TECSON VS COMELEC (A case when FPJ was running for

Presidency)

FACTS:
Respondent Ronald Allan Kelly Poe, also known as Fernando Poe, Jr. (FPJ) filed his certificate
of candidacy on 31 December 2003 for the position of President of the Republic of
the Philippines in the forthcoming national elections. In his certificate of candidacy, FPJ,
representing himself to be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, stated his name to be
"Fernando Jr.," or "Ronald Allan" Poe, his date of birth to be 20 August 1939 and his place of
birth to be Manila.
Petitioner Fornier filed before the COMELEC a petition to disqualify FPJ and cancel his
certificate of candidacy by claiming that FPJ is not a natural-born Filipino citizen, his parents
were foreigners: his mother, Bessie Kelley Poe, was an American, and his father, Allan Poe,
was a Spanish national, being the son of Lorenzo Pou, a Spanish subject.

ISSUE:
Whether or not FPJ is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines.

HELD:
Section 2, Article VII, of the 1987 Constitution expresses:
No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a
registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty years of age on the day of the election,
and a resident of the Philippines for at least ten years immediately preceding such election.

Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having
to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship.

Based on the evidence presented which the Supreme consider as viable is the fact that the
death certificate of Lorenzo Poe, father of Allan Poe, who in turn was the father of private
respondent Fernando Poe, Jr. indicates that he died on September 11, 1954 at the age of 84
years, in San Carlos, Pangasinan. Evidently, in such death certificate, the residence of Lorenzo
Poe was stated to be San Carlos, Pangansinan. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary,
it should be sound to conclude, or at least to presume, that the place of residence of a person
at the time of his death was also his residence before death. IN HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE, IT
WAS STATED THAT HE DIED AS A FILIPINO.

Considering that the allegations of petitioners are not substantiated with proof and since
Lorenzo Poe may have been benefited from the “en masse Filipinization” that the Philippine
Bill had effected in 1902, there is no doubt that Allan Poe father of private respondent
Fernando Poe, Jr. was a Filipino citizen.

PHILIPPINE BILL OF 1902 SAID:

Sec. 4. That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands continuing to reside therein who were
Spanish subjects on the 11th day of Apr. 1899, and then resided in the Philippine Islands,
and their children born subsequent thereto shall be deemed and held to be citizens of the
Philippine Islands... except such as shall have elected to preserve their allegiance to the
Crown of Spain in accordance with the provisions of the treaty of peace between the United
States and Spain signed at Paris on 10 Dec. 1898.

And, since the latter was born on August 20, 1939, governed under 1935 Constitution, which
constitution considers as citizens of the Philippines those whose fathers are citizens of the
Philippines, Fernando Poe, Jr. was in fact a natural-born citizen of the Philippines regardless
of whether or not he is legitimate or illegitimate.

The COMELEC dismissed the petition for lack of merit.

GO, SR VS RAMOS

These petitions stemmed from the complaint-affidavit for deportation initiated by Luis T.
Ramos before the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (now Bureau of Immigration)
against Jimmy T. Go alleging that the latter is an illegal and undesirable alien. Luis alleged
that while Jimmy represents himself as a Filipino citizen, Jimmy’s personal circumstances
and other records indicate that he is not so. To prove his contention, Luis presented the birth
certificate of Jimmy, issued by the Office of the Civil Registrar of Iloilo City, which indicated
Jimmy’s citizenship as “FChinese.” Luis argued that although it appears from Jimmy’s birth
certificate that his parents, Carlos and Rosario Tan, are Filipinos, the document seems to be
tampered, because only the citizenship of Carlos appears to be handwritten while all the
other entries were typewritten. He also averred that in September 1989 or thereabout,
Jimmy, through stealth, machination and scheming managed to cover up his true citizenship,
and with the use of falsified documents and untruthful declarations, was able to procure a
Philippine passport from the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Jimmy refuted the allegations in his counter-affidavit, averring that the complaint for
deportation initiated by Luis was merely a harassment case designed to oust him of his
rightful share in their business dealings.

Jimmy maintained that there is no truth to the allegation that he is an alien, and insisted that
he is a natural-born Filipino. Jimmy alleged that his father Carlos, who was the son of a
Chinese father and Filipina mother, elected Philippine citizenship in accordance with
Commonwealth Act 625.

In resolution dated Feb. 14 2001, Associate Comm. Linda L. Malinab Hornilla dismissed the
complaint for deportation against Jimmy.

On March 8 2001, The Board of Commissioner reversed the decision. Their contention is that
Carlos election of citizenship was made out of time.

The board issued a decision dated April 17 2002 for apprehension and deportation of Jimmy
Go to China.
ISSUE: Should Jimmy be deported to China because he is not a citizen of the Philippines?

RULING: Yes, Jimmy should be deported to China, aside from not being a Filipino citizen, he
has also violated laws in our land such as forging of documents.

1. That Respondent was born on October 25, 1952 in Iloilo City, as

evidenced by a copy of his birth certificate wherein his citizenship was
recorded as Chinese;

2. That Respondent through some stealth machinations was able to

subsequently cover up his true and actual citizenship as Chinese and illegally
acquired a Philippine Passport under the name JAIME T. GAISANO, with the
use of falsified documents and untruthful declarations, in violation of the
above-cited provisions of the Immigration Act[;]

3. That [R]espondent being an alien, has formally and officially

represent[ed] and introduce[d] himself as a citizen of the Philippines, for
fraudulent purposes and in order to evade any requirements of the
immigration laws, also in violation of said law.

GONZALES VS PENNISI
Facts:
Michael Alfio Pennisi (respondent) was born on 13 March 1975 in Queensland, Australia to
Alfio Pennisi, an Australian national, and Anita T. Quintos (Quintos), allegedly a Filipino
citizen. In March 1999, respondent filed a petition for recognition as Filipino citizen before
the Bureau of Immigration (BI).

After submitting all the requirements necessary to prove that he is a Filipino the BI and DOJ
granted his petition to be a Filipino citizen.

On 7 August 2003, the Senate Committees on Games, Amusement and Sports and on
Constitutional Amendments (Senate Committees) jointly submitted Committee Report No.
256[5](Committee Report) recommending, among other things, that (1) the BI conduct
summary deportation proceedings against several Filipino-foreign PBA players, including
respondent; and (2) the DOJ Secretary conduct an immediate review of all orders of
recognition. Respondent was included in the said list.

On the said list the inclusion of his name is anchored on the ground that the authenticity of
the document presented by him are suspicious.

His alleged mother and other relatives, specifically the parents of the former, namely: Felipe
M. Quintos and Celina G. Tomeda, who were mentioned in his application for recognition of
Philippine citizenship in the BI, are not known and have never existed in Panabingan, San
Antonio, Nueva Ecija.
On 18 October 2004, the DOJ issued a resolution revoking respondent’s certificate of
recognition and directing the BI to begin summary deportation proceedings against
respondent and other Filipino-foreign PBA players.

An appeal was filed before the CA. After hearing CA affirmed the first decision of the BI and
DOJ retaining the petitioners status as a Filipino.
Hence this petition.

Issue: W/N Pennisi is a Filipino citizen.

Ruling:

We agree with the court of appeals that while the affidavits of soliman and peralta might
have cast doubt on the validity of quintos’ certificate of live birth, such certificate remains
valid unless declared invalid by competent authority. The rule stands that “(d)ocuments
consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer
are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. X x x.”

we further sustain the court of appeals that there could be reasons why the quintoses
and tomedas were not included in the census, such as they could have been mere transients
in the place. As for their absence in the master’s list of voters, they could have failed to
register themselves as voters. The late registration of quintos’ certificate of live birth was
made 10 years after her birth and not anytime near the filing of respondent’s petition for
recognition as filipino citizen. As such, it could not be presumed that the certificate’s late
filing was meant to use it fraudulently. Finally, the australian department of immigration
and multicultural affairs itself attested that as of 14 july 1999, quintos has not been granted
australian citizenship. Respondent submitted a certified true copy of quintos’
australian certificate of registration of alien, indicating her nationality as
filipino. These pieces of evidence should prevail over the affidavits submitted by soliman
and peralta to the senate committees.

