G.R. No.

87193, 23 June 1989 [Naturalization; Reacquisition]

FACTS:
Juan G. Frivaldo was proclaimed governor of the province of Sorsogon and assumed office in due time. The League of
Municipalities filed with the COMELEC a petition for the annulment of Frivaldo on the ground that he was not a Filipino citizen,
having been naturalized in the United States.
Frivaldo admitted the allegations but pleaded the special and affirmative defenses that he was naturalized as American citizen only
to protect himself against President Marcos during the Martial Law era.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Frivaldo is a Filipino citizen.
RULING:
No. Section 117 of the Omnibus Election Code provides that a qualified voter must be, among other qualifications, a citizen of the
Philippines, this being an indispensable requirement for suffrage under Article V, Section 1, of the Constitution.
He claims that he has reacquired Philippine citizenship by virtue of valid repatriation. He claims that by actively participating in the
local elections, he automatically forfeited American citizenship under the laws of the United States of America. The Court stated that
that the alleged forfeiture was between him and the US. If he really wanted to drop his American citizenship, he could do so in
accordance with CA No. 63 as amended by CA No. 473 and PD 725. Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by direct act of
Congress, by naturalization, or by repatriation.

DOCKET
NO.
/
CASE
NO.: G.R.
DATE: October
4,
PETITIONERS APPELLANTS: Moy Ya Lim Yao alias Edilberto Aguinaldo
RESPONDENT APPELLEE: The Commission of Immigration

No.
Lim

and

Lau

L-21289
1971
Yuen Yeung

FACTS:
Plaintiff, a temporary alien visitor, whose authorized stay in the Philippines was to expire, claims herself to be lawfully
naturalized by virtue of her marriage with co plaintiff, a Filipino citizen. Solicitor General opposes on ther ground that the
mere marriage of a Filipino citizen to an alien does not automatically confer on the latter Philippine citizenship, because
record shows that the same does not possess all the qualifications required of applicants for naturalization
(Commonwealth Act No. 473) even if she has proven that she does not suffer any disqualification thereunder.
ISSUE:
Whether or not an alien who married a naturalized Filipino is lawfully naturalized.
HELD: Yes, an alien woman marrying a Filipino, native born or naturalized becomes ipso facto a Filipino provided she is
not disqualified to be citizen of the Philippines.
( Section 15 and 4 Commonwealth Act No. 473)

UYTENGSU vs. REPUBLIC Case Digest

UYTENGSU vs. REPUBLIC
95 P.R. 890
Facts: Petitioner-appellee was born, of Chinese parents, in Dumaguete, Negros Oriental on October 6, 1927, where he also
finished his primary and secondary education. He went to the United States, where, from 1947 to 1950, he was enrolled in the
Leland Stanford Junior University, in California. In April of the same year he returned to the Philippines for four (4) months vacation.
Then, to be exact, on July 15, 1950, his present application for naturalization was filed. Forthwith, he returned to the United States
and took a postgraduate course, in chemical engineering, in another educational institution. He finished this course in July 1951; but
did not return to the Philippines until October 13, 1951.

Petitioner contends, and the lower court held, that the word residence, as used in the aforesaid provision of the Naturalization Law,
is synonymous with domicile, which, once acquired, is not lost by physical absence, until another domicile is obtained, and that, from
1946 to 1951, he continued to be domiciled in, and hence a resident of the Philippines, his purpose in staying in the United States,
at that time, being, merely to study therein.
Issue: Whether or not the application for naturalization may be granted, notwithstanding the fact that petitioner left the Philippines
immediately after the filing of his petition and did not return until several months after the first date set for the hearing thereof.
Held: While, generally speaking, domicile and residence mean one and the same thing, residence combined with intention to
remain, constitutes domicile while an established abode, fixed permanently for a time for business or other purposes, constitutes a
residence, though there may be an intent, existing all the while, to return to the true domicile.
Where the petitioner left the Philippines immediately after the filing of his petition for naturalization and did not return until several
months after the first date set for the hearing thereof, notwithstanding his explicit promise, under oath, that he would reside
continuously in the Philippines from the date of the filing of his petition up to the time of his admission to Philippine citizenship, he
has not complied with the requirements of section 7 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, and, consequently, not entitled to a judgment in
his favor.

