Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Col Nationality Residence Citizenship
Col Nationality Residence Citizenship
The applicant is shop superintendent of A. L. Ammen Appellant's contention that attachment of the certificate of
Transportation Company, with about eighty Filipino employees arrival is essential to the validity of a declaration finds no
working under him. He receives an annual salary of P13,200 support in the wordings of the law, as the above-quoted
with free quarters and house allowance. He also owns stocks section 5 of Commonwealth Act no. 473 uses the words "has
and bonds of this and other companies. been issued.
The applicant speaks and writes English and the Bicol dialect. Appellee suggests that we would not consider the question
Socially he intermingles with the Filipinos, attending parties, here raised by appellant, the latter having failed to raise it in
dances and other social functions with his wife. He has a good lower court and points out that there is testimonial evidence
moral character and believes in the principles underlying the showing appellee's arrival March, 1923, and that he was
Philippine Constitution. He has never been accused of any lawfully admitted for permanent residence, and the testimony
crime. On the other hand, he has always conducted himself in of petitioner has not been refuted. Appellee's alleges that the
a proper and irreproachable manner during his entire period of office of the President has certified that it is a matter of record
residence in Camarines Sur, in his relations with the that petitioner was one of the Russian refugees who entered
constituted authorities as well as with the community. the Philippines under the command of Admiral Stark, the facts
regarding arrival of the latter fleet being a matter of common
Although a Russian by birth he is not a citizen of Soviet knowledge, widely publicized in the newspapers at the time, of
Russia. He disclaims allegiance to the present Communist which this Court may properly take judicial notice under section
Government of Russia. He is, therefore, a stateless refugee in 5 of Rule 123. When the fleet entered the Philippine waters, it
was met by a Governor General Wood who, later, took the the loss of all bonds of attachment to the hells which were
matter up with the authorities in Washington in lengthy formerly their fatherland's. Petitioner belongs to that group of
correspondence, and the 1,200 persons manning the fleet stateless refugees.
were allowed to land and to remain in the Philippines or
proceed to other countries, except about 800 who were Knowing, as all cultured persons all over the world ought to
allowed to go to the United States and given free transportation know, the history, nature and character of the Soviet
on the naval transport "Merritt." The ships of the fleet were sold dictatorship, presently the greatest menace to humanity and
in the Philippines. civilization, it would be technically fastidious to require further
evidence of petitioner's claim that he is stateless than his
The undisputed fact that the petitioner has been continuously testimony that he owes no allegiance to the Russian
residing in the Philippines for about 25 years, without having Communist Government and, is because he has been at war
been molested by the authorities, who are presumed to have with it, he fled from Russia to permanently reside in the
been regularly performing their duties and would have arrested Philippines. After finding in this country economic security in a
petitioner if his residence is illegal, as rightly contended by remunerative job, establishing a family by marrying a Filipina
appellee, can be taken as evidence that he is enjoying with whom he has a son, and enjoying for 25 years the
permanent residence legally. That a certificate of arrival has freedoms and blessings of our democratic way of life, and after
been issued is a fact that should be accepted upon the showing his resolution to retain the happiness he found in our
petitioner's undisputed statement in his declaration of July, political system to the extent of refusing to claim Russian
1940, that the certificate cannot be supposed that the receiving citizenship even to secure his release from the Japanese and
official would have accepted the declaration without the of casting his lot with that of our people by joining the fortunes
certificate mentioned therein as attached thereto. and misfortunes of our guerrillas, it would be beyond
We conclude that petitioner's declaration is valid under section comprehension to support that the petitioner could feel any
5 of the Naturalization Law, failure to reconstitute the certificate bond of attachment to the Soviet dictatorship.
of arrival notwithstanding. What an unreconstituted document
intended to prove may be shown by other competent evidence. Appealed Resolution is Affirmed.
2. It is contended that petitioner failed to show that 2. Cu vs. Republic of the Philippines
under the laws of Russia, appellee has lost his G.R No. L-3018 July 18, 1951 Tuason J.
Russian citizenship and failed to show that Russia
grants to Filipinos the right to become a naturalized In the matter of petition of Robert Cu to be admitted as a
citizens or subjects thereof. The controversy centers citizen of the Philippines vs Republic of the Philippines
on the question as to whether petitioner is a Russian
citizen or is stateless. Doctrine: As to the statute adopted from another country.
A rationale rule of statutory construction is that a statute
Petitioner testified categorically that he is not a Russian citizen adopted from another state or country will be presumed to be
and that he has no citizenship. His testimony supports the adopted with the construction placed upon it by the courts of
lower court's pronouncement that petitioner is a stateless that state or country before its adoption. Such construction is
refugee in this country. regarded as of great weight, or at least persuasive, and will
Appellant points out that petitioner stated in his petition for generally be followed if found reasonable and in harmony with
naturalization that he is citizen or subject of the Empire of justice and public policy and with other laws of the adopting
Russia, but the Empire of Russia has ceased to exist since the jurisdiction on the subject.
Czars were overthrown in 1917 by the Bolshevists, and the
petitioner disclaims allegiance or connection with the Soviet As to the nationality (according to the law when this petition
Government established after the overthrow of the Czarist filed) Section 7 of the Naturalization Law (Commonwealth Act
Government. No. 473) provides that the petition for citizenship, must state
the following:
We do not believe that the lower court erred in pronouncing
appellee stateless. Appellee's testimony, besides being 1.) Petitioner’s qualification as enumerated in the Act
uncontradicted, is supported by the well-known fact that the 2.) Petition must be signed by the applicant in his own
ruthlessness of modern dictatorship has scattered throughout handwriting and
the world a large number of stateless refugees or displaced 3.) Be supported by affidavit of atleast two (2) credible
persons, without country and without flag. The tyrannical persons stating that they are citizens of the
intolerance of said dictatorships toward all opposition induced Philippines and personally know the petitioner to be a
them to resort to beastly oppression, concentration camps and resident of the Philippines for the period of time
blood purges, and it is only natural that the not-so-fortunate required by this Act and a person of good repute and
ones who were able to escape to foreign countries should feel morally irreproachable and that said petitioner has in
their opinion all the qualifications necessary to
become a citizen of the Philippines and is not any way In “United States vs Mortorana, “a petition not so verified by at
disqualified under the provisions of the Act. least two persons who are citizen is not merely voidable but
4.) The petition shall also set forth the names and post void”
office addresses of such witnesses as the petitioner
may desire to introduce at the hearing of the case In the case of In re Kornstain, A witness who is incompetent
renders an application void. The question of a witness’
Facts: Robert Cu filed a petition for naturalization. During the qualifications in naturalization proceedings is therefore a
hearing, he stated that he was a citizen of the Philippines, CFI matter of more than usual importance.
Rizal found him to be a “Filipino citizen both by right of birth
and by right of selection” and dismissed the petition for The above decisions are not binding upon Philippines Courts,
naturalization. It impliedly held that being already a Philippine but it is a rational rule of statutory construction that a statute
citizen he did not have to be naturalized. adopted from another state or country will be presumed to be
adopted with the construction placed upon it by the courts
According to his testimony, he is a Filipino born of a Filipino of that state or country before its adoption. Such
mother. But when his mother died when he was about 5 construction is regarded as of great weight, or at least
months old, he was brought to China by his father. When he persuasive and will generally be followed if found
was 5 yrs old, he and his father left China and then was given reasonable and in harmony with justice and public policy and
to the care of Dona Mangahas. with other laws of the adopting jurisdiction on the subject .
The counsel for the Government opposed Cu’s claim that he is The Supreme Court finds the United States courts’ reasoning
a Filipino. Cu continued with this testimony: “I consider myself to be sound and reasonable and we make it our own.
a Filipino Citizen on account of the fact that my mother is (was)
a Filipino and I was born in the Philippines. My only fault was 3. Talaroc vs. Uy
that I failed to file my application to elect Philippine Citizenship. G.R. No. L-5397 September 26, 1952
That is why I am now asking this court to make a judgement on LAURETO A. TALAROC, petitioner-appellee, vs.
that” ALEJANDRO D. UY, respondent-appellant.
Consequently, he was asked by the court whether he knew if Author’s Note: THE FACTS ARE IN SPANISH!! ANG LALA
his parents were legally married but he was unsure thereof. PO. I would like to thank Google Translate for making life a
little easier for students who have professors who gives
Issue: jurisprudence with facts in Spanish.
Is Cu entitled to be admitted to Philippine citizenship
under the law at the time of his application? Doctrine: it would neither be fair nor good policy to hold the
respondent an alien after he had exercised the privileges of
Ruling: citizenship and the Government had confirmed his Philippine
citizenship on the faith of legal principle that had the force of
No. He is not entitled to be admitted Philippine law. On several occasions the Secretary of Justice had
Citizenship. declared as Filipino citizens persons similarly circumstanced
Section 7 of the Revised Naturalization Law (Commonwealth as Alejandro.
Act. 473) provides that the witnesses must be citizens of the
Philippines and “personally know the petitioner to be a resident Facts:
of the Philippines for the period of time required by this Act. If 1. The election of Alejandro D. Uy to the office of municipal
petitioner is born in the Philippines, time required is 5 years mayor of Manticao, Misamis Oriental, on November 13, 1951,
and if not, 10 years. brought the instant action of quo warranto in the CFI by the
petitioner Laureto A. Talaroc, one of the defeated candidates
The witness provided by Cu did not meet these qualifications for the same office. The grounds of the petition were that the
respondent is a Chinese national and therefore ineligible.
Witness Dr. Jose Ku Yeg Keng admitted that his father was a 2. Alejandro D. Uy was born on January 28, 1912, in the
Chinese national and his mother a Filipina but he did not municipality of Iligan, Lanao, of Chinese father, Uy Piangco,
actually elect Philipine citizenship. and of Filipina mother, Ursula Diabo, when they lived together
as husband and wife.
The other witness Dr. Gomez, he testified that “he had known 3. Uy Piangco was a native of China, and has never
Mr. Cu since liberation about August 1945.” Dr. Gomez been absent since he arrived in 1893 in the Philippines until his
eventually withdrawn as witness upon the objection of the death on February 17, 1917, in Lanao, where he was
counsel for the Government
continuously residing. Ursula Diabo without contracting a new the adoption of the constitution, when jus soli had been the
marriage, died later, on August 29, 1949. prevailing doctrine.
4. Alejandro also never went to China and has voted in 5. The members of the Constitutional Convention were also
the previous elections in the country, and has served as aware of this rule. In making the jus sanguinis the
Inspector of the "Bureau of Plant Industry" in 1943, teacher predominating principle in the determination of Philippine
under the Bureau of Public Schools, filing clerk at the Municipal citizenship, they did not intend to exclude those who were
Treasury of Initao from 1935 to 1945, and acting Municipal citizens of the Philippines by judicial declaration at the time of
Treasurer from 1942 to 1943, besides having served the 120th the adoption of the Constitution.
Infantry Regiment of the guerrilla, and some time "tax collector" 6. Unlike the Tan Chong case, Alejandro had attained the
of the Government of Japanese occupation. age of majority when the Constitution went into effect, and had
5. The records also show that Alejandro's brothers have been allowed to exercise the right of suffrage, to hold public
been occupying public positions for the past several years. All office, and to take the oath of allegiance to the Commonwealth
his brothers married Filipino girls and they were never Government or Republic of the Philippines.
identified with any Chinese political or social organization. 7. The Tan Chong decision itself makes this express
Alejandro's father acquired properties in Lugait. His mother, reservation: "Needless to say, this decision is not intended or
who never remarried, campaigned for woman and voted in the designed to deprive, as it cannot divest, of their Filipino
subsequent elections. citizenship, those who have been declared to be Filipino
6. Alejandro contended, that his father was a subject of citizens, or upon whom such citizenship had been conferred by
Spain on April 11, 1899; that his mother ipso facto reacquired the courts because of the doctrine or principle of res
her Filipino citizenship upon the death of her husband on adjudicata."
February 17, 1917, and the child followed her citizenship; and 8. Certainly, it would neither be fair nor good policy to hold
that Alejandro is a citizen of the Philippines by the mere fact of the respondent an alien after he had exercised the privileges of
his birth therein. citizenship and the Government had confirmed his Philippine
7. The lower court noted that, while under the Roa doctrine citizenship on the faith of legal principle that had the force of
(Roa vs. Insular Collector of Customs)[1], Alejandro would be a law. On several occasions the Secretary of Justice had
Filipino citizen regardless of the nationality of his parents, this declared as Filipino citizens persons similarly circumstanced
doctrine was abandoned in Tan Chong vs. Secretary of Labor. as Alejandro.
Hence, the lower court found the petition for quo warranto 9. Deserving of the same consideration is the proposition
well-founded and declared the position in question vacant. that Alejandro D. Uy became a Philippine citizen at least upon
his father's death.
Issue: W/N Alejandro was a Filipino citizen, eligible to hold the 10. It has been seen that, a Filipino woman married to
office of the municipal mayor Chinese ipso facto reacquired her Filipino citizenship upon her
husband's demise and that there after her minor children's
Held: YES! nationality automatically followed that of the mother's. This rule
1. Citing various decisions, authorities, and opinions of the was not changed by the adoption of the jus sanguinis doctrine,
United States Attorney General, it found that the marriage of and was in force until Commonwealth Act No. 63 went into
an American woman with an alien conferred his nationality effect in 1936, by which the legislature, for the first time,
upon her; that upon the dissolution of the marriage by death of provided a method for regaining Philippine citizenship by
the husband, the wife reverted, ipso facto, to her former status, Filipino women in such cases.
unless her conduct or acts showed that she elected to retain
the nationality of her husband, and that where the widowed The decision of the lower court is reversed and Alejandro
mother herself thus reacquired her former nationality, her declared a Filipino citizen and eligible to the office of the
children, she being their natural guardian, should follow her municipal mayor. The petitioner and appellee will pay the costs
nationality with the proviso that they may elect for themselves of both instances.
upon reaching majority.
2. The Roa decision, and a long line of decisions applied the
principle of jus soli up to September 16, 1947, when that 1. [1] It may be recalled that in the case of Roa vs. Insular Collector
principle was renounced in the case of Tan Chong vs. of Customs, the petitioner was born in lawful wedlock in the Philippines
on July 6, 1899, his father being a native of China and his mother a
Secretary of Labor. However, the Tan Chong case not
Filipina. His father was domiciled in this country up to the year 1895
controlling in this case.
when he went to China and never returned, dying there about 1900. In
3. Under Sec. 1, Art. IV of the Constitution, one kind of PH May, 1901, Roa, was then a minor, was sent to China by his widowed
citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at mother for the soul purpose of studying and returned in October, 1910,
the time of the adoption of this Constitution. being then about 21 years and 3 months of age. He was denied
4. On the strength of the Roa doctrine, Alejandro admission by the board of special inquiry, whose decision was affirmed
undoubtedly was considered a Philippine citizen on the date of by the Court of First Instance in habeas corpus proceedings.
4. Uytengsu v. Republic of the Philippines If said actual and substantial residence — not merely
GR No. L-6379 | September 29, 1954 | J. Concepcion | Manao legal residence — is necessary to dispense with the
filing of a declaration of intention, it is even more
DOCTRINE: The Philippine residency commitment required necessary during the period intervening from the filing
under the Naturalization Act refers to actual/physical of the petition for naturalization to the date of the
residence, and not just the establishment of a domicile. hearing thereof, for the government to draw its own
conclusions on these matters if its officers could
FACTS: personally observe the behaviour of the applicant and
● Wilfred Uytengsu was born of Chinese parents in confer with him if necessary.
Dumaguete, Negros Oriental.