Wherefore, we deny the petition.

VILANDO VS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL

TRIBUNAL

FACTS:

In the May 14, 2007 elections, Limkaichong filed her certificate of candidacy for the position
of Representative of the First District of Negros Oriental.She won over the other contender,
Olivia Paras.OnMay 25, 2007, she was proclaimed as Representative by the Provincial Board
of Canvassers on the basis of Comelec Resolution No. 8062 issued onMay 18, 2007.OnJuly
23, 2007, she assumed office as Member of the House of Representatives.

Meanwhile, petitions involving either the disqualification or the proclamation of

Limkaichong were filed before the Commission on Elections(COMELEC)which reached the
Court.

The petitions, which questioned her citizenship, were filed against Limkaichong by her
detractors.

On April 21, 2009 and May 27, 2009, petitioner Renald F. Vilando(Vilando),as taxpayer; and
Jacinto Paras, as registered voter of the congressional district concerned, filed separate
petitions for Quo Warranto against Limkaichong before the HRET.These petitions were
consolidated by the HRET as they both challenged the eligibility of one and the same
respondent.Petitioners asserted that Limkaichong was a Chinese citizen and ineligible for
the office she was elected and proclaimed.They alleged that she was born to a father (Julio
Sy), whose naturalization had not attained finality, and to a mother who acquired the Chinese
citizenship of Julio Sy from the time of her marriage to the latter.Also, they invoked the
jurisdiction of the HRET for a determination of Limkaichongs citizenship, which necessarily
included an inquiry into the validity of the naturalization certificate of Julio Sy.

For her defense, Limkaichong maintained that she is a natural-born Filipino citizen.She
averred that the acquisition of Philippine citizenship by her father was regular and in order
and had already attained the status ofres judicata.Further, she claimed that the validity of
such citizenship could not be assailed through a collateral attack.

OnMarch 24, 2010, the HRET dismissed both petitions and declared Limkaichong not
disqualified as Member of the House of Representatives.

The petitioners sought reconsideration of the aforesaid decision, but it was denied by the
HRET in its Resolution datedMay 17, 2010. Hence, this petition for certiorari filed by Vilando.

ISSUES:

1) Whether the case is already moot and academic;

2) Whether Limkaichong is a natural born-citizen

HELD:
Records disclose that Limkaichong was born in Dumaguete City on November 9, 1959.The
governing law is the citizenship provision of the 1935 Constitution, the pertinent portion
thereof, reads:

Article IV
Section 1.The following are citizens of the Philippines:
xxx
(3)Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines.
(4)Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of
majority, elect Philippine citizenship.
xxx
Indubitably, with Limkaichongs father having been conferred the status as a
naturalized Filipino, it follows that she is a Filipino citizen born to a Filipino father.

Even on the assumption that the naturalization proceedings and the subsequent issuance of
certificate of naturalization were invalid, Limkaichong can still be considered a natural-born
Filipino citizen having been born to a Filipino mother and having impliedly elected Filipino
citizenship when she reached majority age. The HRET is, thus, correct in declaring that
Limkaichong is a natural-born Filipino citizen:

Respondent Limkaichong falls under the cate gory of those persons whose fathers are
citizens of the Philippines. (Section 1(3), Article IV, 1935 Constitution)It matters not whether
the father acquired citizenship by birth or by naturalization. Therefore, following the line of
transmission through the father under the 1935 Constitution, the respondent has
satisfactorily complied with the requirement for candidacy and for holding office, as she is a
natural-born Filipino citizen.

Likewise, the citizenship of respondent Limkaichong finds support in paragraph 4, Section

1, Article IV of the 1935 Constitution.

