006Davidv.

Agbay
[G.R.No.199113,March18,2015]
TOPIC:Retroactivityoflaws
PONENTE:VILLARAMA,JR.,J.

AUTHOR:Faye
NOTES:(ifapplicable)

FACTS:(chronologicalorder)
1.
2.

3.
4.
5.

6.
7.
8.

In1974,petitionerbecameaCanadiancitizenbynaturalization.Upontheirretirement,petitionerandhiswifereturnedtothe
Philippines.Sometimein2000,theypurchasedalotalongthebeachinTambong,Gloria,OrientalMindor.However,intheyear
2004,theycametoknowthattheportionwheretheybuilttheirhouseispubliclandandpartofthesalvagezone.
OnApril12,2007,petitionerfiledaMiscellaneousLeaseApplication(MLA)overthesubjectlandwiththeDepartmentof
EnvironmentandNaturalResources(DENR)attheCommunityEnvironmentandNaturalResourcesOffice(CENRO)inSocorro.
Inthesaidapplication,petitionerindicatedthatheisaFilipinocitizen.
PrivaterespondentEdithaA.Agbayopposedtheapplicationonthegroundthatpetitioner,aCanadiancitizen,isdisqualifiedto
ownland.ShealsofiledacriminalcomplaintforfalsificationofpublicdocumentsunderArticle172oftheRevisedPenal
Codeagainstthepetitioner.
Meanwhile,onOctober11,2007,whilepetitionersMLAwaspending,petitionerreacquiredhisFilipinocitizenshipunderthe
provisionsofR.A.9225asevidencedbyIdentificationCertificateNo.2661007issuedbytheConsulateGeneralofthe
Philippines(Toronto).
Inhisdefense,petitioneraverredthatatthetimehefiledhisapplication,hehadintendedtoreacquirePhilippinecitizenshipand
thathehadbeenassuredbyaCENROofficerthathecoulddeclarehimselfasaFilipino.Hefurtherallegedthatheboughtthe
propertyfromtheAgbayswhomisrepresentedtohimthatthesubjectpropertywastitledlandandtheyhavetherightandauthority
toconveythesame.Thedisputehadinfactledtotheinstitutionofcivilandcriminalsuitsbetweenhimandprivaterespondents
family.
OnJanuary8,2008,theOfficeoftheProvincialProsecutorissueditsResolutionfindingprobablecausetoindictpetitionerfor
violationofArticle172oftheRPCandrecommendingthefilingofthecorrespondinginformationincourt.Petitionerchallenged
thesaidresolutioninapetitionforreviewhefiledbeforetheDepartmentofJustice(DOJ).
OnJune3,2008,theCENROissuedanorderrejectingpetitionersMLA.Itruledthatpetitionerssubsequentreacquisition
ofPhilippinecitizenshipdidnotcurethedefectinhisMLAwhichwasvoidabinitio.
PetitionerarguedthatonceanaturalbornFilipinocitizenwhohadbeennaturalizedinanothercountryreacquireshiscitizenship
underR.A.9225,hisFilipinocitizenshipisthusdeemednottohavebeenlostonaccountofsaidnaturalization.

ISSUE(S):WhetherornotpetitionermaybeindictedforfalsificationforrepresentinghimselfasaFilipinoinhisPublicLand
ApplicationdespitehissubsequentreacquisitionofPhilippinecitizenshipundertheprovisionsofR.A.9225
HELD:NO.
RATIO:
R.A.9225,otherwiseknownastheCitizenshipRetentionandReacquisitionActof2003,wassignedintolawbyPresidentGloria
MacapagalArroyoonAugust29,2003.Sections2and3ofsaidlawread:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SEC.2.DeclarationofPolicy.ItisherebydeclaredthepolicyoftheStatethatallPhilippinecitizenswhobecomecitizensofanother
countryshall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under the conditions of this Act.
SEC. 3.Retention of Philippine Citizenship.Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, naturalborn citizens of the
PhilippineswhohavelosttheirPhilippinecitizenshipbyreasonoftheirnaturalizationascitizensofaforeigncountryarehereby
deemed to havereacquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the following oath of allegiance to the
Republic.nRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
NaturalborncitizensofthePhilippineswho,aftertheeffectivityofthisAct,becomecitizensofaforeigncountryshallretaintheir
Philippinecitizenshipupontakingtheaforesaidoath.(Emphasissupplied)
WhileSection2declaresthegeneralpolicythatFilipinoswhohavebecomecitizensofanothercountryshallbedeemednottohave
losttheirPhilippinecitizenship,suchisqualifiedbythephraseundertheconditionsofthisAct.Section3laysdownsuch
conditionsfortwocategoriesofnaturalbornFilipinosreferredtointhefirstandsecondparagraphs.Underthefirstparagrapharethose
naturalbornFilipinoswhohavelosttheircitizenshipbynaturalizationinaforeigncountrywhoshallreacquiretheirPhilippine
citizenshipupontakingtheoathofallegiancetotheRepublicofthePhilippines.Thesecondparagraphcoversthosenaturalborn