Romualdez-Marcos vs COMELEC
TITLE: Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC
CITATION: 248 SCRA 300
FACTS:
Imelda, a little over 8 years old, in or about 1938, established her domicile in Tacloban, Leyte where
she studied and graduated high school in the Holy Infant Academy from 1938 to 1949. She then
pursued her college degree, education, in St. Pauls College now Divine Word University also in
Tacloban. Subsequently, she taught in Leyte Chinese School still in Tacloban. She went to manila
during 1952 to work with her cousin, the late speaker Daniel Romualdez in his office in the House of
Representatives. In 1954, she married late President Ferdinand Marcos when he was still a
Congressman of Ilocos Norte and was registered there as a voter. When Pres. Marcos was elected as
Senator in 1959, they lived together in San Juan, Rizal where she registered as a voter. In 1965, when
Marcos won presidency, they lived in Malacanang Palace and registered as a voter in San Miguel
Manila. She served as member of the Batasang Pambansa and Governor of Metro Manila during 1978.
Imelda Romualdez-Marcos was running for the position of Representative of the First District of Leyte
for the 1995 Elections. Cirilo Roy Montejo, the incumbent Representative of the First District of Leyte
and also a candidate for the same position, filed a Petition for Cancellation and Disqualification" with
the Commission on Elections alleging that petitioner did not meet the constitutional requirement for
residency. The petitioner, in an honest misrepresentation, wrote seven months under residency, which
she sought to rectify by adding the words "since childhood" in her Amended/Corrected Certificate of
Candidacy filed on March 29, 1995 and that "she has always maintained Tacloban City as her domicile
or residence. She arrived at the seven months residency due to the fact that she became a resident of
the Municipality of Tolosa in said months.
ISSUE: Whether petitioner has satisfied the 1year residency requirement to be eligible in running as
representative of the First District of Leyte.
HELD:
Residence is used synonymously with domicile for election purposes. The court are in favor of a
conclusion supporting petitoners claim of legal residence or domicile in the First District of Leyte
despite her own declaration of 7 months residency in the district for the following reasons:
1. A minor follows domicile of her parents. Tacloban became Imeldas domicile of origin by operation
of law when her father brought them to Leyte;
2. Domicile of origin is only lost when there is actual removal or change of domicile, a bona fide
intention of abandoning the former residence and establishing a new one, and acts which correspond

with the purpose. In the absence and concurrence of all these, domicile of origin should be deemed to
continue.
3. A wife does not automatically gain the husbands domicile because the term residence in Civil
Law does not mean the same thing in Political Law. When Imelda married late President Marcos in
1954, she kept her domicile of origin and merely gained a new home and not domicilium necessarium.
4. Assuming that Imelda gained a new domicile after her marriage and acquired right to choose a new
one only after the death of Pres. Marcos, her actions upon returning to the country clearly indicated
that she chose Tacloban, her domicile of origin, as her domicile of choice. To add, petitioner even
obtained her residence certificate in 1992 in Tacloban, Leyte while living in her brothers house, an act,
which supports the domiciliary intention clearly manifested. She even kept close ties by establishing
residences in Tacloban, celebrating her birthdays and other important milestones.
WHEREFORE, having determined that petitioner possesses the necessary residence qualifications to
run for a seat in the House of Representatives in the First District of Leyte, the COMELEC's questioned
Resolutions dated April 24, May 7, May 11, and May 25, 1995 are hereby SET ASIDE. Respondent
COMELEC is hereby directed to order the Provincial Board of Canvassers to proclaim petitioner as the
duly elected Representative of the First District of Leyte.