Having failed to prove that Anesia Sy lost her Philippine citizenship, respondent can be
considered a natural born citizen of the Philippines, having been born to a mother who
was a natural-born Filipina at the time of marriage, and because respondent was able
to elect citizenship informally when she reached majority age. Respondent participated
in the barangay elections as a young voter in 1976, accomplished voters affidavit as of 1984,
and ran as a candidate and was elected as Mayor of La Libertad, Negros Oriental in
2004.These are positive acts of election of Philippine citizenship. The case of In re:Florencio
Mallare, elucidates how election of citizenship is manifested in actions indubitably showing
a definite choice. We note that respondent had informally elected citizenship after January
17, 1973during which time the 1973 Constitution considered as citizens of the Philippines
all those who elect citizenship in accordance with the 1935 Constitution. The 1987
Constitution provisions, i.e.,Section 1(3), Article [IV] and Section 2, Article [IV]were enacted
to correct the anomalous situation where one born of a Filipino father and an alien mother
was automatically accorded the status of a natural-born citizen, while one born of a Filipino
mother and an alien father would still have to elect Philippine citizenship yet if so elected,
was not conferred natural-born status. It was the intention of the framers of the 1987
Constitution to treat equally those born before the 1973 Constitution and who elected
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority either before or after the effectivity
of the 1973 Constitution. Thus, those who would elect Philippine citizenship under par. 3,
Section 1, Article [IV] of the 1987 Constitution are now, under Section 2, Article [IV] thereof
also natural-born Filipinos. The following are the pertinent provisions of the 1987
Constitution:

Article IV
Section 1. 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.
Section 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth
without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those
who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be
deemed natural-born citizens.
Vilandos assertion that Limkaichong cannot derive Philippine citizenship from her mother
because the latter became a Chinese citizen when she married Julio Sy, as provided for under
Section 1 (7) of Commonwealth Act No. 63 in relation to Article 2 (1) Chapter II of the Chinese
Revised Nationality Law of February 5, 1959,must likewise fail.

As aptly pointed out by the HRET, Vilando was not able to offer in evidence a duly certified
true copy of the alleged Chinese Revised Law of Nationality to prove that Limkaichongs
mother indeed lost her Philippine citizenship. Verily, Vilando failed to establish his case
through competent and admissible evidence to warrant a reversal of the HRET ruling.

REPUBLIC VS LIM

Facts:
The respondent, Chule Y. Lim, is an illegitimate daughter of a Chinese father and a Filipina
mother, who never got married due to a prior subsisting marriage of her father. The
respondent petitioned that there were few mistakes as to her citizenship and identity, to wit:

1. That her surname “Yu” was misspelled as “Yo”. She has been using “Yu” in all of her school
records and in her marriage certificate.

2. That her father’s name in her birth record was written as “Yo Diu To (Co Tian)” when it
should have been “Yu Dio To (Co Tian).”

3. That her nationality was entered as Chinese when it should have been Filipino considering
that her father and mother got married.

4. That she was entered as a legitimate child on her birth certificate when in fact, it should
have been illegitimate. Both the trial court and Court of Appeals granted the respondent’s
petition.
Issue:
The Republic of the Philippines appealed the decision to the Supreme Court on the following
grounds:

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the correction of the citizenship of
respondent Chule Y. Lim from “Chinese” to “Filipino” despite the fact that respondent never
demonstrated any compliance with the legal requirements for election of citizenship.

Held:
1. No. The Republic avers that respondent did not comply with the constitutional
requirement of electing Filipino citizenship when she reached the age of majority as
mandated in Article IV, Section 1(3) of the 1935 Constitution and Section 1 of the
Commonwealth Act No. 625. The Supreme Court held that the two above provisions only
apply to legitimate children. These do not apply in the case of the respondent who was an
illegitimate child considering that her parents never got married. By being an illegitimate
child of a Filipino mother, respondent automatically became a Filipino upon birth, and as
such, there was no more need for her to validly elect Filipino citizenship upon reaching the
age of majority. Also, she registered as a voter inside the country when she reached 18 years
old. The exercise of the right of suffrage and the participation in election exercises constitute
a positive act of election of Philippine citizenship.