● He studied in the Philippines up to the 1st semester of DISPOSITIVE: CFI reversed; application for naturalization
his college education. Thereafter, he went to the U.S., dismissed.
where he completed his college degree.
● He returned to the Philippines for a vacation. 5. In re Petition of Zita Ngo Burca vs. Republic of the
● July 1950: While in the Philippines, he filed an
application for naturalization. Philippines
○ The hearing for this case was scheduled on IN RE petition to declare ZITA NGO to possess all
July 1951. qualifications and none of the disqualifications for
● While the case was pending, he returned to the U.S. naturalization under Commonwealth Act 473 for the
to pursue a postgraduate course.
purpose of cancelling her alien registry with the BUREAU
● He returned to the Philippines on October 1951.
● CFI: Granted. OF IMMIGRATION.
● The Solicitor General appealed. ZITA NGO BURCA, petitioner and appellee,
○ Argument: Uytengsu stated in his vs.
application: "I will reside continuously in the REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor and appellant.
Philippines from the date of the filing of my
petition up to the time of my admission to G.R. No. L-24252| January 30, 1967 | Sanchez, J. | K. Olivete
Philippine citizenship", as required under the
Naturalization Law. Uytengsu reneged in this DOCTRINE:
commitment when he pursued graduate There is no law or rule which authorizes a declaration of
studies in the U.S. Filipino citizenship. Citizenship is not an appropriate subject for
● Uytengsu’s argument: "Residence", as used in the
Naturalization Law, is synonymous with domicile, declaratory judgment proceedings. Citizenship of an alien
which, once acquired, is not lost by physical absence, woman married to a Filipino must be determined in an
until another domicile is obtained. In his case, he "appropriate proceeding."
continued to be domiciled in, and hence a resident of, (1) An alien woman married to a Filipino who desires to be a
the Philippines, since his purpose in staying in the
citizen of this country must apply therefor by filing a petition for
U.S. at that time was merely to study.
citizenship reciting that she possesses all the qualifications set
RELEVANT ISSUE: Whether or not Uytengsu should be forth in Section 2, and none of the disqualifications under
naturalized? Section 4, both of the Revised Naturalization Law;
(2) Said petition must be filed in the Court of First Instance
HELD:
NO. Uytengsu reneged in his commitment of residing where petitioner has resided at least one year immediately
continuously in the Philippines while his application for preceding the filing of the petition; and
naturalization was pending. His “residence” commitment refers (3) Any action by any other office, agency, board or official,
to actual and physical residence, and not merely his domicile. administrative or otherwise — other than the judgment of a
● Although the words "residence" and "domicile" are competent court of justice — certifying or declaring that an
often used interchangeably, each has, in strict legal
parlance, a meaning distinct and different from that of alien wife of the Filipino citizen is also a Filipino citizen, is
the other. hereby declared null and void.
Residence Domicile
FACTS:
Place of abode, whether Fixed permanent residence ● The case is a petition to declare Zita Ngo Burca —
permanent or temporary, for to which, when absent, one "as possessing all qualifications and none of the
business or other purposes has the intention of qualifications for naturalization under Commonwealth
returning||
Act 473 for the purpose of cancelling her Alien
Since Uytengsu obliged himself to “reside” in the Registry with the Bureau of Immigration.”
Philippines, actual/physical residence of the applicant ● Petitioner Zita avers that she has all the qualifications
in the Philippines is needed, and not just his domicile
being in the Philippines. required under Section 2 and none of the
disqualifications required under Section 4 of
● Dy Chinco v. Republic: Actual and substantial Commonwealth Act No. 473.
residence is required in order to dispense with the ● Uncontroverted facts are:
requirement of a declaration of intention required in
○ Petitioner Zita Ngo was born in Gigaquit,
naturalization proceedings.
Surigao on March 30, 1933.
○ Her father was Ngo Tay Suy and her mother · An alien wife of a Filipino citizen may not acquire the
was Dee See alias Lee Co, now both status of a citizen of the Philippines unless there is proof
deceased and citizens of Nationalist that she herself may be lawfully naturalized. Section 15
Republic of China. (Par. 1) of the Revised Naturalization Law provides:
○ She holds Native Born Certificate of “Any woman who is now or may hereafter be married to a
Residence and Alien Certificate of citizen of the Philippines, and who might herself be
Registration. lawfully naturalized shall be deemed a citizen of the
○ She married Florencio Burca a native-born Philippines.”
Filipino, on May 14, 1961. · Thus, in line with the national policy of selective admission
● Solicitor General opposed and moved to dismiss the to Philippine citizenship, the wife must possess the
petition on two main grounds: qualifications under Section 2, and must not be laboring
(1) that "there is no proceeding established by law, or under any of the disqualifications enumerated in Section 4,
the rules for the judicial declaration of the citizenship of the Revised Naturalization Law.
of an individual" · NOTE: The qualifications prescribed under section 2 of the
(2) that as an application for Philippine citizenship, Naturalization Act, and the disqualifications enumerated in
"the petition is fatally defective for failure to contain or its section 4, are not mutually exclusive
mention the essential allegations required under · If an alien woman married to a Filipino does not become
Section 7 of the Naturalization Law" (i.e. petitioner's ipso facto a citizen, then she must have to file a "petition
former places of residence, and the absence of the for citizenship" in order that she may acquire the status of
affidavits of at least two supporting witnesses, among a Filipino citizen. The determination of whether said alien
others) wife should be given the status of a citizen should fall
● During trial, petitioner was the sole witness. within the area allocated to competent courts. The proper
● Lower Court: dismissed opposition forum is the Court of First Instance of the province where
○ ZIta Ngo Burca as having all the the petitioner has resided "at least one year immediately
qualifications and none of the preceding the filing of the petition".
disqualifications to become a Filipino Citizen · We treat the present petition as one for naturalization. Or,
and that she being married to a Filipino in the words of law, a "petition for citizenship".
