Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1951 > July 1951 Decisions > G.R. No. L-3323 July 18, 1951 - IN RE: JACK J. BERMONT v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

089 Phil 479:



[G.R. No. L-3323. July 18, 1951.]

In the matter of the petition for naturalization of JACK J. BERMONT; JACK J. BERMONT, Petitioner-Appellee, v. THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Oppositor-Appellant.

First Assistant Solicitor General Roberto A. Gianzon and Solicitor Florencio Villamor for oppositor and Appellant.

Laurel, Sabido, Almario & Laurel for petitioner and appellee.


ALIENS; NATURALIZATION; CITIZENSHIP; STATELESS PERSONS. — White Russian refugee who has permanently abandoned the land of his birth and adopted the Philippines as his home and identified himself with its people, and whose alien certificate of registration describes him as a stateless Russian, may be granted Philippine citizenship (Kookooritchkin v. Republic, 46 Off. Gaz., Supp. to No. 1, pp. 217, 225-227).



This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of First Instance of Manila, granting Jack J. Bermont’s petition for Philippine citizenship.

The trial court found and the finding is amply supported by evidence that petitioner was born in Nikolavesk, Amur, Siberia, on March 1, 1912; that during the Russian revolution, when he was barely 6 years old, his parents, who were both White Russians, fled from Russia, taking him along with them, and settled in Japan where they resided for more than 10 years; that in 1930 they moved to Shanghai and there he studied at St. Joseph’s College of the Christian Brothers and at the Shanghai American School; that his father died in Shanghai in July, 1948, but his mother was still living and was in Japan; that petitioner came to the Philippines in January, 1935, with the intention of proceeding to Australia, but finding this country to his liking he obtained permission to remain and had since then resided here continuously; that he never took oath of allegiance to the Soviet Government and considered himself stateless; that he mingled with the Filipinos and married a Filipina and had a child by her (now two according to counsel’s brief); that he had worked for Bobcock & Co. and Heacock & Co. and in the lumber concession of Jose Cauwenbergh, and was at the time of the hearing a stockholder and director of the United States — Philippine Reconstruction Corporation with an emolument of P1,600 a month; that he could speak and write English and possessed a working knowledge of Tagalog, Spanish, and Cuyonon, a dialect spoken in Palawan; that he believed in the principles underlying the Philippine constitution and was opposed to communistic government; that he was of good repute and morally irreproachable, as certified to by Attys. Jesus T. Paredes and Arsenio S. Lacson; that he was not opposed to organized government nor was he affiliated to any subversive organization; that during the last war he was an active member of the guerrilla forces in Palawan under Major Pablo Muyco and was later attached to the Allied Intelligence Bureau (U. S. A. Task Force, Team No. 017) in Palawan, and that as a result of his activities in the underground movement he became entitled to two medals of honor and two unit citations, as certified to by General Macario Peralta; that he had not been convicted of any crime and was not suffering from any contagious disease. It does not appear that he has those shortcomings which would make a person unfit for Philippine citizenship, and he states under oath that if he is made a citizen of this country, he will uphold and defend its Constitution and laws and take up arms, if necessary, in its defense, like he did in the last war.

The Solicitor General contends that the lower court erred in finding petitioner to be a stateless person and not a Russian citizen and in not finding that he has failed to establish that in his country Filipinos are permitted to acquire Russian citizenship. The same contention was made in the case of Kremes Kookooritchken v. Republic of the Philippines * (46 Off. Gaz., Supp. No. 1, 217, 225-227), in which the petitioner was also a White Russian, being one of the 1,200 Russian Refugees who, under the command of one Admiral Stark, fled from the bolshevik regime and entered the Philippines in 1923. Overruling the contention of the Solicitor General, this Court said in that

"It is contended that petitioner failed to show that under the laws of Russia, appellee has lost his Russian citizenship and failed to show that Russia grants to Filipinos the right to become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof. The controversy centers on the question as to whether petitioner is a Russian citizen or is stateless.

"Petitioner testified categorically that he is not a Russian citizen and that he has no citizenship. His testimony supports the lower court’s pronouncement that petitioner is a stateless refugee in this country.

"Appellant points out that petitioner stated in his petition for naturalization that he is citizen or subject of the Empire of Russia, but the Empire of Russia has ceased to exist since the Czars were overthrown in 1917 by the Bolshevists, and petitioner disclaims allegiance or connection with the Soviet Government established after the overthrow of the Czarist Government.

"We do not believe that the lower court, erred in pronouncing appellee stateless. Appellee’s testimony, besides being uncontradicted, is supported by the well-known fact that the ruthlessness of modern dictatorships has scattered throughout the world a large number of stateless refugees or displaced persons, without country and without flag. The tyrannical intolerance of said dictatorships toward all opposition induced them to resort to beastly oppression, concentration camps and blood purges, and it is only natural that the not-so-fortunate ones who were able to escape to foreign countries should feel the loss of all bonds of attachment to the hells which were formerly their fatherland’s. Petitioner belongs to that group of stateless refugees.

