallare; 11 that Ana was a Tagalog who had lived in
Macalelon. 12

In Our decision of April 29, 1968, respondent's claim that he is a Filipino was
denied for lack of evidence proving the Philippine citizenship of his father, Esteban
Mallare. It was ruled that Ana Mallare (Esteban's mother) can not be considered a
Filipino, there being no proof that she was "an inhabitant of the Philippines
continuing to reside therein who was a Spanish subject on the eleventh day of April,
eighteen hundred and ninety-nine"; that the landing certificate issued by the Bureau
of Immigration which referred to respondent's mother, Te Na, as "wife of Dy
Esteban, P.I. citizen", was based upon an ex parte determination of the evidence
presented by therein applicant and consequently carries little evidentiary weight as
to the citizenship of her said husband; and that the affidavit of Esteban Mallare,
executed on February 20, 1939, to the effect that he had chosen to follow the
citizenship of his Filipino mother was not only self-serving, but also it can not be
considered a re-affirmation of the alleged election of citizenship since no previous
election of such citizenship has been proved to exist.
With the additional evidence submitted by respondent pursuant to the
authority granted by this Court, the aforementioned void in the proof of
respondent's citizenship has been duly filled.
The witnesses, all natives of Macalelon, who had personal knowledge of the
person, birth and residency of both Ana Mallare and her son Esteban, were one in
their declaration that Ana Mallare is a Tagalog who had continuously resided in the
place, and that Esteban, her son, was reputedly born out of wedlock. Such
declarations constitute admissible evidence of the birth and illegitimacy of Esteban
Mallare. Reputation has been held admissible as evidence of age, birth, race, or
race-ancestry, and on the question of whether a child was born alive. Unlike that of
matters of pedigree, general reputation of marriage may proceed from persons who

12
are not members of the family the reason for the distinction is the public interest
that is taken in the question of the existence of marital relations. 13
The principle could not have been more true than in a Philippine rural
community where relationships not in conformity with established contentions
become the subject of criticisms and public cynosure. Thus, the public reputation in
Macalelon that Esteban was Ana's natural child, testified to by the witness, would
constitute proof of the illegitimacy of the former. Besides, if Estaban were really
born out of legal union, it is highly improbable that he would be keeping the
surname "Mallare" after his mother, instead of adopting that of his father. And it
would be straining the imagination to perceive that this situation was purposedly
sought by Esteban's parents to suit some ulterior motives. In 1903, we can not
concede that alien inhabitants of his country were that sophisticated or legallyoriented.
The assertion of the witnesses, which have not been controverted, that Ana
Mallare is a Tagalog (and, therefore, a Filipino citizen), cannot be assailed as being
mere conclusions devoid of evidentiary value. The declarations were not only based
on the reputation in the community regarding her race or race-ancestry, which is
admissible in evidence, but they must have certain factual basis. For it must be
realized that in this Philippine society, every region possesses certain characteristics
all its own. Thus, a Tagalog would normally detect if a person hails from the same
region even from the way the latter speaks. Considering that the witnesses testified
having known, and lived with, Ana Mallare in Macalelon, their declaration that she is
a Tagalog should receive a high degree of credibility.
Esteban Mallare, natural child of Ana Mallare, a Filipina, is therefore himself a
Filipino, and no other act would be necessary to confer on him all the rights and
privileges attached to Philippine citizenship (U.S. vs. Ong Tianse, 29 Phil. 332;
Santos Co vs. Government of the Philippine Islands, 42 Phil. 543; Serra vs. Republic,
L-4223, May 12, 1952; Sy Quimsuan vs. Republic, L-4693, Feb. 16, 1953; Pitallano
vs. Republic, L-5111, June 28, 1954). Neither could any act taken on the erroneous
belief that he is a non-Filipino divest him of the citizenship privileges to which he is
rightfully entitled. 14
And even assuming arguendo that Ana Mallare were legally married to an
alien, Esteban's exercise of the right of suffrage when he came of age, constitutes a
positive act of election of Philippine citizenship. It has been established that Esteban
Mallare was a registered voter as of April 14, 1928 (Exh. "K-9"), and that as early as
1925 (when he was about 22 years old), Esteban was already participating in the
elections and campaigning for certain candidate. These acts are sufficient to show
his preference for Philippine citizenship. 15 Indeed, it would be unfair to expect the
presentation of a formal deed to that effect considering that prior to the enactment
of Commonwealth Act 625 on June 7, 1941, no particular proceeding was required to

13
exercise the option to elect Philippine citizenship, granted to the proper party by
Section 1, subsection 4, Article IV of the 1935 Philippine Constitution.
It is true that in the death certificate of Esteban Mallare (Exh. "C"), he was
referred to as a Chinese national, and in the birth certificates of respondent and his
brothers and sister (Exhs. "D", "E", "F" and "G"), they were declared to be of
Chinese nationality. Respondent likewise appeared to have applied for alien
registration on August 25, 1950 (Exh. "N"). While said documents are public and the
entries therein are, consequently, presumed to be correct, such presumption is
merely disputable and will have to yield to more positive evidence establishing their
inaccuracy.
Artemio Mallare, Esteban's eldest son and who supposedly supplied the data
appearing in Exhibit "C", denied having any hand in the funeral arrangements and
the preparation of the said death certification of his father. He declared that he was
merely 16 years old when his father met his death in an accident in 1945, and he
came to know of it only when he was brought to the funeral parlor on the following
day. 16 The entries in the birth certificates (Exhs. "D", "E", and "G"), on the other
hand, appeared to have been prepared upon information given by the nurse or
midwife who attended to respondent's mother during her deliveries and who would
have no knowledge of the actual fact of the place of birth and the citizenship of
Esteban, the father; and in the case of respondent Florencio Mallare, the informant
was neither his father or mother; it was Maria Arana a "hilot". In the case of the
birth certificate of Esperanza Mallare (Exh. "F"), the informant appeared to be
Esteban Mallare himself. It is noted, however, that no proof has been presented to
show that it was Esteban Mallare who personally gave the information that the
child's and parents' nationality is Chinese. And any error on his part can not affect
respondent Florencio Mallare. With respect to the registration of respondent as a
citizen of China in 1950 (Exh. "N"), it was explained that this was secured by
respondent's mother, on the belief that upon the death of her husband, Esteban
Mallare, she and her children reverted to Chinese citizenship. At any rate, even
assuming that said documents were prepared with actual knowledge and consent
by respondent or by his parents, on the erroneous belief that Esteban was a nonFilipino, such acts would not cause the loss or forfeiture of Philippine citizenship 17
which Esteban acquired from his Filipino mother.
Complainant places much emphasis on the convicting testimonies of the
expert witnesses on the entry in the baptismal registry of the Immaculate
Concepcion church. The discrepancy in the testimonies of said witnesses, however,
loses significance in the face of the finding, based on other evidence that Esteban
Mallare is the natural child of Ana Mallare, born to her in 1903 at Macalelon,
Quezon.

14
Upon the foregoing considerations, and on the basis of the original and
additional evidence herein adduced the decision of this Court dated April 29, 1968,
is hereby definitely set aside, and the complaint in this case is DISMISSED, without
pronouncement as to costs.
Makalintal, C.J., Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Antonio,
Esguerra, Muoz Palma and Aquino, JJ., concur.
Makasiar, J., took no part.

Footnotes
1 T.s.n., p. 3, Hearing of September 14, 1971.
2 p. 8, id.
3 T.s.n., pp. 4-5, Hearing of September 14, 1971.
4 p. 7, id.
5 T.s.n., p. 2, Hearing of October 26, 1971.
6 Id., pp. 3, 9.
7 Id., p.3.
8 T.s.n., pp. 3-4, Hearing of December 1, 1971.
9 Id., p. 8.
10 T.s. n., p. 2, Hearing of March 2, 1972.
11 Id., p. 3.
12 Id., pp. 3-9.
13 Vol. 9, Am. Jur., Proof of Facts Anno, pp. 3-4.
14 Palanca vs. Republic, 80 Phil. 578.
15 Opinion No. 328, s. 1940, of the Secretary of Justice.
16 T.s.n., pp. 34, Hearing of September 28, 1971.
17 Palanca vs. Republic, supra.