MA VS FERNANDEZ

FACTS:

Balgamelo Cabiling Ma (Balgamelo), Felix Cabiling Ma, Jr. (Felix, Jr.), Valeriano Cabiling Ma
(Valeriano), Lechi Ann Ma (Lechi Ann), Arceli Ma (Arceli), Nicolas Ma (Nicolas), and Isidro
Ma (Isidro) are the children of Felix (Yao Kong) Ma, a Taiwanese, and Dolores Sillona
Cabiling, a Filipina.

Records reveal that petitioners Felix, Jr., Balgamelo and Valeriano were all born under aegis
of the 1935 Philippine Constitution in the years 1948, 1951, and 1957, respectively.

They were all raised in the Philippines and have resided in this country for almost sixty (60)
years; they spent their whole lives, studied and received their primary and secondary
education in the country; they do not speak nor understand the Chinese language, have not
set foot in Taiwan, and do not know any relative of their father; they have not even traveled
abroad; and they have already raised their respective families in the Philippines.

During their age of minority, they secured from the Bureau of Immigration their Alien
Certificates of Registration (ACRs).

Having taken their oath of allegiance as Philippine citizens, petitioners, however, failed to
have the necessary documents registered in the civil registry as required under Section 1 of
Commonwealth Act No. 625 (An Act Providing the Manner in which the Option to Elect
Philippine Citizenship shall be Declared by a Person whose Mother is a Filipino Citizen) .It
was only on27 July 2005or more than thirty (30) years after they elected Philippine
citizenship that Balgamelo and Felix, Jr. did so. On the other hand, there is no showing that
Valeriano complied with the registration requirement.

Individual certifications all dated3 January 2005issued by the Office of the City Election
Officer, Commission on Elections, SurigaoCity, show that all of them are registered voters of
Barangay Washington, Precinct No. 0015A since June 1997, and that records on previous
registrations are no longer available because of the mandatory general registration every ten
(10) years.Moreover, aside from exercising their right of suffrage, Balgamelo is one of the
incumbent Barangay Kagawads in Barangay Washington, Surigao City.

On16 February 2004, the Bureau of Immigration received the Complaint-Affidavit of a

certain Mat G. Catral (Mr. Catral), alleging that Felix (Yao Kong) Ma and his seven (7) children
are undesirable and overstaying aliens.Mr. Catral, however, did not participate in the
proceedings, and the Ma family could not but believe that the complaint against them was
politically motivated because they strongly supported a candidate in Surigao City in the 2004
National and Local Elections.

On9 November 2004, the Legal Department of the Bureau of Immigration charged them for
violation of Sections 37(a)(7) and 45(e) of Commonwealth Act No. 613, otherwise known as
the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940, as amended.

After Felix Ma and his seven (7) children were afforded the opportunity to refute the
allegations, the Board of Commissioners (Board) of the Bureau of Immigration (BI),
composed of the public respondents, rendered a Judgment dated 2 February 2005 finding
that Felix Ma and his children violated Commonwealth Act No. 613, Sections 37(a)(7) and
45(e) in relation to BI Memorandum Order Nos. ADD-01-031 and ADD-01-035 dated 6 and22
August 2001, respectively.

In its Resolution of 8 April 2005, public respondents partially reconsidered their Judgment
of 2 February 2005.They were convinced that Arceli is an immigrant under Commonwealth
Act No. 613, Section 13(g). However, they denied the Motion for Reconsideration with
respect to Felix Ma and the rest of his children.

On3 May 2005, only Balgamelo, Felix, Jr., and Valeriano filed the Petition for Certiorari under
Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure before the Court of Appeals.

On29 August 2007, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition after finding that the
petitioners failed to comply with the exacting standards of the law providing for the
procedure and conditions for their continued stay in the Philippines either as aliens or as its
nationals.