"Knowing, as all cultured persons all over the world ought to know, the history, nature and character of the Soviet dictatorship, presently the greatest menace to humanity and civilization, it would be technically fastidious to require further evidence of petitioner’s claim that he is stateless than his testimony that he owes no allegiance to the Russian Communist government and, because he has been at war with it, he fled from Russia to permanently reside in the Philippines. After finding in this country economic security in a remunerative job, establishing a family by marrying a Filipina with whom he has a son, and enjoying for 25 years the freedoms and blessings of our democratic way of life, and after showing his resolution to retain the happiness he found in our political system to the extent of refusing to claim Russian citizenship even to secure our people by joining the fortunes and misfortunes of our guerrillas, it would be beyond comprehension to support that the petitioner could feel any bond of attachment to the Soviet dictatorship."cralaw virtua1aw library

The Solicitor General insists that in the present case the record does not support the claim that the petitioner is a stateless person. But there is no denying the fact that, like Kremes Kookooritchken, herein petitioner is a White Russian refugee, who has permanently abandoned the land of his birth and adopted the Philippines as his home and identified himself with its people. His alien certificate of registration describes him as a stateless Russian. If Kookooritchken was held entitled to Philippine citizenship, it does not seem fair that the same consideration should not be extended to the present petitioner, who has presented an even stronger case because he has by deeds shown his loyalty to this country and its ideals and his fitness to become one of its citizens.

In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is affirmed, without special pronouncement as to costs.

Paras, C. F., Feria, Pablo, Bengzon, Padilla, Tuason, Montemayor and Jugo, JJ., concur.


* 81 Phil., 435.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line :

July-1951 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-3084 July 6, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO SANCHEZ

    089 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. L-3885 July 9, 1951 - FELISA BASA VDA. DE CONCEPCION v. JOSE R. SANTOS

    089 Phil 429

  • G.R. No. L-3757 July 12, 1951 - CARLOS A. MONTILLA v. FRANCISCO ARELLANO

    089 Phil 434


    089 Phil 439

  • G.R. No. L-3433 July 16, 1951 - LEON BORLAZA v. GREGORIO RAMOS

    089 Phil 464

  • G.R. No. L-4403 July 17, 1951 - WISE & COMPANY v. PRICE STABILIZATION CORP.

    089 Phil 469

  • G.R. No. L-3018 July 18, 1951 - IN RE: ROBERT CU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    089 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. L-3323 July 18, 1951 - IN RE: JACK J. BERMONT v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    089 Phil 479

  • G.R. No. L-3900 July 18, 1951 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. LEON SAMIA

    089 Phil 483

  • G.R. No. L-3233 July 23, 1951 - IN RE: UY CHIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    089 Phil 489

  • G.R. No. L-3278 July 28, 1951 - TEODORO TANDA v. NARCISO N. ALDAYA

    089 Phil 497

  • G.R. No. L-2654 July 24, 1951 - EUGENIO LIRIO v. PHILIPPINE POWER AND DEV. CO.

    089 Phil 504

  • G.R. No. L-3400 July 24, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CIPRIANO CAMAY

    089 Phil 509

  • G.R. No. L-4706 July 24, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PASCASIO VILLASCO

    089 Phil 512


    089 Phil 516

  • G.R. No. L-3647 July 26, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANASTASIO ESCARRO

    089 Phil 520

  • G.R. Nos. L-2953 & L-4033 July 27, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORENZO ASESOR Y JONES

    089 Phil 525

  • G.R. No. L-3397 July 27, 1951 - BASILIO AQUINO v. JOSE G. SANVICTORES

    089 Phil 532

  • G.R. No. L-3928 July 27, 1951 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO YSIP

    089 Phil 535

  • G.R. No. L-4205 July 27, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUPERTO METRAN

    089 Phil 543

  • G.R. No. L-3467 July 30, 1951 - BASILIA VALDEZ v. MARCELO PINEDA

    089 Phil 547

  • G.R. No. L-3479 July 30, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUFRACIO IRINCO

    089 Phil 555


    089 Phil 560


    089 Phil 562

  • G.R. No. L-3981 July 30, 1951 - PHIL. ALIEN PROPERTY ADM. v. OSCAR CASTELO

    089 Phil 568

  • G.R. No. L-4583 July 30, 1951 - CONCHITA COINCO v. RAMON R. SAN JOSE

    089 Phil 578

  • G.R. Nos. L-2152 & L-2153 July 31, 1951 - SIMEONA N. DE CASTRO v. JOSE G. LONGA

    089 Phil 581

  • G.R. No. L-2432 July 31, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FILOMENO DALIGDIG

    089 Phil 598

  • G.R. No. L-2578 July 31, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LADISLAO BACOLOD

    089 Phil 621

  • G.R. No. L-2611 July 31, 1951 - ALEJANDRO KEYSER TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

    089 Phil 624

  • G.R. No. L-3439 July 31, 1951 - ALEJANDRO SAMSON v. AGAPITO B. ANDAL

    089 Phil 627

  • G.R. No. L-3455 July 31, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SOTERO ULIP

    089 Phil 629

  • G.R. No. L-3519 July 31, 1951 - TOMASA AREVALO v. ROBERTO A. BARRETO

    089 Phil 633

  • G.R. No. L-3597 July 31, 1951 - TEODORO LANDIG v. U. S. COMMERCIAL CO.

    089 Phil 638

  • G.R. No. L-3601 July 31, 1951 - UY HOO AND COMPANY v. JOAQUIN C. YUSECO

    089 Phil 644

  • G.R. No. L-3766 July 31, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELICERIO TAN

    089 Phil 647

  • G.R. No. L-3775 July 31, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HOSPICIO LABATA

    089 Phil 661

  • G.R. No. L-3822 July 31, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO FELICIANO

    089 Phil 664


    089 Phil 668

  • G.R. Nos. L-4517-20 July 31, 1951 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GODOFREDO ROMERO

    089 Phil 672


    089 Phil 678