BENGSON III VS.

HRET

G.R. No. 142840 May 7, 2001

FACTS:

Petitioner Antonio Bengzon III and respondent Teodoro C. Cruz was political rivals for the position of Representative
of the Second District of Pangasina in May 1998 Election.

Respondent was a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. He was born in San Clemente, Tarlac, on April 27, 1960, of
Filipino parents. However, respondent Cruz enlisted in the United States Marine Corps and, without the consent of
the Republic of the Philippines, took an oath of allegiance to the United States. As a consequence, he lost his Filipino
citizenship for under Commonwealth Act No. 63, Section 1(4), a Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship by, among
others, "rendering service to or accepting commission in the armed forces of a foreign country." Then, in on June 5,
1990, he was naturalized as US Citizen in connection with his service in the U.S. Marine Corps.

On March 17, 1994, respondent Cruz reacquired his Philippine citizenship through repatriation under Republic Act
No. 2630. He ran for and was elected as the Representative of the Second District of Pangasinan in the May 11, 1998
elections.

Subsequently, petitioner Antonio Bengson III filed a case for Quo Warranto Ad Cautelam with respondent House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) claiming that respondent Cruz was not qualified to become a member of
the House of Representatives since he is not a natural-born citizen as required under Article VI, Section 6 of the
Constitution.

HRET rendered its decision dismissing the petition for quo warranto and declaring respondent Cruz the duly elected
Representative of the Second District of Pangasinan. Likewise, HRET dismissed the petition for motion for
reconsideration.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent Cruz, a natural-born Filipino who became an American citizen, can still be considered a
natural-born Filipino upon his reacquisition of Philippine citizenship.

RULING:

Yes, respondent Cruz is a natural-born citizen. He has not required by law to go through naturalization proceedings in
order to reacquire his citizenship, he is perform a natural born Filipino. He possessed all the necessary qualifications
to be elected as member of the House of Representatives.
Natural-born citizens “are those citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire
or perfect his Philippine citizenship.” On the other hand, naturalized citizens are those who have become Filipino
citizens through naturalization, generally under Commonwealth Act No. 473, otherwise known as the Revised
Naturalization Law, which repealed the former Naturalization Law (Act No. 2927), and by Republic Act No. 530.11
To be naturalized, an applicant has to prove that he possesses all the qualifications12 and none of the disqualification.

Petition was DISMMISSED.

CO vs. HRET

GR No. 92191-92 July 30, 1991

FACTS:

Petitioner Antonio Co ran for Congressman of the 2nd District of Samar. Private respondent Jose Ong, Jr.
was declared winner. Although Ongs’ mother is a natural born-Filipina, his father was only naturalized as
a Filipino when the respondent was already nine years old. Given these facts, petitioner contends that Ong
is not a natural-born Filipino citizen and therefore disqualified from being elected Congressman.

ISSUE: Whether or not Ong is a natural-born Filipino citizen.

RULING:

Yes.

Section 15 of the Revised Naturalization Act squarely applies its benefit to him for he was then a minor
residing in this country. Concededly, it was the law itself that had already elected Philippine citizenship for
Ong by declaring him as such.

HRET affirms that respondent is a natural born Filipino and a resident of Laoang, Northern Samar. The
respondent traces his natural born citizenship through his mother, not through the citizenship of his father.
The citizenship of the father is relevant only to determine whether or not the respondent "chose" to be a
Filipino when he came of age. At that time and up to the present, both mother and father were Filipinos.
Respondent Ong could not have elected any other citizenship unless he first formally renounced Philippine
citizenship in favor of a foreign nationality. Unlike other persons faced with a problem of election, there
was no foreign nationality of his father which he could possibly have chosen. The Court affirmed the
decision of HRET that respondent is a natural born Filipino and a resident of Laoang, Northern Samar.

The respondent traces his natural born citizenship through his mother, not through the citizenship of his
father. The citizenship of the father is relevant only to determine whether or not the respondent "chose" to
be a Filipino when he came of age. At that time and up to the present, both mother and father were Filipinos.
Respondent Ong could not have elected any other citizenship unless he first formally renounced Philippine
citizenship in favor of a foreign nationality. Unlike other persons faced with a problem of election, there
was no foreign nationality of his father which he could possibly have chosen.
Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner of Immigration
GR No. L-21289 October 4, 1971

FACTS:
Lau Yuen Yeung, an alien visiting the Philippines, whose authorized stay in the Philippines was to expire,
claims herself to be lawfully naturalized upon her marriage to a Filipino citizen. Solicitor General opposes
the ground that the marriage of the alien to a Filipino citizen does not automatically confer on the latter
Philippine citizenship. Plaintiff-appellant does not possess all the qualifications required for applicant for
naturalization (CA 473), even she has proven that she possesses none of the disqualifications in said law.
ISSUE:

Whether or not Lau Yuen Yeung ipso facto became a Filipino citizen upon her marriage to a Filipino
citizen.