On 29 May 2008, it issued a Resolution denying the petitioners Motion for Reconsideration
dated 20 September 2007.
ISSUE: Whether petitioners herein are Filipino Citizens.

HELD: In both cases, we ruled against the petitioners because they belatedly complied with
all the requirements. The acts of election and their registration with the nearest civil registry
were all done beyond the reasonable period of three years upon reaching the age of majority.

The instant case presents a different factual setting.Petitioners complied with the first and
second requirements upon reaching the age of majority.It was only the registration of the
documents of election with the civil registry that was belatedly done.

We rule that under the facts peculiar to the petitioners, the right to elect Philippine
citizenship has not been lost and they should be allowed to complete the statutory
requirements for such election.

We are not prepared to state that the mere exercise of suffrage, being elected public official,
continuous and uninterrupted stay in thePhilippines, and other similar acts showing
exercise of Philippine citizenship can take the place of election of citizenship.What we now
say is that where, as in petitioners case, the election of citizenship has in fact been done and
documented within the constitutional and statutory timeframe, the registration of the
documents of election beyond the frame should be allowed if in the meanwhile positive acts
of citizenship have publicly, consistently, and continuously been done.The actual exercise of
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 election of Philippine
citizenship.

Having a Filipino mother is permanent.It is the basis of the right of the petitioners to elect
Philippine citizenship.Petitioners elected Philippine citizenship in form and substance.The
failure to register the election in the civil registry should not defeat the election and
resultingly negate the permanent fact that they have a Filipino mother.The lacking
requirements may still be complied with subject to the imposition of appropriate
administrative penalties, if any.The documents they submitted supporting their allegations
that they have already registered with the civil registry, although belatedly, should be
examined for validation purposes by the appropriate agency, in this case, the Bureau of
Immigration.Other requirements embodied in the administrative orders and other issuances
of the Bureau of Immigration and the Department of Justice shall be complied with within a
reasonable time.

REPUBLIC VS SAGUN

Facts: Nora Fe Sagun is the legitimate child of Albert S. Chan, a Chinese national, and Marta
Borromeo, a Filipino citizen. She was born on August 8, 1959 in Baguio City and did not elect
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. In 1992, at the age of 33 and after
getting married to Alex Sagun, she executed an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines. Said document was notarized but was not recorded and registered with the
Local Civil Registrar of Baguio City.

In 2005, Sagun applied for a Philippine passport. Her application was denied due to the
citizenship of her father and there being no annotation on her birth certificate that she has
elected Philippine citizenship. Consequently, she sought a judicial declaration of her election
of Philippine citizenship averring that she was raised as a Filipino and she is a registered
voter in Baguio City and had voted in local and national elections as shown in the Voter
Certification. She asserted that by virtue of her positive acts, she has effectively elected
Philippine citizenship and such fact should be annotated on her record of birth so as to entitle
her to the issuance of a Philippine passport.

After hearing, the trial court granted the petition and declaring Sagun a Filipino citizen.

Petitioner, through the OSG, directly filed a petition for review on certiorari, pointing out that
while Sagun executed an oath of allegiance before a notary public, there was no affidavit of
her election of Philippine citizenship. Additionally, her oath of allegiance which was not
registered with the nearest local civil registry was executed when she was already 33 years
old or 12 years after she reached the age of majority.

Issues:

1. Is an action or proceeding for judicial declaration of Philippine citizenship procedurally

and jurisdictionally permissible?

2. Has Norma complied with the procedural requirements in the election of Philippine
citizenship?

Held:
2. When respondent was born on August 8, 1959, the governing charter was the 1935
Constitution, which declares as citizens of the Philippines those whose mothers are citizens
of the Philippines and elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. Sec. 1,
Art. IV of the 1935 Constitution reads:

Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:

xxxx
(4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of
majority, elect Philippine citizenship.

Under Article IV, Section 1(4) of the 1935 Constitution, the citizenship of a legitimate child
born of a Filipino mother and an alien father followed the citizenship of the father, unless,
upon reaching the age of majority, the child elected Philippine citizenship. Being a legitimate
child, respondents citizenship followed that of her father who is Chinese, unless upon
reaching the age of majority, she elects Philippine citizenship. For respondent to be
considered a Filipino citizen, she must have validly elected Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority.

Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 625, enacted pursuant to Section 1(4), Article IV of the 1935
Constitution, prescribes the procedure that should be followed in order to make a valid
election of Philippine citizenship, to wit:

Section 1. The option to elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with subsection (4),
[S]ection 1, Article IV, of the Constitution shall be expressed in a statement to be signed and
sworn to by the party concerned before any officer authorized to administer oaths, and shall
be filed with the nearest civil registry. The said party shall accompany the aforesaid
statement with the oath of allegiance to the Constitution and the Government of the
Philippines.

Based on the foregoing, the statutory formalities of electing Philippine citizenship are: (1) a
statement of election under oath; (2) an oath of 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.

Furthermore, no election of Philippine citizenship shall be accepted for registration under

C.A. No. 625 unless the party exercising the right of election has complied with the
requirements of the Alien Registration Act of 1950. In other words, he should first be
required to register as an alien. Pertinently, the person electing Philippine citizenship is
required to file a petition with the Commission of Immigration and Deportation (now Bureau
of Immigration) for the cancellation of his alien certificate of registration based on his
aforesaid election of Philippine citizenship and said Office will initially decide, based on the
evidence presented the validity or invalidity of said election. Afterwards, the same is
elevated to the Ministry (now Department) of Justice for final determination and review.

It should be stressed that there is no specific statutory or procedural rule which authorizes
the direct filing of a petition for declaration of election of Philippine citizenship before the
courts. The special proceeding provided under Section 2, Rule 108 of the Rules of Court on
Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Civil Registry, merely allows any interested party
to file an action for cancellation or correction of entry in the civil registry, i.e., election, loss
and recovery of citizenship, which is not the relief prayed for by the respondent.

Be that as it may, even if we set aside this procedural infirmity, still the trial courts conclusion
that respondent duly elected Philippine citizenship is erroneous since the records
undisputably show that respondent failed to comply with the legal requirements for a valid
election. Specifically, respondent had not executed a sworn statement of her election of
Philippine citizenship. The only documentary evidence submitted by respondent in support
of her claim of alleged election was her oath of allegiance, executed 12 years after she
reached the age of majority, which was unregistered. As aptly pointed out by the petitioner,
even assuming arguendo that respondents oath of allegiance suffices, its execution was not
within a reasonable time after respondent attained the age of majority and was not
registered with the nearest civil registry as required under Section 1 of C.A. No. 625. The
phrase reasonable time has been interpreted to mean that the election should be made
generally within three (3) years from reaching the age of majority. Moreover, there was no
satisfactory explanation proffered by respondent for the delay and the failure to register
with the nearest local civil registry.

Based on the foregoing circumstances, respondent clearly failed to comply with the
procedural requirements for a valid and effective election of Philippine citizenship.
Respondent cannot assert that the exercise of suffrage and the participation in
election exercises constitutes a positive act of election of Philippine citizenship since
the law specifically lays down the requirements for acquisition of citizenship by
election. The mere exercise of suffrage, continuous and uninterrupted stay in the
Philippines, and other similar acts showing exercise of Philippine citizenship cannot
take the place of election of Philippine citizenship. Hence, respondent cannot now be
allowed to seek the intervention of the court to confer upon her Philippine citizenship when
clearly she has failed to validly elect Philippine citizenship. As we held in Ching, the
prescribed procedure in electing Philippine citizenship is certainly not a tedious and
painstaking process. All that is required of the elector is to execute an affidavit of election of
Philippine citizenship and, thereafter, file the same with the nearest civil registry. Having
failed to comply with the foregoing requirements, respondents petition before the trial court
must be denied. (Republic vs. Sagun, G.R. No. 187567, February 15, 2012)