Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
The Solicitor-General commented on the case by The Court Resolves to DENY Vicente D. Ching's
saying that as a legitimate child of a Chinese and a application for admission to the Philippine Bar.
Filipino, Ching should have elected Filipino
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. Ching
did elect Filipino citizenship, but he only did so when
8. BENGSON vs. HRET and CRUZ
he was preparing for the bar in 1998 or 14 years after
G.R. No. 142840
reaching the age of majority. In conclusion, the OSG
May 7, 2001
points out that Ching has not formally elected
Philippine citizenship and, if ever he does, it would FACTS: The citizenship of respondent Cruz is at
already be beyond the "reasonable time" allowed by issue in this case, in view of the constitutional
present jurisprudence. However, due to the peculiar requirement that “no person shall be a Member of
circumstances surrounding Ching's case, the OSG the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-
recommends the relaxation of the standing rule on born citizen.”
the construction of the phrase "reasonable period"
and the allowance of Ching to elect Philippine Cruz was a natural-born citizen of the Philippines.
citizenship in accordance with C.A. No. 625 prior to He was born in Tarlac in 1960 of Filipino parents. In
taking his oath as a member of the Philippine Bar. 1985, however, Cruz enlisted in the US Marine
Corps and without the consent of the Republic of the
ISSUE: Philippines, took an oath of allegiance to the USA.
As a Consequence, he lost his Filipino citizenship for
Whether or not Ching should be allowed to take the under CA No. 63 [(An Act Providing for the Ways in
Which Philippine Citizenship May Be Lost or
lawyer’s oath.
Reacquired (1936)] section 1(4), a Filipino citizen
may lose his citizenship by, among other, “rendering
HELD: service to or accepting commission in the armed
forces of a foreign country.”
No. In the present case, Ching was already thirty-
five (35) years old when he complied with the Whatever doubt that remained regarding his loss of
requirements of CA No. 625 or fourteen years after Philippine citizenship was erased by his
he had reached the age of majority. The age of naturalization as a U.S. citizen in 1990, in connection
majority commenced upon reaching twenty-one (21) with his service in the U.S. Marine Corps.
years. The Supreme Court noted that the period is
originally 3 years but it was extended to 7 years. (It In 1994, Cruz reacquired his Philippine citizenship
seems it can’t be extended any further). Ching’s through repatriation under RA 2630 [(An Act
special circumstances can’t be considered. It is not Providing for Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship
enough that he considered all his life that he is a by Persons Who Lost Such Citizenship by
Filipino; that he is a professional and a public officer Rendering Service To, or Accepting Commission In,
the Armed Forces of the United States (1960)]. He
(was) serving this country. The rules for citizenship
ran for and was elected as the Representative of the
are in place. Further, Ching didn’t give any
2nd District of Pangasinan in the 1998 elections. He
explanation why he belatedly chose to elect Filipino
won over petitioner Bengson who was then running citizenship by rendering service to, or accepting
for reelection. commission in, the Armed Forces of the United
States, or after separation from the Armed Forces of
Subsequently, petitioner filed a case for Quo the United States, acquired United States
Warranto Ad Cautelam with respondent HRET citizenship, may reacquire Philippine citizenship by
claiming that Cruz was not qualified to become a taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
member of the HOR since he is not a natural-born Philippines and registering the same with Local Civil
citizen as required under Article VI, section 6 of the Registry in the place where he resides or last resided
Constitution. in the Philippines. The said oath of allegiance shall
HRET rendered its decision dismissing the petition contain a renunciation of any other citizenship.
for quo warranto and declaring Cruz the duly elected
Representative in the said election. Having thus taken the required oath of allegiance to
the Republic and having registered the same in the
ISSUE: WON Cruz, a natural-born Filipino who Civil Registry of Magantarem, Pangasinan in
became an American citizen, can still be considered accordance with the aforecited provision, Cruz is
a natural-born Filipino upon his reacquisition of deemed to have recovered his original status as a
Philippine citizenship. natural-born citizen, a status which he acquired at
birth as the son of a Filipino father. It bears stressing
HELD: petition dismissed that the act of repatriation allows him to recover, or
return to, his original status before he lost his
YES Philippine citizenship.
Filipino citizens who have lost their citizenship may 9. Co v. Electoral Tribunal of the House of
however reacquire the same in the manner provided Representative
by law. C.A. No. 63 enumerates the 3 modes by ANTONIO Y. CO, petitioner, vs. ELECTORAL
which Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by a TRIBUNAL OF THE HOUSE OF
former citizen: REPRESENTATIVES AND JOSE ONG, JR.,
respondents.
1. by naturalization,
2. by repatriation, and Doctrine: citizenship
Date: July 30, 1991
3. by direct act of Congress.
Ponente: Justice Gutierrez Jr.
**
Facts:
Repatriation may be had under various statutes by
those who lost their citizenship due to:
The petitioners come to this Court asking for
the setting aside and reversal of a decision of
1. desertion of the armed forces;
the House of Representatives Electoral
2. services in the armed forces of the allied forces in
Tribunal (HRET).
World War II;
The HRET declared that respondent Jose
3. service in the Armed Forces of the United States
Ong, Jr. is a natural born Filipino citizen and
at any other time,
a resident of Laoang, Northern Samar for
4. marriage of a Filipino woman to an alien; and
voting purposes.
5. political economic necessity
On May 11, 1987, the congressional election
for the second district of Northern Samar was
Repatriation results in the recovery of the original held.
nationality This means that a naturalized Filipino Among the candidates who vied for the
who lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior position of representative in the second
status as a naturalized Filipino citizen. On the other legislative district of Northern Samar are the
hand, if he was originally a natural-born citizen petitioners, Sixto Balinquit and Antonio Co
before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he will be and the private respondent, Jose Ong, Jr.
restored to his former status as a natural-born Respondent Ong was proclaimed the duly
Filipino. elected representative of the second district
of Northern Samar.
R.A. No. 2630 provides:
Sec 1. Any person who had lost his Philippine
The petitioners filed election protests against o The couple bore eight children, one of
the private respondent premised on the whom is the Jose Ong who was born
following grounds: in 1948.
o 1)Jose Ong, Jr. is not a natural born o Jose Ong Chuan never emigrated
citizen of the Philippines; and from this country. He decided to put
o 2)Jose Ong, Jr. is not a resident of up a hardware store and shared and
the second district of Northern survived the vicissitudes of life in
Samar. Samar.
The HRET in its decision dated November 6, o The business prospered. Expansion
1989, found for the private respondent. became inevitable. As a result, a
A motion for reconsideration was filed by the branch was set-up in Binondo,
petitioners on November 12, 1989. This was, Manila. In the meantime, Jose Ong
however, denied by the HRET in its Chuan, unsure of his legal status and
resolution dated February 22, 1989. in an unequivocal affirmation of
Hence, these petitions for certiorari. where he cast his life and family, filed
with the Court of First Instance of
Samar an application for
Issue: naturalization on February 15, 1954.
o On April 28, 1955, the CFI of Samar,
WON Jose Ong, Jr. is a natural born citizen after trial, declared Jose Ong Chuan
of the Philippines. a Filipino citizen. On May 15, 1957,
the Court of First Instance of Samar
issued an order declaring the
Held: Yes. Petitions are dismissed. decision of April 28, 1955 as final and
executory and that Jose Ong Chuan
Ratio: may already take his Oath of
Allegiance.
o Pursuant to said order, Jose Ong
o The records show that in the year
1895, Ong Te (Jose Ong's Chuan took his Oath of Allegiance;
grandfather), arrived in the correspondingly, a certificate of
Philippines from China. Ong Te naturalization was issued to him.
established his residence in the During this time, Jose Ong (private
municipality of Laoang, Samar on respondent) was 9 years old,
land which he bought from the fruits finishing his elementary education in
of hard work. the province of Samar.