Citizen is hereby declared citizen of the (2) NO.
Philippines, after taking the necessary oath · Section 7 of the Naturalization Law requires that a petition
of allegiance for naturalization should state petitioner's "present and
● Hence, this appeal by Republic of the Philippines. former places of residence". Residence encompasses all
places where petitioner actually and physically resided.
ISSUES: · 1st fatal flaw: Petitioner avers that she was born in
(1) [RELEVANT] WON an alien woman (petitioner) who Gigaquit, Surigao that her former residence was Surigao,
marries a Filipino citizen automatically becomes a Filipino Surigao, and that presently she is residing at Regal St.,
citizen. - NO Ormoc City. In court, however, she testified that she also
(2) WON petitioner is lawfully naturalized and deemed to be a resided in Junquera St., Cebu, where she took up a
Filipino citizen. – NO course in home economics, for one year. Thus, failure to
HELD: allege a former place of residence is fatal because the
(1) NO. State is deprived of full opportunity to make inquiries as to
· By constitutional and legal precepts, an alien woman who petitioner's fitness to become a citizen.
marries a Filipino citizen, does not — by the mere fact of · The Naturalization Law also provides for the petition to be
marriage - automatically become a Filipino citizen. supported by the affidavit of at least two credible persons,
· Thus, by Article IV of the Constitution, citizenship is limited "stating that they are citizens of the Philippines and
to: personally know the petitioner to be a resident of the
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the Philippines for the period of time required by this Act and a
time of the adoption of this Constitution. person of good repute and morally irreproachable, and
(2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents that said petitioner has in their opinion all the qualifications
who, before the adoption of this Constitution, had been necessary to become a citizen of the Philippines and is not
elected to public office in the Philippine Islands. in any way disqualified under the provisions of this Act".
(3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines. Importance: These witnesses should indeed prove in court
(4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines that they are reliable insurers of the character of petitioner.
and, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine · 2nd fatal flaw: petition is not supported by the affidavit of at
citizenship. least two credible persons. Petitioner likewise failed to "set
(5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law. forth the names and post-office addresses of such
witnesses as the petitioner may desire to introduce at the promulgated a decision finding the Go Callano
hearing of the case" brothers to be the illegitimate children of Emilia and
DISPOSITIVE: are entitled to admission as Filipino citizens.
Upon the view we take of his case, the judgment appealed ● In 1962, the DFA informed the Commissioner of
from is hereby reversed and the petition dismissed, without Immigration that on the basis of the finding of the NBI,
costs. So ordered. the signatures of the former Sec. of Foreign Affairs
Felixberto Serrano, on certain documents, including a
6. Board of Commisioners vs. Go Callano cable authorization No. 2230-V, which authorized the
BOARD OF IMMINIGATION v. BEATO GO CALLANO, ET. documentation of the Go Callano brothers, were not
AL. authentic.
GR No. L-24530 | October 31, 1968 | J. Dizon | Quintana ● DFA declared the documents, including the cable
authorization (the cablegram), as null, void and of
DOCTRINE: no effect and the documentation made by the PH
On Conflicts issue - It has been a settled rule of international Consulate General at HK pursuant to the said cable
law, affirmed by The Hague Convention on Conflict of authorization consist of certificates of registration and
Nationality Laws and by the ICJ, is that “Any question as to identity issued to the Go Callano brothers are
whether a person possess the nationality of a particular state cancelled. These were all done without notice nor
should be determined in accordance with laws of that state”. hearing.
● On August 21 of the same year, the Board of
On Citizenship - Recognition by an alien father is not among Immigration Commissioners, issued without notice
the ground of losing PH citizenship under PH law. In addition, and hearing, an order reversing the decision of the
renunciation does not include the act of living in a foreign Board of Special Inquiry, which admitted the brothers
country for several years. There must be an express as PH citizens. The Board ordered that they are
renunciation of PH citizenship. excluded as aliens not properly documented for
admissions.
FACTS: ○ The order included a warrant of exclusion
● Beato, Manuel, Gonzalo and Julio Go Callano (Go commanding the deportation of the brothers.
Callano brothers) are the illegitimate children of one ● The warrant of exclusion was not served immediately
Emilia Callano, a Filipino citizen, with her and the brothers were able to file before the CRI an
common-law husband Go Chiao LIn, a Chinese action for injunction to restrain the order of the Board.
citizen. They were all born in Leyte ● Go Callano brothers’ stand – There was a deprivation
● In 1946, the family went to China for vacation but Go of due process and the acts of the Board are beyond
died there. In 1948, Emilia returned to the PH to work their jurisdiction
and left her children behind. ● Board’s stand – The cable authorization is a forgery
● The children were able to go to Hong Kong and and all the proceedings connected to it are void and
sought employment. as a result the brothers must be deported; granting
● In 1961, the Go Callano brothers applied with the PH they were Filipino citizens, they lost it for living in
Consul General in HK for entry into the PH as Filipino China for 15 years.
citizens. The DFA sent a cablegram to the ● CFI: Dismissed the case
Consulate to investigate the Go Callano brothers ○ It initially issued a writ of preliminary
whether they are illegitimate children of Emilia. injunction.
