Moya Lim Yao vs.

Commisioner of Immigration

FACTS:

On February 8, 1961, Lau Yuen Yeung, a Chinese citizen, applied for a passport visa to enter the
Philippines as a non-immigrant, stating that she desired to take a pleasure trip to the Philippines to visit
a relative for a period of one month. She was permitted to stay in the Philippines from March 13, 1961
to April 13, 1961. A bond was filed in the amount of P1,000.00 to undertake that Lau Yuen Yeung would
depart from the Philippines on or before the expiration of her authorized period of stay or within the
period as the Commissioner of Immigration or his authorized representative might properly allow. After
repeated extensions, petitioner Lau Yuen Yeung was allowed to stay in the Philippines up to February
13, 1962. On January 25, 1962, she subsequently married Moy Ya Lim Yao, an alleged Filipino citizen.

After the expiration of her authorized stay, the Commissioner of Immigration ordered for the
confiscation of her bond, her arrest and immediate deportation. This prompted her to file an action for
injunction with preliminary injunction.

Lau Yuen Yeung, however, admitted that: (1) she could not write either English or Tagalog; (2) she could
not speak either English or Tagalog except for a few words; (3) she could not name any Filipino
neighbour with a Filipino name except a certain Rosa; and (4) she did not know the names of her
brothers-in-law or sisters-in-law.

ISSUE:

WON Lau Yuen Yeung shall be deemed as a citizen of the Philippines by virtue of her marriage with
Moya Lim Yao

HELD:

Yes. Section 15 of Commonwealth Act 473 provides that an alien woman marrying a Filipino, whether
native-born or naturalized, becomes ipso facto a Filipino provided that she does not have any of the
disqualifications provided under Section 4 of the same law. The court held that it is no longer necessary
for said alien to prove in a judicial proceeding that she has all of the qualifications. The foregoing also
applies to an alien woman married to an alien who is subsequently naturalized here follows the
Philippine citizenship of her husband the moment he takes his oath as a Filipino citizen. Hence, in the
present case, Lau Yuen Yeung was declared to have become a Filipino citizen from and by virtue of her
marriage to Moy Ya Lim Yao who is a Filipino citizen.

Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC

FACTS:

On March 23, 1995, Marcos filed her Certificate of Candidacy 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, then filed a Petition for Cancellation and Disqualification with the Commission on
Elections against Marcos, alleging that the latter did not meet the one-year residency requirement
under the Constitution being five months short of the required period. Montejo claimed that Marcos
was in fact a resident of Tolosa, Leyte and not of Tacloban, hence must be disqualified. Marcos
subsequently amended her Certificate of Candidacy, averring that the entry of the word "seven"
(months) in the original certificate was the result of an honest misrepresentation. Marcos contended
that she is domiciled in Tacloban, Leyte since childhood. She further asserted that she always intended
to return to Tacloban whenever absent and that she has never abandoned said place as her residency.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Imelda Marcos may be considered as a resident of Tacloban, Leyte

HELD:

Yes. Residence is used synonymously with domicile for election purposes. For one, the domicile of
origin of Marcos is Tacloban, Leyte and such may only be lost when there is actual removal or change of
domicile and an intention of abandoning it. It was also evident that she chose Tacloban as her domicile
of choice. It should also be noted that she obtained a residence certificate in 1992 in Tacloban, Leyte.
(ART. 50) (Domicile

Burca vs. Republic

FACTS:

Zita Ngo Burca was a Chinese citizen born in Gigaquit, Surigao who possessed a Native-born Certificate
of Residence and an Alien Certificate of Registration. On on May 14, 1961, she married Florencio Burca,
a Filipino citizen. Zita Ngo then petitioned for the cancellation of her Alien Registry with the Bureau of
Immigration by virtue of her marriage with Florencio Burca, claiming that she is eligible for
naturalization because she allegedly has all the qualifications required under Section 2 and none of the
disqualifications under Section 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 473.

ISSUE:

WON Zita Ngo Burca may be considered as a Filipino citizen by virtue of her marriage with Florencio
Burca

HELD:

No. The Supreme Court held that an alien woman married to a Filipino must first file a petition for
citizenship in the Court of First Instance where petitioner has resided at least one year immediately
preceding the filing of the petition, wherein she must declare that that she possesses all the
qualifications set forth in Section 2, and none of the disqualifications under Section 4, both of the
Revised Naturalization Law. While the Supreme Court considered the present petition as one for
naturalization, Zita Ngo failed to comply with two of the essential requirements needed for
naturalization.
Section 7 of the Naturalization Law requires that a petition for naturalization should state petitioner's
"present and former places of residence". Residence encompasses all places where petitioner actually
and physically resided. Zita Ngo, however, did not state that she resided in Cebu for one year. Moreover,
the petition is not supported by the affidavit of at least two credible witnesses, which is also necessary.

Starpaper vs. Simbol

FACTS:

Star Paper Corporation implemented a policy which provides that employees are not allowed to marry
each other. If such occasion arises, one of them should resign. Due to such policy, Ronaldo Simbol and
Wilfreda Comia, former employees of Star Paper, were forced to resign. Likewise, Lorna Estrella was also
prompted by Star Paper to resign on the ground of the former’s alleged immorality for getting pregnant
out of wedlock.

ISSUE:

WON the policy of Star Paper banning spouses from working in the same company violates the rights of
the employees.

HELD:

Duncan vs. Glaxo

FACTS:

ISSUE:

HELD: