PERSONAL LAW,

NATIONALITY &
DOMICILE

Personal Law

Personal Law
Personal Law determines a persons
private rights, conditions, status and
capacity. It also provides for the exercise
of civil rights and the fulfillment of civil
obligations (Jorge Coquia, Conflict of
Laws [1995] at 176).

Theories on Personal
Law
Domiciliary Theory - a persons private rights,
conditions, and status, and capacity are determined by
his physical location. In jurisdictions adhering to
domiciliary rule of determining the personal law of a
person, domicile is an important point of contact.
Domicile is one of the test factors in determining the
applicable law in actions involving conflict of laws (Ruben
Agpalo, Conflict of Laws [2004] at 108, cng Saudi Arabian
Airlines v. Court of Appeals, 247 SCRA 469, 490 [1998]).
Nationality Theory - a persons nationality or
citizenship determines his rights, conditions, status and
capacity.

Nationality

Nationality Principle
The Nationality Principle as the basis of a States jurisdiction is generally
supported in customary law. (Bernas, J. Introduction to Public International
Law. [2009] at 140]
Nationality establishes the requisite link between an individual and the
State, because the laws of each state were presumed to be made for an
ascertained population.
Each State has the right to decide who are its nationals using either the
principle of jus sanguinis, jus soli or naturalization laws.

Nationality as Personal
Law
Every State has jurisdiction over its nationals
even when those nationals are outside the
State (Bernas, J. Introduction to Public
International Law. [2009] at 140]
Nationality refers to membership in any
class or form of political community. Thus,
nationals may be citizens. It does not
necessarily include the right or privilege of
exercising civil or political rights (Nachura.
Political Law Reviewer. [2013] at 232)

Nationality Principle
Allows the courts to exercise jurisdiction over
the person
To determine the governing choice of law rule on
the specific situation involving such person
His nationality serves as a permanent
connection between the individual and the State
His personal law regulates: his civil status and
condition, his family rights and duties, and
intrinsic validity of his will and the rights of
succession to his properties

Blackmer vs .US, 248 US

421 (1932)
Xxx nor can it be doubted that the United
States possesses the power inherent in
sovereignty to require the return to this
country of a citizen, resident elsewhere,
whenever the public interest requires it, and to
penalize him in case of refusal xxx
It is also beyond controversy that one of the
duties which the citizen owes to his
government is to support the administration of
justice by attending its courts and giving his
testimony whenever he is properly summoned.

Effective Nationality
Link Doctrine
The doctrine on effective nationality link is
used to determine which of two States of
which a person is a national will be
recognized as having the right to give
diplomatic protection to the holder of dual
nationality

Nottebohm Case
[Liechtenstein vs.
Guatemala, ICJ 1955]
Naturalization was asked for not so much for the
purpose of obtaining a legal recognition of
Nottebohms membership in fact in the
population of Liechtenstein, as it was to enable
him to substitute for his status as a national of a
belligerent State that of a national of a neutral
State, with the sole aim of thus coming within the
protection of Liechtenstein but not of becoming
wedded to its traditions , its interests, its way of
life or of assuming the obligations, other than
fiscal obligations and exercising the rights
pertaining to the status thus acquired.

Stateless
Persons
Stateless persons are those who do not have a
nationality.
De jure stateless persons are those who have lost
their nationality, if they had one, and have not
acquired a new one.
De facto stateless persons are those who have a
nationality but to whom protection are those have a
nationality but to whom protection is denied by their
State when out of their State. (Bernas, J.
Introduction to Public International Law. [2009] at
151]
This is the situation of many refugees.

Stateless
Persons
A person may have been born in a country which
recognizes only the principle of jus sanguinis or
citizenship by blood, of parents whose law
recognizes only the principle of jus soli citizenship
by birth in a certain place. Thus, he is neither a
citizen of the country of his birth nor of his parents.
(Salonga, J. Private International Law [1976] at 109)
However, The Hague Conference of 1928 on
International Private Law suggested that the
personal law of stateless individuals shall be the
law of the domicile or the law of the place of
temporary residence. (ibid, at 176-177)

Poe-Llamanzares vs.
COMELEC, GR 221697
All of the foregoing evidence, that a person with
typical Filipino features is abandoned in Catholic
Church in a municipality where the population of
the Philippines is overwhelmingly Filipinos such
that there would be more than a 99% chance
that a child born in the province would be a
Filipino, would indicate more than ample
probability if not statistical certainty, that
petitioner's parents are Filipinos.

Poe-Llamanzares vs.
COMELEC, GR 221697
Foundlings are likewise citizens under international law. Under the 1987
Constitution, an international law can become part of the sphere of domestic
law either by transformation or incorporation.
1. Everyone has the right to a nationality. 2. No one shall be arbitrarily
deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality. (Art.
15, UDHR)
The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right
from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and as far as possible,
the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents. (Art. 7, UNCRC)
A child whose parents are both unknown shall have the nationality of the
country of birth. If the child's parentage is established, its nationality shall be
determined by the rules applicable in cases where the parentage is known. A
foundling is, until the contrary is proved, presumed to have been born on the
territory of the State in which it was found. (Art. 14, 1930 Hague Convention
on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws)

Nationality Theory in our

Jurisdiction
Laws relating to family rights and duties, or
to the status, condition and legal capacity of
persons are binding upon citizens of the
Philippines, even though living abroad (Art.
15, NCC)
Order of succession, the amount of
successional rights and the intrinsic validity
of testamentary provisions are regulated by a
persons national law (Art. 16, NCC)
By virtue of which, jurisdiction over a
particular subject matter affecting a person is
determined by the latters nationality.

Testate estate of C.O. Bohanan, deceased,

Philippine Trust Co. vs. Magdalena C. Bohanan,
Edward C. Bohanan, and Mary Lydia Bohanan,
G.R. No. L-1205 January 30, 1960
C.O. Bohanan was a citizen of the Unites States having
been born in the State of Nebraska, having properties
there and in the state of California.
His wife and children, herein petitioners, questioned
the validity of the will claiming that they were
deprived of their legitime that our laws required.
The Court ruled against the respondents. It held that
since the testator was a citizen of the United States
and that under our laws the validity of wills is
determined by the law of the place where the testator
is a citizen of, it is the law of the United States,
specifically the testamentary laws of the state of
Nevada applies

Citizenship

Citizenship vs.
Nationality
Citizenship membership in a political
community which is personal and more
or less permanent in character.
Nationality membership in any class
or form of political community. It does
not necessarily include the right or
privilege of exercising civil or political
rights.
(Nachura.
Political
Law
Reviewer. [2013] at 232)

Art IV, Sec. 1, 1987

Constitution
The following are citizens of the Philippines:
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at
the time of the adoption of this Constitution;
(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are
citizens of the Philippines;
(3) Those born before January 17, 1973, of
Filipino
mothers,
who
elect
Philippine
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority;
and
(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance
with law.

Usual Modes of
Acquiring Citizenship
By birth: jus soli & jus sanguinis
By naturalization
By marriage
(Nachura. Political Law Reviewer.
[2013] at 238)

Modes of Naturalization
DIRECT: Citizenship is acquired by: (i) Individual,
through judicial or administrative proceedings; (ii)
Special act of legislature; (iii) Collective change of
nationality, as a result of cession or subjugation;
or (iv) In some cases, by adoption of orphan
minors as nationals of the State where they are
born.
DERIVATIVE: Citizenship conferred on: (i) Wife of
naturalized husband; (ii) Minor children of
naturalized person; or on the (iii) Alien woman
upon marriage to a national.
(Nachura. Political Law Reviewer. [2013] at 244)

Direct Naturalization
Judicial
Naturalization
under
Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended
Administrative Naturalization under Rep.
Act No. 9139
Legislative naturalization in the form of a
law enacted by Congress, bestowing
Philippine citizenship to an alien

Naturalization under CA
473 [Qualifications]
[a] Not less than 21 years of age on the date of the hearing of the petition;
[b] Resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of not less than 10 years;
may be reduced to 5 years if he honorably held office in Government, established
a new industry or introduced a useful invention in the Philippines, married to a
Filipino woman, been engaged as a teacher in the Philippines (in a public or
private school not established for the exclusive instruction of persons of a
particular nationality or race) or in any of the branches of education or industry
for a period of not less than two years, or bom in the Philippines;
[c] Good moral character; believes in the principles underlying the Philippine
Constitution; must have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable
manner during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in his relations
with the constituted government as well as the community in which he is living;
[d] Own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than P5,000.00, or must have
some known lucrative trade, profession or lawful occupation;
[e] Speak and write English or Spanish and any of the principal Philippine
languages;
[f] Enrolled his minor children of school age in any of the public or private schools
recognized by the Government where Philippine history, government and civics
are taught as part of the school curriculum, during the entire period of residence
in the Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of his petition for
naturalization.

Naturalization under CA
473 [Disqualifications]
Those [a] Opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or
group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized
governments;
[b] Defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal assault
or assassination for the success or predominance of their ideas;
[c] Polygamists or believers in polygamy;
[d] Convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude;
[e] Suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious disease;
[f] Who, during the period of their residence in the Philippines, have not mingled
socially with the Filipinos, or who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and
embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipinos;
[g] Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the Philippines is at war, during the
period of such war;
[h] Citizens or subjects of a foreign country whose laws do not grant Filipinos the
right to become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.

Naturalization under CA
473 [Procedure]
i)Filing of declaration of intention one year prior to the filing of the petition with the Office of
the Solicitor General. The following are exempt from filing declaration of intention:
ia) Born in the Philippines and have received their primary and secondary education in public
or private schools recognized by the Government and not limited to any race or nationality.
ib) Resided in the Philippines for 30 years or more before the filing of the petition, and
enrolled his children in elementary and high schools recognized by the Government and not
limited to any race or nationality.
ic) Widow and minor children of an alien who has declared his intention to become a citizen of
the Philippines and dies before he is actually naturalized.
ii)Filing of the petition, accompanied by the affidavit of two credible persons, citizens of the
Philippines, who personally know the petitioner, as character witnesses.
iii)Publication of the petition.
iv)Actual residence in the Philippines during the entire proceedings.
v)Hearing of the petition.
vi)Promulgation of the decision.
vii)Hearing after two years.
Viii)Oath taking and issuance of the Certificate of Naturalization.

Administrative
Naturalization under RA
9139

In So v. Republic, G.R. No. 170603, January 29, 2007, the Supreme Court
declared that CA 473 and RA 9139 are separate and distinct laws. The
former covers aliens regardless of class, while the latter covers nativeborn aliens who lived in the Philippines all their lives, who never saw any
other country and all along thought that they were Filipinos, who have
demonstrated love and loyalty to the Philippines and affinity to Filipino
customs and traditions. The intention of the legislature in enacting RA
9139 was to make the process of acquiring Philippine citizenship less
tedious, less technical, and more encouraging. There is nothing in the law
from which it can be inferred that CA473 is intended to be annexed to or
repealed by RA 9139.
Special Committee on Naturalization. Composed of the Solicitor General,
as chairman, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs or his representative, and
the National Security Adviser, as members, this Committee has the power
to approve, deny or reject applications for naturalization under this Act.

Naturalization under RA
9139 [Qualifications]
Applicant must [1] be born in the Philippines and residing therein since birth;
[2] not be less than 18 years of age, at the time of filing of his/her petition;
[3] be of good moral character and believes in the underlying principles of the
Constitution and must have conducted himself/ herself in a proper and irreproachable
manner during his/her entire period of residence in the Philippines in his relations with the
duly constituted government as well as with the community in which he/she is living;
[4] have received his/her primary and secondary education in any public school or private
educational institution duly recognized by the Department of Education, where Philippine
history, government and civics are taught and prescribed as part of the school curriculum
and where enrolment is not limited to any race or nationality, provided that should he/she
have minor children of school age, he/she must have enrolled them in similar schools;
[5] have a known trade, business, profession or lawful occupation, from which he/she
derives income sufficient for his/her support and that of his/her family; provided that this
shall not apply to applicants who are college degree holders but are unable to practice
their profession because they are disqualified to do so by reason of their citizenship;
[6] be able to read, write and speak Filipino or any of the dialects of the Philippines; and

[7] have mingled with the Filipinos and evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the
customs and traditions and ideals of the Filipino people.

DISQUALIFICATIONS: Same as those provided in CA 473

Naturalization under
9139 [Procedure]
Filing with the Special Committee on Naturalization of a petition (see Sec. 5, RA 9139, for
contents of the petition);
publication of pertinent portions of the petition once a week for three consecutive weeks in a
newspaper of general circulation, with copies thereof posted in any public or conspicuous area;
copies also furnished the Department of Foreign Affairs, Bureau of Immigration and
Deportation, the civil registrar of petitioners place of residence and the National Bureau of
Investigation which shall post copies of the petition in any public or conspicuous areas in their
buildings offices and premises, and within 30 days submit to the Committee a report stating
whether or not petitioner has any derogatory record on file or any such relevant and material
information which might be adverse to petitioners application for citizenship;
Committee shall, within 60 days from receipt of the report of the agencies, consider and review
all information received pertaining to the petition (if Committee receives any information
adverse to the petition, the Committee shall allow the petitioner to answer, explain or refute
the information);
Committee shall then approve or deny the petition. Within 30 days from approval of the
petition, applicant shall pay to the Committee a fee of P100,000, then take the oath of
allegiance and a certificate of naturalization shall issue.
Within 5 days after the applicant has taken his oath of allegiance, the Bureau of Immigration
shall forward a copy of the oath to the proper local civil registrar, and thereafter, cancel
petitioners alien certificate of registration.

Effects of Naturalization
i)Vests citizenship on wife if she herself may be lawfullynaturalized (as interpreted by the
Supreme Court in Moy Ya Lim Yao v. Commissioner of Immigration, supra.).
ia) In Moy Ya Lim Yao, the Court said that the alien wife of the naturalized Filipino need not go
through the formal process of naturalization in order to acquire Philippine citizenship. All she
has to do is to file before the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation a petition for the
cancellation of her Alien Certificate of Registration (ACR). At the hearing on the petition, she
does not have to prove that she possesses all the qualifications for naturalization; she only has
to show that she does not labor under any of the disqualifications. Upon the grant of the
petition for cancellation of the ACR, she may then take the oath of the allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines and thus, become a citizen of the Philippines.
ii)Minor children born in the Philippines before the naturalization shall be considered citizens of
the Philippines.
iii)Minor child born outside the Philippines who was residing in the Philippines at the time of
naturalization shall be considered a Filipino citizen.
iv) Minor child born outside the Philippines before parents naturalization shall be considered
Filipino citizens only during minority, unless he begins to reside permanently in the Philippines.
v) Child born outside the Philippines after parents naturalization shall be considered a Filipino,
provided that he registers as such before any Philippine consulate within one year after
attaining majority age, and takes his oath of allegiance.

Loss of Citizenship
By naturalization in foreign countries.
By express renunciation of citizenship
By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the
constitution or laws of a foreign country upon attaining twenty
one years of age or more, subject to certain exceptions
By rendering service to, or accepting commission in, the armed
forces of a foreign country, subject to certain exceptions
By having been declared by competent authority a deserter of
the Philippine Armed Forces in time of war, unless subsequently,
a plenary pardon or amnesty has been granted
In case of a woman, upon her marriage to a foreigner, if by
virtue of the laws in force in her husbands country, she acquires
his nationality
By cancellation of the certificate of naturalization

Effective Nationality
Link Doctrine
The doctrine on effective nationality link is
used to determine which of two States of
which a person is a national will be
recognized as having the right to give
diplomatic protection to the holder of dual
nationality

Nottebohm Case
[Liechtenstein vs.
Guatemala, ICJ 1955]
Naturalization was asked for not so much for the
purpose of obtaining a legal recognition of
Nottebohms membership in fact in the
population of Liechtenstein, as it was to enable
him to substitute for his status as a national of a
belligerent State that of a national of a neutral
State, with the sole aim of thus coming within the
protection of Liechtenstein but not of becoming
wedded to its traditions , its interests, its way of
life or of assuming the obligations, other than
fiscal obligations and exercising the rights
pertaining to the status thus acquired.

RA 9225 (An Act Making the

Citizenship of Philippine Citizens
Who
declares theAcquire
policy of the StateForeign
that all Philippine Citizenship
citizens who become citizens
of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship
Permanent
)Act.
under the conditions of this
Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine citizenship
by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are deemed to
have reacquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the following oath of
allegiance to the Republilc: iii) Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after
the effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a foreign country shall retain their
Philippine citizenship upon taking the aforesaid oath [Sec. 3, R.A. 9225].
Doctrine of indelible allegiance. An individual may be compelled to retain his
original nationality even if he has already renounced or forfeited it under the
laws of the second State whose nationality he has acquired (Nachura. Political
Law Reviewer. [2013] at 238)

RA 9225 (An Act Making the

Citizenship of Philippine Citizens
Who Acquire Foreign Citizenship
Permanent )

I ________________ , solemnly swear (or affirm)

that I will support and defend the Constitution
of the Republic of the Philippines and obey the
laws and legal orders promulgated by the duly
constituted authorities of the Philippines; and I
hereby declare that I recognize and accept the
supreme authority of the Philippines and will
maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and
that I impose this obligation upon myself
voluntarily, without mental reservation or
purpose of evasion. [Sec. 3, R.A. 9225]

Florentina Villahermosa v.
Commissioner of Immigration,
G.R. No. L-1663 March 31, 1948
The Court held that Delfin Co was not a
Filipino citizen. Under the 1935 Constitution,
the provision on citizenship that would have
applied to petitioners contention is
paragraph 4, Section 1 of Article IV which
provides that Filipino citizens are those whose
mothers are Filipino and upon reaching the
age of majority elect Filipino citizenship. In
the case at hand, Delfin was still a minor of
18 years of age therefore such provision does
not apply, thus he remains a Chinese citizen.

In Re: Robert Cu v. Republic of

the Philippines, G.R. No. L-3018
July 18, 1951
During the Naturalization proceeding, as required
by law that such petition be supported by
affidavits of two witnesses, both of which must
be Filipino citizens, petitioner presented Dr. Jose
Ku Yeg Keng and Dr. Pastor Gomez. Dr. Keng was
disqualified as a witness as he was not a Filipino
citizen and the Government objected to Dr.
Gomezs testimony which the Court sustained.
The Court ruled that the petition must fail. The
Court stated that our Naturalization proceedings
were patterned to that of the United States which
also required that such petition be supported by
the affidavits of two witnesses who must be
citizens of the United States.

Lao Chay and Ng Siu Lian

vs Galang, Commissioner
of Immigration (CI), G.R. L19977.
Oct
30,
1964
Chinese wife and her 3 children came to the Philippines as
temporary visitors. They asked the BI for cancellation of
their ACR because the husband was admitted as a Filipino
citizen.
Section 15 of the Revised Naturalization Law (C.A. No. 473,
as amended) provides in part as. Effect of the
naturalization on wife and any woman who is now or may
here-after be married to a citizen of the Philippines, and
who might herself be lawfully naturalized, shall be deemed
a citizen of the Philippines.
An alien woman, who is married to a citizen of the
Philippines acquires the citizenship of her husband only if
he has all the qualifications prescribed in Section 2 and
none of the disqualifications provided in Section 4 of the
law.

Zita Ngo Burca vs

Republic, G.R. L-24252 30
Jan
Petitioner
is a Chinese citizen and married to a native-born
1967
Filipino.
In a petition for naturalization, petitioner alleged that she
has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications
under the law. She was the lone witness presented. She
too only submitted supporting documents.
An alien wife of a Filipino citizen may not acquire the status
of a citizen of the Philippines unless there is proof that she
herself may be lawfully naturalized.
Said wife must
possess the qualifications under Section 2, and must not be
laboring under any of the disqualifications enumerated in
Section 4, of the Revised Naturalization Law.
Said petition is not supported by the affidavit of at least two
credible persons. Here, the case was submitted solely on
the testimony of the petitioner. No other witnesses were
presented. This does not meet with the legal requirement.

Moy Ya Lim Yao and Lau

Yuen Yeung vs. Comm. Of
In order for an alien woman marrying a Filipino to be
Immigration,
G.R.it L-21289
vested with Filipino citizenship,
is not enough that she
possesses the qualifications prescribed by Section 2 of
04
October
1971
the law
and none of the
disqualifications enumerated in

its Section 4. Over and above all these, she has to pass
thru the whole process of judicial naturalization
apparently from declaration of intention to oath-taking,
before she can become a Filipina.

In plain words, her marriage to a Filipino is absolutely of

no consequence to her nationality vis-a-vis that of her
Filipino husband; she remains to be the national of the
country to which she owed allegiance before her
marriage. Briefly, she can become a Filipino citizen only
by judicial declaration.

Domicile

DOMICILE
It is that place which, whenever he is absent,
he has the intention of returning. In the
Philippines, it has been defined as the place
where a person, actually or constructively,
has his permanent home, where he, no
matter where he may be found at any given
time, eventually intends to return (Aquino v.
Comelec, 248 SCRA 400 [1995]).
Domiciliary Theory - a persons private
rights, conditions, and status, and capacity
are determined by his physical location.

Some Exceptions to
Nationality Theory
Article 816 of the Civil Code provides that the will of an alien
who is abroad produces the effect in the Philippines if made
with the formalities prescribed by the law of the place in which
he resides, or according to the formalities observed in his
country, or in conformity with those which the Civil Code
prescribes.
Article 828 of the Civil Code provides that the revocation of a
will done outside the country, by a person who does not have
his domicile in this country, is valid when it is done according to
the law of the place in which the testator had his domicile at the
time.
The validity of divorce secured by a foreign spouse under Article
26 of the Family Code also depends upon his domicile acquired
in good faith (Ruben Agpalo, Conflict of Laws [2004] at 109).

Classification of
Domicile
Domicile of Origin - is received by a person at birth. It is the domicile of
the persons parents at the time of his birth, which is not easily lost, and
it continues until, upon reaching the age of majority, he abandons it and
acquires a new domicile. This new domicile is the domicile of choice
(Jovito Salonga, Private International Law [1979] at 163).
Domicile of Choice - is also called voluntary domicile. It is the place freely
chosen by a person sui juris. To acquire a domicile of choice, there must
be of the fact of physical presence in the new locality and the unqualified
intention to make that place the home of that person (Salonga at 173).
Constructive domicile - is also known as domicile by operation of law. It
is that which the law attributes to a person because of his disability to
make a choice, such as when he is a minor o suffers from mental of
physical disability, in which case he follows, as a rule, the domicile of his
father (Jorge Coquia, Conflict of Laws [1995] at 205). It is the domicile
assigned by operation of law to persons legally incapable of choosing
their own domicile. These include minors and infants, mentally and
physically disabled persons, and married women (Salonga at 163, 164)