The said investigation was conducted as authorized ○ They found that they
by the cablegram. are PH citizens being born to a Filipino
● The Consulate issued a certificate of registration and mother. However, ruled that they
identity to the effect that they submitted sufficient became citizens of the Republic of China.
evidence of their citizenship and identity and had The grounds were:
been allowed to register in the Consulates as Filipino ■ They stayed in China
citizens and to travel directly to the PH. for a period of 15 years before
○ Basis: Sworn statement of applicants, their returning
birth certificates and blood test reports. ■ They were recognized by
● In 1961, they arrived in Manila by plane from HK. The their father and became Chinese
Immigration Inspector at the airport was of the opinion citizens under the Chinese law on
that the travel documents did not constitute nationality.
conclusive proof of citizenship and referred the issued ○ The cable authorization was a forgery.
to the Board of Special Inquiry No. 2. The
investigation was conducted and the Board
● CA: Reversed the lower court decision. The appellate WON the brothers acquired citizenship under the Chinese Law
court deemed the Go Callano brothers as Filipino of Nationality by reason of recognition or prolonged stay in
citizens China
○ (The discussion of the appellate court will be
in the held as the SC adopted most of its HELD:
ruling) NO. This is a matter best resolved by the Chinese courts
● It has been a settled rule of international law, affirmed
RELEVANT ISSUE 1: by The Hague Convention on Conflict of Nationality
WON the Go Callano brothers lost their Filipino citizenship Laws and by the ICJ, is that “Any question as to
whether a person
HELD: possess the nationality of a particular state should be
NO. The Go Callano brothers did not do any act which is a determined in accordance with laws of that state”.
recognized mode of losing one’s Filipino citizenship.
● The Go Callano brothers are admittedly Filipino OTHER ISSUE:
citizens at birth and are governed by Article 15, NCC WON the cable authorization was forged
which provides: “Laws relating to family rights and
duties, or to the status, conditions and legal capacity HELD:
of persons are binding upon citizens of the PH, even NO.
though living abroad.” ● There was insufficient evidence presented by the
● Under Article IV, Sec. 2 of the PH Constitution, Board to prove the alleged forgery, as found by the
“Philippine CA.
citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner ● The cablegram is deemed authentic. Further, the SC
provided by law,” which implies that the question of agrees with the CFI and CA that even assuming that it
whether a Filipino has lost his PH citizenship shall be was forged, this would not automatically render void
determined by no other than PH law. all the proceedings before the PH Consulate in HK
● Filipino citizens may lose his citizenship by and the Board of Special Inquiry.
naturalization in a foreign country; express ● The proceedings and findings from this two bodies
renunciation of citizenship, subscribing to an oath of cannot be nullified by the DFA summarily without
allegiance to support the constitution or laws of a giving the parties concerned an opportunity to be
foreign country; rendering heard.
service to, or accepting a commission in, the armed
forces of a foreign country; cancellation of the 7. Mo Ya Lim Yao vs. Commissioner of Immigration
certificate of naturalization; declaration by competent GR No. L-21289|Oct 4 1971| Sanger
authority that he is a deserter of the PH armed forces FACTS:
in the time of care; in case of a woman by marriage to This is a case filed to enjoin the Commissioner of Immigration
a foreigner if, by virtue of laws in force in her from causing the arrest and deportation of the petitioner herein
husband’s country, she acquired his nationality. - Lau Yuen Yueng.
● Recognition by an alien father is not among the
ground of losing PH citizenship under PH law. Thus, Petitioner herein applied for a passport visa to enter the
the brothers cannot be said to have lost their former Philippines as a non-immigrant. She is a Chinese residing in
status by reason of such recognition. Kowloon, Hongkong and that she desired to take a pleasure
● Closest to their act was that of a renunciation but it trip to the Philippines and to visit her great grand uncle for a
does not apply as the law requires an express period of one month.
renunciation, which is not present in this case.
● In addition, as ruled by the court in US v. Ong Tianse, When she arrived in the Philippines, Asher Y Cheng filed a
the act of staying for years in a foreign country does bond in the amount of PHP1, 000 to undertake among others
not amount to renunciation. In this case, the brothers that Lau Yuen Yueng would actually depart from the
were all minors and only Beato attained the age of Philippines on or before the expiration of her authorized period
majority upon return in the PH and even applied for of stay in this country or within the period as in his discretion
registration as a PH citizen and sought entry into the the Commissioner of Immigration or his authorized
country. These shows that the Go Callano brother representative might properly allow.
have not lost their PH citizenship.
After repeated extensions, petitioner was allowed to stay until
RELEVANT ISSUE 2: Feb. 13, 1962. But on January 25, 1962, she contracted
marriage with Moy Ya Lim Yao alias Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim
an alleged Filipino Citizen.
the disqualifications under said Section 4.
Because of the contemplated action of the Commissioner of
Immigration to confiscate her bond and order her arrest Seciton 4 reads:
deportation, after the expiration of her authorized stay, she 1. Person opposed to organised government or affiliate
brought this action for injunction with preliminary injunction. with any associations or group of persons who uphold
and teach doctrines opposing all organised governments.