o As a resident of Laoang, Ong Te was
able to obtain a certificate of There is nothing in the records to differentiate him
residence from the then Spanish from other Filipinos insofar as the customs and
colonial administration. practices of the local populace were concerned.
o The father of the private respondent,
Jose Ong Chuan was born in China o After completing his elementary
in 1905. He was brought by Ong Te education, the private respondent, in
to Samar in the year 1915. Jose Ong search for better education, went to
Chuan spent his childhood in the Manila in order to acquire his
province of Samar. secondary and college education.
o As Jose Ong Chuan grew older in the o Jose Ong graduated from college,
rural and seaside community of and thereafter took and passed the
Laoang, he absorbed Filipino cultural CPA Board Examinations. Since
values and practices. He was employment opportunities were
baptized into Christianity. As the better in Manila, the respondent
years passed, Jose Ong Chuan met looked for work here. He found a job
a natural born-Filipino, Agripina Lao. in the Central Bank of the Philippines
The two fell in love and, thereafter, as an examiner. Later, however, he
got married in 1932 according to worked in the hardware business of
Catholic faith and practice. his family in Manila.
o In 1971, his elder brother, Emil, was where one born of a Filipino father
elected as a delegate to the 1971 and an alien mother was
Constitutional Convention. His status automatically granted the status of a
as a natural born citizen was natural-born citizen while one born of
challenged. Parenthetically, the a Filipino mother and an alien father
Convention which in drafting the would still have to elect Philippine
Constitution removed the unequal citizenship. If one so elected, he was
treatment given to derived citizenship not, under earlier laws, conferred the
on the basis of the mother's status of a natural-born
citizenship formally and solemnly o Election becomes material because
declared Emil Ong, respondent's full Section 2 of Article IV of the
brother, as a natural born Filipino. Constitution accords natural born
The Constitutional Convention had to status to children born of Filipino
be aware of the meaning of natural mothers before January 17, 1973, if
born citizenship since it was precisely they elect citizenship upon reaching
amending the article on this subject. the age of majority.
o The pertinent portions of the To expect the respondent to
Constitution found in Article IV read: have formally or in writing
elected citizenship when he
came of age is to ask for the
unnatural and unnecessary.
SECTION 1, the following are He was already a citizen. Not
citizens of the Philippines: only was his mother a natural
born citizen but his father had
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the been naturalized when the
time of the adoption of the Constitution; respondent was only nine (9)
2. Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of years old.
the Philippines; He could not have divined
3. Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino when he came of age that in
mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon 1973 and 1987 the
reaching the age of majority; and Constitution would be
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with amended to require him to
law. have filed a sworn statement
in 1969 electing citizenship
SECTION 2, Natural-born inspite of his already having
Citizens are those who are been a citizen since 1957.
In 1969, election through a
citizens of the Philippines
from birth without having to sworn statement would have
perform any act to acquire or been an unusual and
perfect their citizenship. unnecessary procedure for
Those who elect Philippine one who had been a citizen
citizenship in accordance with since he was nine years old
o In Re: Florencio Mallare: the Court
paragraph 3 hereof shall be
deemed natural-born citizens. held that the exercise of the right of
suffrage and the participation in
election exercises constitute a
positive act of election of Philippine
citizenship
o The Court interprets Section 1, o The private respondent did more than
Paragraph 3 above as applying not merely exercise his right of suffrage.
only to those who elect Philippine He has established his life here in the
citizenship after February 2, 1987 but Philippines.
also to those who, having been born
of Filipino mothers, elected
Petitioners alleged that Jose Ong Chuan was
citizenship before that date. The
not validly a naturalized citizen because of
provision in question was enacted to
correct the anomalous situation
his premature taking of the oath of Because of the contemplated action of the
citizenship. Commissioner of Immigration to confiscate her bond
o SC: The Court cannot go into the and order her arrest and immediate deportation,
collateral procedure of stripping after the expiration of her authorized stay, she
respondent’s father of his citizenship brought an action for injunction.
after his death. An attack on a
person’s citizenship may only be
At the hearing which took place one and a half years
done through a direct action for its
after her arrival, it was admitted that Lau Yuen
nullity, therefore, to ask the Court to
declare the grant of Philippine Yeung could not write and speak either English or
citizenship to respondent’s father as Tagalog, except for a few words.
null and void would run against the
principle of due process because he She could not name any Filipino neighbor, with a
has already been laid to rest Filipino name except one, Rosa. She did not know
the names of her brothers-in-law, or sisters-in-law.
10. Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner of
Immigration As a result, the Court of First Instance of Manila
GR No. L-21289, October 4 1971, 41 SCRA 292 denied the prayer for preliminary injunction. Moya
Lim Yao and Lau Yuen Yeung appealed.
FACTS:
ISSUE:
Lau Yuen Yeung applied for a passport visa to enter
the Philippines as a non-immigrant on 8 February Whether or not Lau Yuen Yeung ipso facto became
1961. a Filipino citizen upon her marriage to a Filipino
citizen.
In the interrogation made in connection with her
application for a temporary visitor's visa to enter the HELD:
Philippines, she stated that she was a Chinese
residing at Kowloon, Hongkong, and that she Under Section 15 of Commonwealth Act 473, an
desired to take a pleasure trip to the Philippines to alien woman marrying a Filipino, native born or
visit her great grand uncle, Lau Ching Ping. naturalized, becomes ipso facto a Filipina provided
she is not disqualified to be a citizen of the
She was permitted to come into the Philippines on Philippines under Section 4 of the same law.
13 March 1961 for a period of one month.
Likewise, an alien woman married to an alien who is
On the date of her arrival, Asher Y. Cheng filed a subsequently naturalized here follows the Philippine
bond in the amount of P1,000.00 to undertake, citizenship of her husband the moment he takes his
among others, that said Lau Yuen Yeung would oath as Filipino citizen, provided that she does not
actually depart from the Philippines on or before the suffer from any of the disqualifications under said
expiration of her authorized period of stay in this Section 4.
country or within the period as in his discretion the
Commissioner of Immigration or his authorized Whether the alien woman requires to undergo the
representative might properly allow. naturalization proceedings, Section 15 is a parallel
provision to Section 16.
After repeated extensions, Lau Yuen Yeung was Thus, if the widow of an applicant for naturalization
allowed to stay in the Philippines up to 13 February as Filipino, who dies during the proceedings, is not
1962. required to go through a naturalization proceedings,
in order to be considered as a Filipino citizen hereof,
On 25 January 1962, she contracted marriage with it should follow that the wife of a living Filipino cannot
Moy Ya Lim Yao alias Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim an be denied the same privilege.
alleged Filipino citizen.
This is plain common sense and there is absolutely
no evidence that the Legislature intended to treat RTC allowing respondent Frivaldo to reacquire
them differently. Filipino citizenship by virtue of his rights and
privileges of being a natural born Filipino citizen;
As the laws of our country, both substantive and However, Quiterio alleged that there was
procedural, stand today, there is no such procedure jurisdictional defect about granting naturalization
(a substitute for naturalization proceeding to enable process.
Ø Several days after the proclamation of the court,
the alien wife of a Philippine citizen to have the
Election was done and Frivaldo was declared winner
matter of her own citizenship settled and established
in the casting of votes.
so that she may not have to be called upon to prove Ø Republic petitioner filed the petition with COMELEC
it everytime she has to perform an act or enter into a to annul proclamation of private respondents
transaction or business or exercise a right reserved winning state they allege that respondent Frivaldo
only to Filipinos), but such is no proof that the didn’t reacquire his citizenship and had pending
citizenship is not vested as of the date of marriage political status as of the moment.
or the husband's acquisition of citizenship, as the Ø COMELEC had issued enbanc resolution which was
case may be, for the truth is that the situation obtains dismissed because there was a late filing of the said
even as to native-born Filipinos. resolution, meanwhile petition for mandamus under
Rule 65 of Sec 5(2) Article VIII of the constitution,
Everytime the citizenship of a person is material or regarded the revise or modification on appeal or
indispensible in a judicial or administrative case. certiorari in GR No. 105735 and was filed with prayer
for temporary restraining order.