Rules on
Domicile
No person shall be without domicile. Hence, a persons
domicile of origin prevails until he acquires a new domicile
(Salonga at 160).
A person cannot have two simultaneous domiciles. Domicile
establishes a connection between a person and a particular
territorial unit. That person is bound by the legal system of
that particular territory for some legal purposes.
Every natural person, as long as he is free and sui juris, may
change his domicile at pleasure. But the burden of proving
domicile is upon whoever alleges that a change has been
secured. Without overwhelming evidence to show a change
of domicile, the courts will decide in favor of the continuance
of the existing domicile (Salonga at 162, 163).
To acquire a fresh domicile, residence and intention must
concur; to retain (animus manendi) an existing domicile,
either residence there or intention to remain must be
present; to abandon a domicile, residence in a new place and
intention to abandon the old place must concur.

Juan Alcantara et al vs.

Secretary of Interior et al, GR
No. L-43592, May 17, 1935
Petitioners are confinees at the Culion
Leper Colony in Culion, Palawan.
The Court xxx held that 'for the purpose
of voting, no person shall be deemed to
have gained or lost a residence while a
student at any seminary of learning.

AL Verlila, administrator of the

estate of Arthur Graydon Moody
vs. Juan Posadas, Jr, Collector of
Internal
Whether orRevenue
not Arthur Graydon Moody, an

American citizen, was domiciled in the

Philippines and thus his estate was subject to
assessment and collection of inheritance tax.
YES. The Court found compelling the fact that
during Moody's stay in the Philippines that he
was actively engaged in business here with the
corporations organized under our laws and that
even during the times he left the country, there
is no record that he ever done any business
outside of the country, and that he returned
here to his residence in the Elk's Club in Manila.

Pedro Gallego vs. Vicente

Vera
GR No. L-48641, November 24,
1941
The Court held that Gallego did not lose his
original domicile when he worked at Malaybalay, Bukidnon, registered as a voter
there and secured a residence certificate.
In the definition of residence in the election
law under the 1935 Constitution, it
provides that in order to acquire a domicile
by choice there must concur:
Residence or a bodily presence in the new locality.
An intention to remain there (animus manendi).
An intention to abandon the old domicile (animus non
revertendi)

Aznar vs ChristensenGarcia, L-16749, 31 Jan

1963
Decedent is a US citizen whose will was probated in
accordance with law. Oppositor was apparently an heir
who contended that he was deprived of her legitime as
an acknowledged natural child.

Oppositor appealed this decision contending that

Art.946 of the California civil code requires that the
domiciliary law of the decedent should apply and
asserted that Philippine law should govern.
Oppositor is correct that Philippine law should govern,
being the domicile of decedent, pursuant to the
conflicts of law rule of California (Art.946). Case was
remanded to the court of origin with instructions that
partition should be made in accordance with the
Philippine law on succession.

Paula Llorente vs CA,

Alicia Llorente, G.R.
124371 , 23 November 2000
Xxx if "American law follows the
domiciliary theory hence, Philippine
law applies when determining the
validity of Lorenzos will.
There is no showing that the
application of therenvoidoctrine is
called for or required by New York
State law.

Aniceto Saludo vs
American Express Intl
Significantly, for purposes of election law, the term
(AMEX),
G.R. No. 159507 ,
"residence" is synonymous with "domicile," thus:
19
x x x April
[T]he Court
held that "domicile" and "residence" are
2006
synonymous. The term "residence," as used in the election

law, imports not only an intention to reside in a fixed place but

also personal presence in that place, coupled with conduct
indicative of such intention. "Domicile" denotes a fixed
permanent residence to which when absent for business or
pleasure, or for like reasons, one intends to return. x x x 21

The definition of "residence" for purposes of election law is

more stringent in that it is equated with the term "domicile."
Hence, for the said purpose, the term "residence" imports "not
only an intention to reside in a fixed place but also personal
presence in that place, coupled with conduct indicative of
such intention."