During the hearing, it was admitted that Lao Yuen Yueng could 2. Persons defending or teaching the necessity
not write either English or Tagalog. Except a few words she of propriety of violence, personal assault, or assassination
could not speak either English or Tagalog. She could not even for the success and predominance of their ideas.
name any Filipino neighbor, with a Filipino name except one, 3. Polygamists, or believers in the practice of polygamy.
Rosa. 4. Persons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude.
5. Persons suffering from mental alienation or incurable
ISSUE: contagious diseases.
Whether or not marriage by Lao Yuen Yueng made her ipso 6. Persons who, during the period of their residence in the
facto a citizen of the Philippines. Philippines, have not mingled socially with the Filipinos,
or who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and
HELD: embrace the customs, traditions, and ideals of the
Pertinent part of Section 15 of Commonwealth Act No 473, Filipinos.
upon which petitioners rely, reads. 7. Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the
Philippines are at war, during the period of such war.
Any woman who is not or may hereafter be married to a 8. Citizens or subjects of a foreign country other than
citizen of the Philippines, and who might herself be United States, whose laws does not grant Filipinos the
lawfully naturalised shall be deemed a citizen of the right to become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.
Philippines.
8. Mateo Caasi v. Court of Appeals
Citing several cases decided by the Supreme Court, the MATEO CAASI v. THE HON. CA and MERITO C. MIGUEL
phrase, "who might herself be lawfully naturalised," refer to a G.R. No. 88831| November 8, 1990 | GRIÑO-AQUINO, J |
class or race who might be lawfully naturalized, and that Soledad
compliance with the other conditions of the naturalization laws
was not required. FACTS:
● These are 2 consolidated cases with same objective:
Being the criterion of whether or not an alien wife "may be the disqualification under Section 68 of the Omnibus
lawfully naturalised," what should be required is not only that Election Code of respondent Miguel for the position of
she must not be disqualified under Section 4 but she must also municipal mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan, to which he
possess the qualifications enumerated in Section 2, such as was elected on January 18, 1988, on the ground that
those of age, residence, good moral character, adherence to he is a green card holder, hence, a permanent
the underlying principles of the Philippine Constitution, resident of the United States of America, not of
irreproachable conduct, lucrative employment or ownership of Bolinao.
real estate, capacity to speak and write English or Spanish and ○ G.R. No. 84508 is a petition for review on
one of the principal local languages, education of children in certiorari of the decision dated January 13,
certain schools, etc. 1988 of the COMELEC First Division,
dismissing the three (3) petitions for the
In Philippine jurisprudence it was held that an alien wife is disqualification of Miguel filed prior to the
required to prove only that she may herself be lawfully local elections on January 18, 1988.
naturalized, that she is not one of the disqualified persons ○ G.R. No. 88831, Caasi vs. CA et al., is a
enumerated in the Section 4 of the law, on order to establish petition for review of the decision dated June
her citizenship status as a fact. 21, 1989, of the dismissing the petition for
quo warranto filed by Caasi, a rival candidate
Section 15 of the Naturalization law (Commonwealth Act 473), for the position of municipal mayor of
an alien woman marrying a Filipino, native born or naturalised, Bolinao, Pangasinan, also to disqualify
becomes ipso facto a Filipina provided she is not disqualified to Miguel on account of his being a green card
be a citizen of the Philippines under Section 4 of the same law. holder.
likewise, an alien woman married to an alien who i ● Miguel’s Answer: Admitted that he holds a green
subsequently naturalised here follows the Philippines card to conveniently enter the US for medical
citizenship of her husband the moment he takes his oath as examination and to visit his children, but denies being
Filipino citizen, provided that she does not suffer from any of a permanent resident of the US; he alleged that he is
a permanent resident of Bolinao and voted in all prior (2) Whether Miguel disqualified to run as municipal mayor.
elections including the plebiscite for the ratification of (YES)
the 1987 Constitution on 2 February 1987; and during
the Congressional elections on 18 May. Section 18, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution provides: Public
● COMELEC: Dismissed the consolidated petitions officers and employees owe the State and this Constitution
ruling that Miguel’s holding of a green card does not allegiance at all times, and any public officer or employee who
mean he abandoned his residence in Bolinao, and seeks to change his citizenship or acquire the status of an
he’s indicated intention to continuously reside therein immigrant of another country during his tenure shall be dealt
by voting in previous elections; and he has met with by law. This law does not apply to Miguel because he
Sec.42 of the LGC’s requirements of citizenship and acquired the status of an immigrant of the United States before
residence for candidates to local office. he was elected to public office, not "during his tenure" as
● Dissenting Opinion of Commissioner Badoy, Jr: mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan.
Under Sec. 68 of OEC, respondent has to prove that
he’s waived his status as a permanent resident or Sec 68 of the Omnibus Election Code is the applicable law to
immigrant of the US to qualify to run in Bolinao, which him. Residence in the municipality where he intends to run for
he failed to do. elective office for at least 1 year at the time of filing his
certificate of candidacy is one of the qualifications that a
● RTC: It denied Miguel’s MTD the petition for quo
candidate for elective public office must possess. He resided in
warranto filed by Caasi.