Ø There was a failure to reacquire due to time that lapse
Whatever the corresponding court or administrative and the failure to publicize the naturalization of the
authority decides therein as to such citizenship is respondent in the official gazette inorder to become
generally not considered as res adjudicata, hence it a Filipino citizen again. The Revised Naturalization
has to be threshed out again and again as the law is a procedural law that must be followed.
occasion may demand.
ISSUE:
Lau Yuen Yeung, was declared to have become a WON respondent Frivaldo shall claim the
Filipino citizen from and by virtue of her marriage to qualification as newly elected Governor in
Moy Ya Lim Yao al as Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim, a Sorsogon by properly reacquiring his Natural
Filipino citizen of 25 January 1962. citizenship.
RULING:
11. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. DELA
Ø GR No. 105715 and GR No. 104654 assailed that the
ROSA
respondent is not yet a Filipino citizen when he runs
as a governor in Sorsogon.
Ø GR No. 105735 was a petition for mandamus and the
Facts: issuance of proclamation which makes it moot and
Ø Juan G. Frivaldo had earned majority of the votes as academic.
public servant ( Governor) in Sorsogon. Ø Respondent claim that the only remedy for him to
Ø There was a conspicuous doubt whether the reacquire his Filipino citizenship was through
respondent Frivaldo acquired Filipino citizenship running in public service as governor, that was a
before he ran as governor in the said city. repatriation which is limited or not permitted to his
Ø Respondent judge Dela Rosa set the petition for cause of action.
hearing and directed the publication of order in Ø Our constitutional law implicates that only Filipno
official gazette for 3 consecutive weeks and last citizens are required to run and be elected as public
said publication which would be 6 months before its officers.
hearing, it was held months after the respondent Ø Petition in GR No. 105715 and 104654 was both
Frivaldo filed a petition for Naturalization. GRANTED, while GR No. 105735 petition was
Ø There was a motion to set hearing ahead of schedule DISMISSED. He was declared a non-Filipino citizen
it was granted by the court and manifested the public and therefore disqualified for the position as
office running intention for filing certificate incumbent governor of the said municipality, He
candidacy. must vacate his office and surrender his position to
Ø The respondent brought all his requirements and 6 Vice Governor of Sorsogon, No proclamation as to
days later respondent judge assailed his decision in cost.
naturalization. The legal effect of payment under the
decree is merely the removal of any civil, criminal or
12. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, movant- administrative liability on the part of the taxpayer,
appellee, vs.WILLIAM LI YAO, petitioner-appellant. only insofar as his tax case is concerned. In other
G.R. No. L-35947, October 20, 1992 words, the tax amnesty does not have the effect
of obliterating his lack of good moral character
and irreproachable conduct which are grounds
(Cancellation of Philippine Citizenship) for denaturalization.
Keywords: The lower court based its order of cancellation of
· William Li Yao was naturalized in 1949 but RP citizenship on the finding of evasion of payment of
now wants to cancel the certificate of naturalization lawful taxes which is sufficient ground, under Sec. 2
on ground that it was fraudulently obtained. He died of the Revised Naturalization Law requiring,
after the filing of brief. among others, that applicant conduct himself "in
· Lower court sustained the government's motion a proper and irreproachable manner during the
for cancellation on the ground that he committed entire period of his residence in the Philippines
underdeclaration of income and underpayment of in his relation with constituted government as
income tax. well as with the community in which he is living,"
· to strip him of his citizenship without going into the
Settlement of tax liability under amnesty is not other grounds for cancellation presented by the
sufficient for reversing denaturalization Solicitor General.
FACTS: William Li Yao, a Chinese national, filed a Philippine citizenship is a pearl of great price which
petition for naturalization in 1949. After hearing, the should be cherished and not taken for granted. Once
Court granted the petition and declared Li Yao a acquired, its sheen must be burnished and not
naturalized Filipino citizen. Li Yao subsequently took stained by any wrongdoing which could constitute
his oath of allegiance. About fifteen years later, the ample ground for divesting one of said citizenship.
Republic of the Philippines, through the Solicitor Hence, compliance with all the requirements of the
General, filed a motion to cancel William Li Yao's law must be proved to the satisfaction of the Court
certificate of naturalization on the ground that it was and legislation by Congress.
fraudulently and illegally obtained. Relying solely on
the ground that William Li Yao evaded the payment 13. LABO vs. COMELEC
of lawful taxes due the government by under- 176 SCRA 1
declaration of income as reflected in his income tax
returns for the years 1946-1951, the lower court Facts: Petitioner Ramon Labo, elected mayor of
granted the petition and cancelled the Certificate of Baguio City was questioned on his citizenship. He
Naturalization of Li Yao. Li Yao appealed. After the was married in the Philippines to an Australian
parties had filed their respective briefs, Li Yao died. citizen. The marriage was declared void in the
ISSUE: WON the cancellation of the certificate of Australian Federal Court in Sydney on the ground
naturalization made by the government through the that the marriage had been bigamous. According to
Office of the Solicitor General is valid. Australian records, Labo is still an Australian citizen.
RULING: Section 18(a) of Com. Act No. 473, known
as the Revised Naturalization Act provides that a Issue: Whether or not Petitioner Labo is a citizen of
naturalization certificate may be cancelled "[i]f it is the Philippines.
shown that said naturalization certificate was
obtained fraudelently and illegally." In ordering the Held: The petitioner’s contention that his marriage to
cancellation of the naturalization certificate an Australian national in 1976 did not automatically
previously issued to appellant, the lower court divest him of Philippine citizenship is irrelevant.
sustained the government's motion for cancellation There is no claim or finding that he automatically
on the sole finding that Li Yao had committed ceased to be a Filipino because of that marriage. He
underdeclaration of income and underpayment became a citizen of Australia because he was
of income tax. naturalized as such through a formal and positive
Assuming arguendo, that appellant, as alleged, has process, simplified in his case because he was
fully paid or settled his tax liability under P.D. No. 68 married to an Australian citizen. As a condition for
which granted a tax amnesty, such payment is not a such naturalization, he formally took the Oath of
sufficient ground for lifting the order of the lower Allegiance and/or made the Affirmation of
court of July 22, 1971 cancelling his certificate of Allegiance, renouncing all other allegiance. It does
not appear in the record, nor does the petitioner
claim, that he has reacquired Philippine citizenship.
RULING:
(1) filing the application;
No. A petition for repatriation should be filed with the
Special Committee on Naturalization and not with
the RTC which has no jurisdiction.Therefore, the
(2) action by the committee; and court's order was null and void.
RA No. 8171, which has lapsed into law on October
(3) taking of the oath of allegiance if the application 23 1995, is an act providing for repatriation of Filipino
is approved. women who have lost their Philippine citizenship by
marriage to aliens and of natural-born Filipinos who
have lost the Philippine citizenship on account of
political or economic necessity.
It is only upon taking the oath of allegiance that the
applicant is deemed ipso jure to have reacquired Moreover, petitioner was incorrect when he initially
Philippine citizenship. invoked RA 965 and RA 2630, since these laws
could only apply to persons who had lost their
Philippine citizenship by rendering service to, or
If the decree had intended the oath taking to retroact accepting commission in, the armed forces of an
to the date of the filing of the application, then it allied country or the armed forces of the US, a factual
should not have explicitly provided otherwise. matter not alleged in his petition. Parenthetically,
under these statutes, the person desiring to
reacquire his Philippine citizenship would not even
He is therefore qualified to be proclaimed governor required to file a petition in court; all he had to do is
of Sorsogon. to take an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines and to register the said oath with the
proper civil registry.
16.Angat vs Republic of the Philippines
G.R. No. 132244
14 September 1999 17. CICERON P. ALTAREJOS vs. COMELEC,
JOSE ALMIE and VERNON VERSOZA
[Naturalization; Reacquisition; RA No. 8171] G.R. No. 163256
November 10, 2004
AZCUNA, J.:
FACTS:
Private respondents Jose Almie Altiche and Vernon
Gerardo Angat, a natural born Filipino citizen, asked
Versoza filed to the COMELEC a petition to
to regain his status as a Philippine citizen before the
disqualify and to deny due course or cancel the
certificate of candidacy of petitioner on the ground * a citizen of the Philippines;
that he is not a Filipino citizen and that he made a
* a registered voter in the barangay, municipality,
false representation in his certificate of candidacy
city, or province x x x where he intends to be elected;
that he was not a permanent resident of or immigrant
to a foreign country. * a resident therein for at least one (1) year
immediately preceding the day of the election;
Petitioner object that he did not commit false
representation in his application for candidacy as * able to read and write Filipino or any other local
mayor because he was already issued a Certificate language or dialect.
of Repatriation by the Special Committee on
Naturalization, after he filed a petition for repatriation * In addition, candidates for the position of governor
pursuant to Republic Act No. 8171. x x x must be at least twenty-three (23) years of age
on election day.
On the date of the hearing, the parties were required
to submit their Memoranda within three days. Private
respondents filed their Memorandum, while From the above, it will be noted that the law does not
petitioner did not file one within the required period. specify any particular date or time when the
Petitioner, however, filed a Reply Memorandum candidate must possess citizenship, unlike that for
subsequently. residence (which must consist of at least one year’s
Atty. Zaragoza, Jr hearing officer of this case residency immediately preceding the day of election)
recommended that petitioner Altarejos be and age (at least twenty-three years of age on
disqualified from being a candidate for the position election day).
of mayor.
Petitioner points out that he took his Oath of Moreover, in the case of Frivaldo v. Commission on
Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines on Elections, the Court ruled that the repatriation of
December 17, 1997. In view thereof, he ran and was Frivaldo RETROACTED to the date of the filing of
even elected as Mayor of San Jacinto, Masbate his application. In said case, the repatriation of
during the 1998 elections. He argues that if there Frivaldo was by virtue of Presidential Decree No.
was delay in the registration of his Certificate of 725, which took effect on June 5, 1975. The Court
Repatriation with the Bureau of Immigration and with therein declared that Presidential Decree No. 725
the proper civil registry, the same was brought about was a curative statute, which is retroactive in nature.
by the inaction on the part of said offices since the The retroactivity of Frivaldos repatriation to the date
records of the Special Committee on Naturalization of filing of his application was justified by the Court,
show that his Certificate of Repatriation and Oath of thus:
Allegiance have long been transmitted to said
offices.
ISSUE: When does the citizenship qualification of a xxx
candidate for an elective office apply?
RULING:
The reason for this is simply that if, as in this case, it
In Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections, the Court was the intent of the legislative authority that the law
ruled that the citizenship qualification must be should apply to past events i.e., situations and
construed as applying to the time of proclamation of transactions existing even before the law came into
the elected official and at the start of his term. The being in order to benefit the greatest number of
Court, through Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, former Filipinos possible thereby enabling them to
discussed, thus: enjoy and exercise the constitutionally guaranteed
right of citizenship, and such legislative intention is
to be given the fullest effect and expression, then
Under Sec. 39 of the Local Government Code, (a)n there is all the more reason to have the law apply in
elective local official must be: a retroactive or retrospective manner to situations,
events and transactions subsequent to the passage
of such law. That is, the repatriation granted to He then petitioned for repatriation under Presidential
Frivaldo x x x can and should be made to take effect Decree No. 725 and was able to take his oath of
as of date of his application. As earlier mentioned, allegiance as a Philippine citizen.
there is nothing in the law that would bar this or
However, on the day that he got his citizenship, the
would show a contrary intention on the part of the
Court had already ruled based on his previous
legislative authority; and there is no showing that
attempts to run as governor and acquire citizenship,
damage or prejudice to anyone, or anything unjust
and had proclaimed Lee, who got the second highest
or injurious would result from giving retroactivity to
number of votes, as the newly elect Governor of
his repatriation. Neither has Lee shown that there
Sorsogon.
will result the impairment of any contractual
obligation, disturbance of any vested right or breach
of some constitutional guaranty.
ISSUE:
Ruling:
Petitioner’s prayer was from an order from the lower
court "1 - authorizing petitioner's son, Edgardo Sy
Tiongsa, to take his oath of allegiance to... the The son is entitled to Philippine citizenship.
Republic of the Philippines, at such time and place
as may be set forth in the judgment; and thereafter
2 - an order issue directing the Commissioner, The contention could not be sustained because
Bureau of Immigration, Manila or his representative, Consolatrix Kho Sy has proven in open Court that
to revoke, cancel or void the Alien Certificate of she was born in Iligan City on September 7, 1921 of
Registration and Immigration Certificate of a Filipino father who is already dead and a
Residence of petitioner, Consolatrix Kho Sy and her
minor child, Edgardo Sy Tiongsa,... prayer was...
granted. Filipino mother who is still alive so that she is a
natural born citizen of the Philip-pines... order
appealed from must be affirmed, declaring
Motion for reconsideration based on alleged Consolatrix Kho Sy repatriated and Edgardo Sy
procedural deficiencies arising from lack of Tiongsa, her son, entitled to Philippine citizenship.
conformity to the then applicable rules and
regulations promulgated by the Department of
Justice... no sufficient basis for the imputation of
such procedural flaws... it was alleged that the lower
court erred in ruling that the... mother was
repatriated and that the minor son by virtue thereof
was entitled to acquire Filipino citizenship.
Issues:
Based on the results of the election, Manzano
garnered the highest number of votes. However, his
Whether or not the repatriation of a mother, proclamation was suspended due to the pending
Consolatrix Kho Sy, entitles her minor son, Edgardo petition for disqualification filed by Ernesto Mercado
on the ground that he was not a citizen of the is a result of an individual's volition. Article IV Sec. 5
Philippines but of the United States. of the Constitution provides "Dual allegiance of
citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall
be dealt with by law."
From the facts presented, it appears that Manzano
is both a Filipino and a US citizen.
Consequently, persons with mere dual citizenship do
not fall under this disqualification. Unlike those with
The Commission on Elections declared Manzano dual allegiance, who must, therefore, be subject to
disqualified as candidate for said elective position. strict process with respect to the termination of their
status, for candidates with dual citizenship, it should
suffice if, upon the filing of their certificates of
However, in a subsequent resolution of the candidacy, they elect Philippine citizenship to
COMELEC en banc, the disqualification of the terminate their status as persons with dual
respondent was reversed. Respondent was held to citizenship considering that their condition is the
have renounced his US citizenship when he attained unavoidable consequence of conflicting laws of
the age of majority and registered himself as a voter different states.
in the elections of 1992, 1995 and 1998.