FilipinoswhobecameforeigncitizensafterR.A.9225tookeffect,whoshallretaintheirPhilippinecitizenshipupontakingthesame
oath.ThetakingofoathofallegianceisrequiredforbothcategoriesofnaturalbornFilipinocitizenswhobecamecitizensofaforeign
country,buttheterminologyusedisdifferent,reacquiredforthefirstgroup,andretainforthesecondgroup.
ThelawthusmakesadistinctionbetweenthosenaturalbornFilipinoswhobecameforeigncitizensbefore(firstgroup)and
after(secondgroup)theeffectivityofR.A.9225.AlthoughtheheadingofSection3isRetentionofPhilippineCitizenship,the
authorsofthelawintentionallyemployedthetermsreacquireandretaintodescribethelegaleffectoftakingtheoathof
allegiancetotheRepublicofthePhilippines.Thisisalsoevidentfromthetitleofthelawusingbothreacquisitionandretention.
Infine,forthosewhowerenaturalizedinaforeigncountry,theyshallbedeemedtohavereacquiredtheirPhilippinecitizenshipwhich
waslostpursuanttoCA63,underwhichnaturalizationinaforeigncountryisoneofthewaysbywhichPhilippinecitizenshipmaybe
lost.
InthecaseofthosewhobecameforeigncitizensafterR.A.9225tookeffect,theyshallretainPhilippinecitizenshipdespitehaving
acquiredforeigncitizenshipprovidedtheytooktheoathofallegianceunderthenewlaw.
ThatthelawdistinguishesbetweenreacquisitionandretentionofPhilippinecitizenshipwasmadeclearinthediscussionofthe
BicameralConferenceCommittee,whereinthefollowingwasexplained:
ThereacquisitionwillapplytothosewholosttheirPhilippinecitizenshipbyvirtueofCommonwealthAct63Thesecond
aspectistheretentionofPhilippinecitizenshipapplyingtofutureinstanceseacquiredforthosewhopreviouslylost[Filipino
citizenship]byvirtueofCommonwealthAct63,andretentionforthoseinthefuture.
ConsideringthatpetitionerwasnaturalizedasaCanadiancitizenpriortotheeffectivityofR.A.9225,hebelongstothefirst
categoryofnaturalbornFilipinosunderthefirstparagraphofSection3wholostPhilippinecitizenshipbynaturalizationina
foreigncountry.
PetitionermadetheuntruthfulstatementintheMLA,apublicdocument,thatheisaFilipinocitizenatthetimeofthefilingofsaid
application,wheninfacthewasthenstillaCanadiancitizen.UnderCA63,thegoverninglawatthetimehewasnaturalizedas
Canadiancitizen,naturalizationinaforeigncountrywasamongthosewaysbywhichanaturalborncitizenloseshis
Philippinecitizenship.WhilehereacquiredPhilippinecitizenshipunderR.A.9225sixmonthslater,thefalsificationwas
alreadyaconsummatedact,thesaidlawhavingnoretroactiveeffectinsofarashisdualcitizenshipstatusisconcerned.The
MTCthereforedidnoterrinfindingprobablecauseforfalsificationofpublicdocumentunderArticle172,paragraph1.

CASELAW/DOCTRINE:
DISSENTING/CONCURRINGOPINION(S):