Is a foundling automatically a citizen in the Philippines?

Is a foundling a natural born

citizen? Is there a presumption in favor of foundlings being natural born citizens? Who
has the burden of proof and why?
While it is true that the 1935 constitution wherein the respondent’s status of citizenship is derived
thereof does not contain any provisions or is rather silent of the matter, it also does not, at the same
time, exclude them. A principle in Statutory Construction would guide us as to the matter that if there is
ambiguity in the construction of a statute , we must look at what is it that is intended by the framers as
so to determine the intent and policy. The 1934 Constitutional Convention have not stricken out the
matters of foundlings, and as a fact, contemplated on such issue. The following exchange took place:

Sr. Rafols:
For an amendment, I propose that after subsection 2, the following is
inserted: 'The natural children of a foreign father and a Filipino
mother not recognized by the father.'
El Presidente:
We would like to request a clarification from the proponent of the
amendment. The gentleman refers to natural children or to any kind
of illegitimate children?
Sr. Rafols:
To all kinds of illegitimate children. It also includes natural children of
unknown parentage, natural or illegitimate children of unknown
parents.
Sr. Montinola:
For clarification. The gentleman said 'of unknown parents.' Current codes
consider them Filipino, that is, I refer to the Spanish Code wherein
all children of unknown parentage born in Spanish territory are
considered Spaniards, because the presumption is that a child of
unknown parentage is the son of a Spaniard. This may be applied
in the Philippines in that a child of unknown parentage born in the
Philippines is deemed to be Filipino, and there is no need. . .
Sr. Rafols:
There is a need, because we are relating the conditions that are [required]
to be Filipino.
Sr. Montinola:
But that is the interpretation of the law, therefore, there is no need for the
amendment.
Sr. Rafols: cCHITA

The amendment should read thus: 'Natural or illegitimate of a foreign

father and a Filipino mother recognized by one, or the children of
unknown parentage.'
 Sr. Briones:
The amendment [should] mean children born in the Philippines of
unknown parentage.
Sr. Rafols:
The son of a Filipina to a foreigner, although this [person] does not
recognize the child, is not unknown.
El Presidente:
Does the gentleman accept the amendment or not?
Sr. Rafols:
I do not accept the amendment because the amendment would exclude
the children of a Filipina with a foreigner who does not recognize
the child. Their parentage is not unknown and I think those children
of overseas Filipino mother and father [whom the latter] does not
recognize, should also be considered as Filipinos.
El Presidente:
The question in order is the amendment to the amendment from the
gentleman from Cebu, Mr. Briones.
Mr. Bulson:
Mr. President, don't you think it would be better to leave this matter in the
hands of the Legislature?
Sr. Roxas:
Mr. President, my humble opinion is that these cases are few and far
between, that the constitution need [not] refer to them. By
international law the principle that children or people born in a
country of unknown parents are citizens in this nation is
recognized, and it is not necessary to include a provision on the
subject exhaustively.
As can be easily discern from the records, it was in the intention of the framers of the 1935
Constitution that there was no necessity to include a provision on the matter of foundlings for
reasons that, as applicable to current case and time, that the cases of foundlings were so few
and between, and that international law already recognizes children or people born in a
country of unknown parentage as citizens of that country. The Framers of the constitution
believed that the generally accepted principles of international law were already clear that
adding a provision was no longer needed. Further perusal of the records would show that there
is no further proposal by any of the delegates of the Constitutional Convention to deny
foundlings Filipino Citizenship.
The era lived by the framers was a time of progressivism and nationalism, it cannot be assumed
that the such patriots would assert a discriminatory intent against foundlings.
On the matter of proof, Section 1, Rule 131 of the Revised Rules on Evidence defines burden of
proof as “the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his
claim…. By the amount of evidence required by law.” As with this case, it is the burden of
evidence that shifts. That is why in Section 78 proceeding, if the petitioner would have a prima
facie case of material misrepresentation, the burden of evidence shifts to the respondent. That
is in this case, the respondent then had the burden to establish (1) falsity of the representations
made by the petitioner with regards to her citizenship and (2) an intent to deceive or mislead the
electorate. The respondent did not establish the falsity of petitioner’s claim that she was a
natural-born citizen. Since the intent of the framers was to brand foundlings as citizens of
where they are found in pursuant to the generally accepted principles of international law, then
the presumption of citizenship operated profoundly in the petitioner’s favor. Since the petitioner
is relying on such presumption, it cannot be deemed that she has intent for deception.