HELD
FACTS : In his complaint affidavit filed before the Tambunting does not deny that he is born of a
COMELEC Law Department, Cordora asserted that Filipino mother and an American father. Neither
Tambunting made false assertions. Cordora stated does he deny that he underwent the process
that Tambunting was not eligible to run for local involved in INS Form I-130 (Petition for Relative)
public office because Tambunting lacked the because of his father’s citizenship. Tambunting
required citizenship and residency requirements. claims that because of his parents’ differing
citizenships, he is both Filipino and American by
birth. Cordora, on the other hand, insists that
To disprove Tambunting’s claim of being a natural- Tambunting is a naturalized American citizen.
born Filipino citizen, Cordora presented a
certification from the Bureau of Immigration which
stated that, in two instances, Tambunting claimed We agree with Commissioner Sarmiento’s
that he is an American: upon arrival in the observation that Tambunting possesses dual
Philippines on 16 December 2000 and upon citizenship. Because of the circumstances of his
departure from the Philippines on 17 June 2001. birth, it was no longer necessary for Tambunting to
According to Cordora, these travel dates confirmed undergo the naturalization process to acquire
that Tambunting acquired American citizenship American citizenship. The process involved in INS
through naturalization in Honolulu, Hawaii on 2 Form I-130 only served to confirm the American
December 2000. Cordora concluded: citizenship which Tambunting acquired at birth. The
certification from the Bureau of Immigration which
Cordora presented contained two trips where
The COMELEC Law Department recommended the Tambunting claimed that he is an American.
dismissal of Cordora’s complaint against However, the same certification showed nine other
Tambunting because Cordora failed to substantiate trips where Tambunting claimed that he is Filipino.
his charges against Tambunting. Cordora’s reliance Clearly, Tambunting possessed dual citizenship
on the certification of the Bureau of Immigration that prior to the filing of his certificate of candidacy before
Tambunting traveled on an American passport is not the 2001 elections. The fact that Tambunting had
sufficient to prove that Tambunting is an American dual citizenship did not disqualify him from running
citizen. for public office.
The COMELEC En Banc affirmed the findings and To begin with, dual citizenship is different from dual
the resolution of the COMELEC Law Department. allegiance. The former arises when, as a result of the
The COMELEC En Banc was convinced that concurrent application of the different laws of two or
more states, a person is simultaneously considered election laws, includes the twin elements of the fact
a national by the said states. For instance, such a of residing in a fixed place and the intention to return
situation may arise when a person whose parents there permanently,16 and is not dependent upon
are citizens of a state which adheres to the principle citizenship.
of jus sanguinis is born in a state which follows the
doctrine of jus soli. Such a person, ipso facto and
without any voluntary act on his part, is concurrently
considered a citizen of both states
In view of the above, we hold that Cordora failed to
establish that Tambunting indeed willfully made false
entries in his certificates of candidacy. On the
Dual allegiance, on the other hand, refers to the
contrary, Tambunting sufficiently proved his
situation in which a person simultaneously owes, by
innocence of the charge filed against him.
some positive act, loyalty to two or more states.
Tambunting is eligible for the office which he sought
While dual citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance
to be elected and fulfilled the citizenship and
is the result of an individual’s volition.
residency requirements prescribed by law.
26. Eugenio Eusebio Lopez vs. COMELEC
in Sections 2 and 3 of R.A. No. 9225, the framers (DIGEST)
were not concerned with dual citizenship per se, but
with the status of naturalized citizens who maintain 23 July 2008
their allegiance to their countries of origin even after
their naturalization.12 Section 5(3) of R.A. No. 9225 GR No. 182701
states that naturalized citizens who reacquire
Filipino citizenship and desire to run for elective TOPIC:
public office in the Philippines shall "meet the
qualifications for holding such public office as Loss and Re-Acquisition of Citizenship
required by the Constitution and existing laws and,
at the time of filing the certificate of candidacy, make
a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all FACTS:
foreign citizenship before any public officer
authorized to administer an oath" aside from the oath
of allegiance prescribed in Section 3 of R.A. No. Petitioner Lopez, a dual citizen, was a candidate for
9225. The twin requirements of swearing to an Oath the position of Chairman of Barangay Bagacay, San
of Allegiance and executing a Renunciation of Dionisio, Iloilo City held on October 29, 2007. He
Foreign Citizenship served as the bases for our was eventually declared the winner.
recent rulings in Jacot v. Dal and COMELEC,13
Velasco v. COMELEC,14 and Japzon v.
COMELEC,15 all of which involve natural-born On October 25, 2007, respondent Villanueva filed a
Filipinos who later became naturalized citizens of petition before the Provincial Election Supervisor of
another country and thereafter ran for elective office the Province of Iloilo, praying for the disqualification
in the Philippines. In the present case, Tambunting, of Lopez because he was ineligible from running for
a natural-born Filipino, did not subsequently become any public office.
a naturalized citizen of another country. Hence, the
twin requirements in R.A. No. 9225 do not apply to
him.
Lopez argued that he is a Filipino-American, by
virtue of the Citizenship Retention and Re-
acquisition Act of 2003. He said, he possessed all
Cordora concluded that Tambunting failed to meet the qualifications to run for Barangay Chairman.
the residency requirement because of Tambunting’s
naturalization as an American. Cordora’s reasoning
fails because Tambunting is not a naturalized
American. Moreover, residency, for the purpose of
On February 6, 2008, COMELEC issued the responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines
Resolution granting the petition for disqualification of and the following conditions:
Lopez from running as Barangay Chairman.
COMELEC said, to be able to qualify as a candidate
in the elections, Lopez should have made a personal (2) Those seeking elective public office in the
and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign Philippines shall meet the qualification for holding
citizenship. such public office as required by the Constitution and
existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the
certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn
His motion for reconsideration having been denied, renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before
Lopez resorted to petition for certiorari, imputing any public officer authorized to administer an oath.
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
COMELEC for disqualifying him from running and
assuming the office of Barangay Chairman. Lopez was able to regain his Filipino Citizenship by
virtue of the Dual Citizenship Law when he took his
oath of allegiance before the Vice Consul of the
ISSUE: Philippine Consulate General’s Office in Los
Angeles, California; the same is not enough to allow
him to run for a public office.
Whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion
on the part of the COMELEC for disqualifying
petitioner. Lopez’s failure to renounce his American citizenship
as proven by the absence of an affidavit that will
prove the contrary leads this Commission to believe
RULING: that he failed to comply with the positive mandate of
law.
Section 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities. – Petitioner Nestor A. Jacot assails the Resolution
Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship dated 28 September 2007 of the , affirming the
under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights Resolution dated 12 June 2007 of the COMELEC
and be subject to all attendant liabilities and Second Division, disqualifying him from running for
the position of Vice-Mayor of Catarman, Camiguin in
the 14 May 2007 National and Local Elections, on
HELD:
the ground that he failed to make a personal
renouncement of his US citizenship.
FACTS:
Facts:
The petitioners herein were born of a naturalized
Filipino father and a natural-born Filipino mother. Martin Ng filed with the then Court of First Instance
They were all raised, have resided and lived their of Cebu an application for naturalization as a citizen
of the Philippines, in accordance with
whole lives in this country. During their age of
Commonwealth Act No. 473.
minority, they secured from the Bureau of
Immigration their Alien Certificates of Registration
(ACRs).Immediately upon reaching the age of At the scheduled hearing of the petition no one
twenty-one, they claimed Philippine citizenship. appeared to register any opposition other than the
Having taken their oath of allegiance as Philippine Assistant City Fiscal in representation of the Solicitor
citizens, petitioners, however, failed to have the General. He entered a general opposition without
necessary documents registered in the civil registry specifying any grounds therefor. The Court
as required under Section 1 of Commonwealth Act thereafter proceeded to receive the petitioner’s
No. 625. evidence, after which the Fiscal declared that the
proceedings had failed to disclose any ground for
opposing the petition.
ISSUE: The Lower Court then rendered judgment finding the
petition to be well founded and adequately
supported by competent evidence, and declaring the
Whether late registration of the acquired Filipino petitioner entitled to naturalization as a Filipino
citizenship in the Civil Registry encumbers persons citizen subject to subsequent compliance with the
to become naturalized citizens of the Philippines. other requisites provided for in Republic Act No. 530.
