G.R. No.

L-7011             October 30, 1912

TRANQUILINO ROA, petitioner-appellant, vs.INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, respondent-
appellee.

Facts:
Tranquilino Roa, was born in the town of Luculan, Mindanao, Philippine Islands, on July 6, 1889. His
father was Basilio 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.

Issue:
Whether or not Tranquilino Roa was a citizen of the Philippine Islands by birth?

Ruling:
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.
The United States follow the principle of Jus Soli or citizenship by place of birth.
Basis:
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
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 of 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.”
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 American instead of Spanish.
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. 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 as 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.