RULING:
Yes.

Under Section 15 of Commonwealth Act 473, an alien woman marrying a Filipino, native born or
naturalized, becomes ipso facto a Filipina provided she is not disqualified to be a citizen of the Philippines
under Section 4 of the same law.

Likewise, 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 Filipino citizen, provided that she does not suffer
from any of the disqualifications under said Section 4.

Whether the alien woman requires to undergo the naturalization proceedings, Section 15 is a parallel
provision to Section 16.

Thus, if the widow of an applicant for naturalization as Filipino, who dies during the proceedings, is not
required to go through a naturalization proceedings, in order to be considered as a Filipino citizen hereof,
it should follow that the wife of a living Filipino cannot be denied the same privilege
Lau Yuen Yeung applied for a passport visa to enter the Philippines as a non-immigrant on 8 February 1961.

In the interrogation made in connection with her application for a temporary visitor's visa to enter the Philippines, she
stated that she was a Chinese residing at Kowloon, Hongkong, and that she desired to take a pleasure trip to the
Philippines to visit her great grand uncle, Lau Ching Ping.

She was permitted to come into the Philippines on 13 March 1961 for a period of one month.

On the date of her arrival, Asher Y. Cheng filed a bond in the amount of P1,000.00 to undertake, among others, that
said Lau Yuen Yeung would actually depart from the Philippines on or before the expiration of her authorized period
of stay in this country or within the period as in his discretion the Commissioner of Immigration or his authorized
representative might properly allow

After repeated extensions, Lau Yuen Yeung was allowed to stay in the Philippines up to 13 February 1962.

On 25 January 1962, she contracted marriage with Moy Ya Lim Yao alias Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim an alleged Filipino
citizen.

Because of the contemplated action of the Commissioner of Immigration to confiscate her bond and order her arrest
and immediate deportation, after the expiration of her authorized stay, she brought an action for injunction.

At the hearing which took place one and a half years after her arrival, it was admitted that Lau Yuen Yeung could not
write and speak either English or Tagalog, except for a few words.

She could not name any Filipino neighbor, with a Filipino name except one, Rosa. She did not know the names of her
brothers-in-law, or sisters-in-law.

As a result, the Court of First Instance of Manila denied the prayer for preliminary injunction. Moya Lim Yao and
Lau Yuen Yeung appealed.

Issue:

Whether or not the petitioner was duly re-admitted to his citizenship as Filipino.

Ruling:

No. The Supreme Court ruled that Private respondent is declared NOT a citizen of the Philippines and therefore
DISQUALIFIED from continuing to serve as GOVERNOR of the Province of Sorsogon. He is ordered to VACATE
his office and to SURRENDER the same to the Vice-Governor of the Province of Sorsogon once this decision becomes
final and executory. No pronouncement as to costs. The proceedings of the trial court was marred by the following
irregularities: (1) the hearing of the petition was set ahead of the scheduled date of hearing, without a publication of
the order advancing the date of hearing, and the petition itself; (2) the petition was heard within six months from the
last publication of the petition; (3) petitioner was allowed to take his oath of allegiance before the finality of the
judgment; and (4) petitioner took his oath of allegiance without observing the two-year waiting period.
REPUBLIC VS LI YAO
G.R. No. L-35947 October 20, 1992

FACTS:

William Li Yao, a Chinese national, filed a petition for naturalization in 1949. After hearing, the Court granted the
petition and declared Li Yao a naturalized Filipino citizen. Li Yao subsequently took his oath of allegiance. About
fifteen years later, the Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor General, filed a motion to cancel William Li
Yao's certificate of naturalization on the ground that it was fraudulently and illegally obtained. Relying solely on the
ground that William Li Yao evaded the payment of lawful taxes due the government by under-declaration of income
as reflected in his income tax returns for the years 1946-1951, the lower court granted the petition and cancelled the
Certificate of Naturalization of Li Yao. Li Yao appealed. After the parties had filed their respective briefs, Li Yao
died.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the cancellation of Li Yao's naturalization is valid.

RULING:

Yes. The cancellation of the naturalization certificate of Li Yao was on the ground that it was "fraudulently and
illegally obtained" based on the Section 18(a) of CA 473, also known as the Revised Naturalization Law.

A certificate of naturalization may be cancelled if it is subsequently discovered that the applicant obtained it by
misleading the court upon any material fact. Law and jurisprudence even authorize the cancellation of a certificate of
naturalization upon ground had conditions arising subsequent to the granting of the certificate. Moreover, a
naturalization proceeding is not a judicial adversary proceeding, the decision rendered therein, not constituting res
judicata as to any matter that would support a judgment cancelling a certificate of naturalization on the ground of
illegal or fraudulent procurement thereof.