Finally, that he was exempt from filing a declaration His last place of foreign residence was Pakistan and
of intention, has also been satisfactorily established his other places of residence, prior to his present
by the unrebutted proof, testimonial and residence, were as follows (i) Panay Ave., Quezon
documentary, that he was born in the Philippines
City; (ii) Sta. Filomena, Dipolog City; (iii) Capitol
and completed his elementary and secondary
education in schools recognized by the Government Area, Dumaguete City; (iv) Dohinob, Roxas,
and where Philippine History, Government and Zamboanga del Norte;
Civics were taught without limitation as regards
He has complied with the requirements of the
Naturalization Law (Commonwealth Act No. 473)
He was born on 4 September 1966 in Tehran, Iran,
regarding the filing with the Office of the Solicitor
as shown in his identity card which also serves as
General of his bona fide intention to become a
his birth certificate;
citizen of the Philippines, as shown in his Declaration
of Intention duly filed on 25 May 2001;
Citizenship is personal and, more or less a Jurisprudence dictates that in judicial naturalization,
permanent membership in a political community. It the application must show substantial and formal
denotes possession within that particular political compliance with the law. In other words, an applicant
community of full civil and political rights subject to must comply with the jurisdictional requirements;
special disqualifications. Reciprocally, it imposes the establish his or her possession of the qualifications
duty of allegiance to the political community.The and none of the disqualifications enumerated under
core of citizenship is the capacity to enjoy political the law; and present at least two (2) character
rights, that is, the right to participate in government witnesses to support his allegations.[17] Section 2 of
principally through the right to vote, the right to hold the Naturalization Law clearly sets forth the
public office and the right to petition the government qualifications that must be possessed by any
for redress of grievance. applicant, viz:
No less than the 1987 Constitution enumerates who Section 2. Qualifications. - Subject to section four of
are Filipino citizens.[13] Among those listed are this Act, any person having the following
citizens by naturalization. Naturalization refers to the qualifications may become a citizen of the
legal act of adopting an alien and clothing him with Philippines by naturalization:
the privilege of a native-born citizen. Under the
present laws, the process of naturalization can be First. He must be not less than twenty-one years of
judicial or administrative. Judicially, the age on the day of the hearing of the petition;
Naturalization Law provides that after hearing the
petition for citizenship and the receipt of evidence
showing that the petitioner has all the qualifications Second. He must have resided in the Philippines for
and none of the disqualifications required by law, the a continuous period of not less than ten years;
competent court may order the issuance of the
proper naturalization certificate and its registration in
the proper civil registry. On the other hand, Republic Third. He must be of good moral character and
Act (R.A.) No. 9139 provides that aliens born and believes in the principles underlying the Philippine
residing in the Philippines may be granted Philippine Constitution, and must have conducted himself in a
citizenship by administrative proceeding by filing a proper and irreproachable manner during the entire
petition for citizenship with the Special Committee, period of his residence in the Philippines in his
which, in view of the facts before it, may approve the relation with the constituted government as well as
petition and issue a certificate of naturalization.[14] with the community in which he is living.
In both cases, the petitioner shall take an oath of
allegiance to the Philippines as a sovereign nation.
Fourth. He must own real estate in the Philippines
worth not less than five thousand pesos, Philippine
currency, or must have some known lucrative trade, margin of his income over his expenses as to be able
profession, or lawful occupation; to provide for an adequate support in the event of
unemployment, sickness, or disability to work and
thus avoid one's becoming the object of charity or a
Fifth. He must be able to speak and write English or public charge. His income should permit him and the
Spanish and any one of the principal Philippine members of his family to live with reasonable
languages; comfort, in accordance with the prevailing standard
of living, and consistently with the demands of
human dignity, at this stage of our civilization.[18]
Sixth. He must have enrolled his minor children of A long line of cases reveals that the Court did not
school age, in any of the public schools or private hesitate in reversing grants of citizenship upon a
schools recognized by the Office of Private showing that the applicant had no lucrative income
Education1 of the Philippines, where the Philippine and would, most likely, become a public charge. A
history, government and civics are taught or summary of some of these notable cases is in order:
prescribed as part of the school curriculum, during
the entire period of the residence in the Philippines In the Matter of the Petition for Admission to
required of him prior to the hearing of his petition for Philippine Citizenship of Engracio Chan also known
naturalization as Philippine citizen. as Nicasio Lim.[19] - The Court found that the
petitioner, who was a salesman at the Caniogan
Sari-Sari and Grocery Store, then located in Pasig,
The contention in this case revolves around the Rizal, from which he received a monthly salary of
following points: P200.00, with free board and lodging, had no
lucrative income. Even if the petitioner was then an
1.the sufficiency of Karbasi's income for purposes of unmarried man without dependents, a monthly
naturalization; income of P200.00 with free board and lodging, was
not considered gainful employment. Further, there
was no proof that he was legally authorized to use
2.the effect of the alleged discrepancy in the an alias and his use thereof, being in violation of the
amounts of his gross income as declared in his ITRs, Anti-Alias Law, was indicative of a reproachable
on one hand, and in his petition for naturalization on conduct.
the other; and
In the case of Chua, the Court had even disregarded The Contracting States shall as far as possible
the OSG's argument that the applicant's failure to facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of
execute her ITR "reflects adversely on her conduct." refugees. They shall in particular make every effort
Her explanation of non-filing as an "honest mistake" to expedite naturalization proceedings and to reduce
was accepted by the Court with due regard to the as far as possible the charges and costs of such
other circumstances of her case. Like the CA, the proceedings.
Court also finds the same degree of sincerity in
Karbasi's case, for he was candid enough to elicit
In the same vein, Article 7[29] of the said Convention grieving mother and finally went home for good to
expressly provides exemptions from reciprocity, the Philippines on MAY 24, 2005.
while Article 34 states the earnest obligation of
contracting parties to "as far as possible facilitate the
assimilation and naturalization of refugees." As On JULY 18, 2006, the BI granted her petition
applied to this case, Karbasi's status as a refugee declaring that she had reacquired her Filipino
has to end with the attainment of Filipino citizenship, citizenship under RA 9225. She registered as a voter
in consonance with Philippine statutory and obtained a new Philippine Passport.
requirements and international obligations. Indeed,
the Naturalization Law must be read in light of the
developments in international human rights law In 2010, before assuming her post as appointes
specifically the granting of nationality to refugees Chairperson of the MTRCB , she renounced her
and stateless persons. American citizenship to satisfy the RA 9225
requirements as to Reacquistion of Filipino
Citizenship. From then on, she stopped using her
34.MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S POE- American passport.
LLAMANZARES vs.
COMELEC,et al.
Petitions were filed before the COMELEC to deny or
GR Nos. 221697 , GR No. 221698-700 cancel her candidacy on the ground particularly
among others, that she cannot be considered a
March 8,2016 natural born Filipino citizen since she was a
FOUNDLING and that her bioligical parents cannot
be proved as Filipinos. The Comelec en banc
Perez, J.: cancelled her candidacy on the ground that she is in
want of citizenship and residence requirements and
that she committed misrepresentation in her COC.
FACTS:
Grace Poe was born in 1968., found as newborn (1) Whether or not Grace Poe- Llamanzares is a
infant in Jaro,Iloilo and was legally adopted by natural- born Filipino citizen
RONALD ALLAN KELLY POE (FPJ) and JESUS
SONORA POE (SUSAN ROCES) in 1974. She
immigrated to the US in 1991 after her marriage to
(2) Whether or not Poe satisfies the 10-year
Theodore Llamanzares who was then based at the
residency requirement.
US. Grace Poe then became a naturalized American
citizen in 2001.
HELD:
On December 2004, he returned to the Philippines
due to his father’s deteriorating medical condition,
who then eventually demice on February 3,2005. YES. GRACE POE is considerably a natural-born
She then quitted her job in the US to be with her Filipino Citizen. For that, she satisfied the
constitutional reqt that only natural-born Filipinos 35. : Go vs. LUIS T. RAMOS
may run for Presidency.
July 2. 2014
As regards the documentation of aliens in the Inclusion of the names of Felix (Yao Kong) Ma, Felix
Philippines, Administrative Order No. 1-93 of the Ma, Jr., Balgamelo Ma, Valeriano Ma, Lechi Ann Ma,
Bureau of Immigration[24] requires that ACR, E- Nicolas Ma, Arceli Ma and Isidro Ma in the
series, be issued to foreign nationals who apply for Immigration Blacklist; and
initial registration, finger printing and issuance of an
ACR in accordance with the Alien Registration Act of
Exclusion from the Philippines of Felix (Yao Kong) citizenship by election. The prescribed procedure in
Ma, Felix Ma, Jr., Balgamelo Ma, Valeriano Ma, electing Philippine citizenship is certainly not a
Lechi Ann Ma, Nicolas Ma, Arceli Ma and Isidro Ma tedious and painstaking process. All that is required
under C.A. No. 613, Section 29(a)(15). of the elector is to execute an affidavit of election of
Philippine citizenship and, thereafter, file the same
with the nearest civil registry. The constitutional
In its Resolution[30] of 8 April 2005, public mandate concerning citizenship must be adhered to
respondents partially reconsidered their Judgment strictly. Philippine citizenship can never be treated
of 2 February 2005. They were convinced that Arceli like a commodity that can be claimed when needed
is an immigrant under Commonwealth Act No. 613, and suppressed when convenient. One who is
Section 13(g).[31] However, they denied the Motion privileged to elect Philippine citizenship has only an
for Reconsideration with respect to Felix Ma and the inchoate right to such citizenship. As such, he should
rest of his children.[32] avail of the right with fervor, enthusiasm and
promptitude.
xxxx
On 29 August 2007, the Court of Appeals dismissed
the petition[33] after finding that the petitioners
"failed to comply with the exacting standards of the (4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the
law providing for the procedure and conditions for Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority,
their continued stay in the Philippines either as elect Philippine citizenship.[37]
aliens or as its nationals."[34]
Such conclusion, contrary to the finding of the Court Their reliance in the ruling contained in
of Appeals, is in line with our decisions in In Re:Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar,
Re:Florencio Mallare,[47] Co v. Electoral Tribunal of Vicente D. Ching, [which was decided on 1 October
the House of Representatives,[48] and 1999], is obviously flawed. It bears emphasis that
Re:Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar, the Supreme Court, in said case, did not adopt the
Vicente D. Ching.[49] doctrine laid down in In Re: Florencio Mallare. On
the contrary, the Supreme Court was emphatic in
pronouncing that "the special circumstances invoked
In Mallare, Esteban's exercise of the right of suffrage by Ching, i.e., his continuous and uninterrupted stay
when he came of age was deemed to be a positive in the Philippines and his being a certified public
act of election of Philippine citizenship.[50] The accountant, a registered voter and a former elected
Court of Appeals, however, said that the case cannot public official, cannot vest in him Philippine
support herein petitioners' cause, pointing out that, citizenship as the law specifically lays down the
unlike petitioner, Esteban is a natural child of a requirements for acquisition of Philippine citizenship
Filipina, hence, no other act would be necessary to by election.[58]
confer on him the rights and privileges of a Filipino
citizen,[51] and that Esteban was born in 1929[52]
prior to the adoption of the 1935 Constitution and the We are not prepared to state that the mere exercise
enactment of Commonwealth Act No. 625.[53] of suffrage, being elected public official, continuous
and uninterrupted stay in the Philippines, and other
similar acts showing exercise of Philippine
In the Co case, Jose Ong, Jr. did more than exercise citizenship can take the place of election of
his right of suffrage, as he established his life here in citizenship. What we now say is that where, as in
the Philippines.[54] Again, such circumstance, while petitioners' case, the election of citizenship has in
similar to that of herein petitioners', was not fact been done and documented within the
appreciated because it was ruled that any election of constitutional and statutory timeframe, the
Philippine citizenship on the part of Ong would have registration of the documents of election beyond the
resulted in absurdity, because the law itself had frame should be allowed if in the meanwhile positive
already elected Philippine citizenship for him[55] as, acts of citizenship have publicly, consistently, and
apparently, while he was still a minor, a certificate of continuously been done. The actual exercise of
naturalization was issued to his father.[56] Philippine citizenship, for over half a century by the
herein petitioners, is actual notice to the Philippine
public which is equivalent to formal registration of the
In Ching, it may be recalled that we denied his election of Philippine citizenship.
application for admission to the Philippine Bar
because, in his case, all the requirements, to wit: (1)
a statement of election under oath; (2) an oath of For what purpose is registration?
allegiance to the Constitution and Government of the
Philippines; and (3) registration of the statement of
election and of the oath with the nearest civil registry In Pascua v. Court of Appeals,[59] we elucidated the
were complied with only fourteen (14) years after he principles of civil law on registration:
reached the age of majority. Ching offered no
reason for the late election of Philippine
citizenship.[57] To register is to record or annotate. American and
Spanish authorities are unanimous on the meaning
of the term "to register" as "to enter in a register; to
record formally and distinctly; to enroll; to enter in a Registration does not confer ownership. It is not a
list."[60] In general, registration refers to any entry mode of acquiring dominion, but only a means of
made in the books of the registry, including both confirming the fact of its existence with notice to the
registration in its ordinary and strict sense, and world at large.[68]
cancellation, annotation, and even the marginal
notes. In strict acceptation, it pertains to the entry
made in the registry which records solemnly and Registration, then, is the confirmation of the
permanently the right of ownership and other real existence of a fact. In the instant case, registration is
rights.[61] Simply stated, registration is made for the the confirmation of election as such election. It is not
purpose of notification.[62] the registration of the act of election, although a valid
requirement under Commonwealth Act No. 625, that
will confer Philippine citizenship on the petitioners. It
Actual knowledge may even have the effect of is only a means of confirming the fact that citizenship
registration as to the person who has knowledge has been claimed.
thereof. Thus, "[i]ts purpose is to give notice thereof
to all persons (and it) operates as a notice of the
deed, contract, or instrument to others."[63] As Indeed, we even allow the late registration of the fact
pertinent is the holding that registration "neither adds of birth and of marriage.[69] Thus, has it been
to its validity nor converts an invalid instrument into admitted through existing rules that the late
a valid one between the parties."[64] It lays registration of the fact of birth of a child does not
emphasis on the validity of an unregistered erase the fact of birth. Also, the fact of marriage
document. cannot be declared void solely because of the failure
to have the marriage certificate registered with the
designated government agency.
Comparable jurisprudence may be consulted.
xxxx
(1) xxx.
(2) Those whose fathers and mothers are citizens of
xxx Why does the draft resolution adopt the
the Philippines.[73]
provision of the 1973 Constitution and not that of the
1935? [76]
(7) Any alien who remains in the Philippines in In his petition, he alleged that he is a
violation of any limitation or condition under which he “businessman/business manager,” and has been
was admitted as a non-immigrant. since 1989. However, when he testified, he alleged
that he has been a businessman since after he
graduated from college in 1978. He made no
[17] Sec. 45. Any individual who: mention of the nature of his “business.” He also
alleged that he earns an average annual income of
P150,000.00, and presented four tax returns as
“proof” of said income (amounting to P60,000.00,
(a) xxx
P118,000.00, P118,000.00 and P128,000.00).
xxxx
FACTS:
The applicant provided no documentary evidence,
On August 22, 2007, respondent, otherwise known
like business permits, registration, official receipts,
as Bernabe Luna Li or Stephen Lee Keng, a Chinese
or other business records to demonstrate his
national, filed his Declaration of Intention to Become
proprietorship or participation in a business. Instead,
a Citizen of the Philippines before the OSG. Almost
Ong relied on his general assertions to prove his
seven months after filing his declaration of intention,
possession of “some known lucrative trade,
respondent filed his Petition for Naturalization before
profession or lawful occupation.” Bare, general
the RTC.
assertions cannot discharge the burden of proof that
is required of an applicant for naturalization.
Ruling:
petitioner's failure to state his former residence in the
petition was fatal to his application for naturalization.
The Court agrees.
petitioner did not present evidence proving that the In effect, there was an unpardonable lapse
persons he presented were... credible. committed in the course of petitioner's compliance to
the jurisdictional requirements set be law, rendering
the trial court's decision, not only as erroneous, but
While there is no showing that petitioner's witnesses void.
were of doubtful moral inclinations, there was
likewise no indication that they were persons whose
qualifications were at par with the requirements of Principles:
the law on naturalization
FACTS:
After her stint as a teacher, Azucena and her
husband, as conjugal partners, engaged in the retail
This Petition for Review assails the Decision of the business of and later on in milling/distributing rice,
CA, which affirmed the Decision of the RTC that corn, and copra. As proof of their income, Azucena
granted the Petition for Naturalization of respondent submitted their joint annual tax returns and balance
Azucena Saavedra Batuigas (Azucena). sheets from 2000- 2002 and from 2004-2005. During
their marital union, the Batuigas spouses bought
parcels of land in Barrio Lombog, Margosatubig.
On December 2, 2002, Azucena filed a Petition for
Naturalization before the RTC of Zamboanga del
Sur. She stated that she intends in good faith to ISSUE:
become a citizen of the Philippines and to renounce
absolutely and forever all allegiance and fidelity to
any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, Whether or not petitioner has validly complied the
and particularly to China; and that she will reside citizenship requirement as required by law to
continuously in the Philippines from the time of the become a naturalized citizen of the Philippines.
filing of her Petition up to the time of her
naturalization.
RULING: Moreover, the Court acknowledged that the main
objective of extending the citizenship privilege to an
alien wife is to maintain a unity of allegiance among
Yes. family members, thus:
Under existing laws, an alien may acquire Philippine It is, therefore, not congruent with our cherished
citizenship through either judicial naturalization traditions of family unity and identity that a husband
under CA 473 or administrative naturalization under should be a citizen and the wife an alien, and that
Republic Act No. 9139 (the “Administrative the national treatment of one should be different
Naturalization Law of 2000”). A third option, called from that of the other.
derivative naturalization, which is available to alien
women married to Filipino husbands is found under
Section 15 of CA 473, which provides that: Azucena has clearly proven, under strict judicial
scrutiny, that she is qualified for the grant of that
privilege, and this Court will not stand in the way of
“Any woman who is now or may hereafter be married making her a part of a truly Filipino family.
to a citizen of the Philippines and who might herself
be lawfully naturalized shall be deemed a citizen of
the Philippines.” WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The
Decision of the Court of which affirmed the Decision
of the Regional Trial Court, that granted the Petition
Under this provision, foreign women who are for Naturalization, is hereby AFFIRMED. Subject to
married to Philippine citizens may be deemed ipso compliance with the period and the requirements
facto Philippine citizens and it is neither necessary under Republic Act No. 530 which supplements the
for them to prove that they possess other Revised Naturalization Law, let a Certificate of
qualifications for naturalization at the time of their Naturalization be issued to AZUCENA SAAVEDRA
marriage nor do they have to submit themselves to BATUIGAS after taking an oath of allegiance to the
judicial naturalization. Republic of the Philippines. Thereafter, her Alien
Certificate of Registration should be cancelled.
R.A. No. 9225 allows the retention and re-acquisition [T]he intent of the legislators was not only for
of Filipino citizenship for natural-born citizens who Filipinos reacquiring or retaining their Philippine
have lost their Philippine citizenship... by taking an citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 to take their
oath of allegiance to the Republic oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines,
but also to explicitly renounce their foreign...
citizenship if they wish to run for elective posts in the
The oath is an abbreviated repatriation process that Philippines. To qualify as a candidate in Philippine
restores one's Filipino citizenship and all civil and elections, Filipinos must only have one citizenship,
political rights and obligations concomitant namely, Philippine citizenship.
therewith, subject to certain conditions imposed in
Section 5, viz:
it is an additional qualification for elective office
specific only to Filipino citizens who re-acquire their
Sec. 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities. citizenship under Section 3 of R.A. No. 9225. It is the
Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship operative act that restores their right to run for public
under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights office. The petitioner's failure to... comply therewith
and be subject to all attendant liabilities and in accordance with the exact tenor of the law,
responsibilities under existing laws of the rendered ineffectual the Declaration of Renunciation
of Australian Citizenship she executed
The COMELEC En Banc concluded that "the use of · Petitioner Epifanio B. Muneses became a
the US passport was because to his knowledge, his lawyer in 1966 but acquired American citizenship in
Philippine passport was not yet issued to him for his 1981
use."10 This conclusion, however, is not supported
· Restored citizenship in 2006 by virtue of RA
by the facts. Arnado claims that his Philippine
9225
passport was issued on 18 June 2009. The records
show that he continued to use his U.S. passport · A Filipino lawyer who re-acquires citizenship
even after he already received his Philippine remains to be a member of the Philippine Bar but
passport. Arnado’s travel records show that he must apply for a license or permit to engage in law
presented his U.S. passport on 24 November 2009, practice.
on 21 January 2010, and on 23 March 2010. These
facts were never refuted by Arnado.
On June 8, 2009, petitioner Epifanio B. Muneses
with the Office of the Bar Confidant (OBC) praying
Thus, the ruling of the COMELEC En Banc is based that he be granted the privilege to practice law in the
on a misapprehension of the facts that the use of the Philippines.
U.S. passport was discontinued when Arnado
obtained his Philippine passport. Arnado’s continued Petitioner became a member of the IBP in 1966 but
use of his U.S. passport cannot be considered as lost his privilege to practice law when he became a
isolated acts contrary to what the dissent wants us American citizen in 1981. In 2006, he re-acquired his
to believe. Philippine citizenship pursuant to RA 9225 or the
“Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of
2003” by taking his oath of allegiance as a Filipino
citizen before the Philippine Consulate in
It must be stressed that what is at stake here is the
Washington, D.C. He intends to retire in the
principle that only those who are exclusively Filipinos
Philippines and if granted, to resume the practice of
are qualified to run for public office. If we allow dual
law.
citizens who wish to run for public office to renounce
their foreign citizenship and afterwards continue
using their foreign passports, we are creating a
special privilege for these dual citizens, thereby The Court reiterates that Filipino citizenship is a
effectively junking the prohibition in Section 40(d) of requirement for admission to the bar and is, in fact,
the Local Government Code. a continuing requirement for the practice of law. The
loss thereof means termination of the petitioner’s
membership in the bar; ipso jure the privilege to
engage in the practice of law. Under R.A. No. 9225,
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration and
natural-born citizens who have lost their Philippine
the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration are
citizenship by reason of their naturalization as
hereby DENIED with finality.
citizens of a foreign country are deemed to have re-
acquired their Philippine citizenship upon taking the
oath of allegiance to the Republic. Thus, a Filipino qualifications, the OBC recommended that the
lawyer who becomes a citizen of another country petitioner be allowed to resume his practice of law.
and later re-acquires his Philippine citizenship under
R.A. No. 9225, remains to be a member of the
Philippine Bar. However, as stated in Dacanay, the
right to resume the practice of law is not automatic.
R.A. No. 9225 provides that a person who intends to WHEREFORE, the petition of Attorney Epifanio B.
practice his profession in the Philippines must apply Muneses is hereby GRANTED, subject to the
with the proper authority for a license or permit to condition that he shall re-take the Lawyer's Oath on
engage in such practice. a date to be set by the Court and subject to the
payment of appropriate fees.