Bolinao for only 3 months after his return to the Philippines and
● CA: It ordered the RTC to dismiss and desist from before he ran for mayor. The law is clear in excluding from the
further proceeding in the quo warranto case because right to hold elective public office those Philippine citizens who
it is pointless for the RTC to hear the case possess dual loyalties and allegiance, as such are incapable of
questioning the qualification of Miguel as resident of the entire devotion to the interest and welfare of their
the Philippines after COMELEC has ruled that Miguel homeland.
has met the requirements of citizenship and
residence; and that there is no legal obstacles (sic) for To be qualified to run for elective office in the Philippines,
the candidacy of the petitioner, considering that the law requires that the candidate who is a green card
decisions of the RTC on quo warranto cases under holder must have “waived his status as a permanent
the OEC are appealable to the COMELEC. resident or immigrant of a foreign country.
● His act of filing a certificate of candidacy for elective
ISSUES and RULINGS: office in the Philippines did not of itself constitute a
waiver of his status as a permanent resident or
(1) Whether a green card is proof that the holder is a immigrant of US.
permanent resident of the United States (YES) ● The waiver of green card should be manifested by
some act or acts independent of and done prior to
Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines filing his candidacy for elective office.
(B.P. Blg. 881) provides: Disqualifications ... Any person who is ● Without such prior waiver, he was “disqualified to run
a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country for any elective office.
shall not be qualified to run for any elective office under this
Code, unless said person has waived his status as permanent Miguel’s application for immigrant status and permanent
resident or immigrant of a foreign country in accordance with residence in the US and his possession of a green card
the residence requirement provided for in the election laws attesting to such status are conclusive proof that he is a
permanent resident of US despite his occasional visits to the
Miguel's immigration to the US in 1984 constituted an Philippines. Miguel filled up his application for Immigrant Visa
abandonment of his domicile and residence in the Philippines. in his own handwriting, answering “Permanently” on the
He did not go to the United States merely to visit his children or question of his length of intended stay. On its face, the green
his doctor there; he entered the limited States with the intention card identifies Miguel in clear bold letters as a Resident Alien.
to have there permanently as evidenced by his application for
an immigrant's (not a visitor's or tourist's) visa. Based on that DISPOSITIVE: The appealed orders of the COMELEC and the
application of his, he was issued by the U.S. Government the CA are hereby set aside. The election of respondent Merito C.
requisite green card or authority to reside there permanently. Miguel as municipal mayor of Bolinao, Pangasinan is hereby
As a resident alien in the U.S., Miguel owes temporary and annulled.
local allegiance to the U.S., the country in which he resides.
This is in return for the protection given to him during the NOTES:
period of his residence therein.
Immigration is the removing into one place from another; the (3) WON the power to deport has prescribed (YES)
act of immigrating the entering into a country with the intention
HELD:
of residing in it.
No need to resolve the validity of petitioner's marriage to Banez, since
under the law, the CID can validly deport Djumantan as an
An immigrant is a person who removes into a country for the "undesirable alien" regardless of her marriage to a Filipino citizen.
purpose of permanent residence. As shown infra 84, however,
statutes sometimes give a broader meaning to the term ISSUES (1) and (2)
"immigrant." There was a blatant abuse of immigration laws. All such privileges
were obtained through misinterpretation.
9. Djumantan vs. Domingo (1) Marriage of Djumantan to Bañez was never disclosed to the
DOCTRINE: There is no law guaranteeing aliens married to Filipino immigration authorities in her applications for temporary visitor's visa
citizens the right to be admitted, much less to be given permanent and for permanent residency.
residency, in the Philippines ● Civil status of an alien applicant is a matter that may influence the
exercise of discretion of the immigration authorities. They would
FACTS: be less inclined to allow the entry of a woman who claims to have
● Bernard Bañez, husband of Marina Cabael, went to Indonesia as entered into a marriage with a Filipino citizen, who is married to
a contract worker. Later on, he embraced and was converted to another woman.
Islam. He married Djumantan (2nd marriage) in accordance with (2) Generally, the right of the President to expel or deport aliens whose
Islamic rites. He returned to the Philippines in January 1979. presence is deemed inimical to the public interest is as absolute
● Djumantan and her 2 children with Bañez, (2 yr old Marina and and unqualified as the right to prohibit and prevent their entry into the
9-month old Nikulas) arrived in Manila as "guests" of Bañez. country.
● When Djumantan and her children arrived at NAIA, Bañez, ● Since the aliens are not part of the nation, their admission
together with Marina Cabael, met them. Bañez executed an into the territory is a matter of pure permission and simple
"Affidavit of Guaranty and Support," for his "guests," stating that tolerance which creates no obligation on the part of the
he is the guarantor for the entry into PH of Mrs. Djumantan, and government to permit them to stay.
her 2 minor children, all Indonesian citizens, who are coming as (3) The interest, which an alien has in being admitted into or allowed to
temporary visitors; that it is out of gratitude to their family for the continue to reside in the country, protected only so far as Congress
hospitality they accorded him during his stay in Indonesia in may choose to protect it.
connection with his employment thereat. He guaranteed that they (4) There is no law guaranteeing aliens married to Filipino citizens
are law abiding citizens, their behavior while they are in PH, and the right to be admitted, much less to be given permanent
their voluntary departure upon end of the authorized stay. residency, in the Philippines.
● As "guests", Djumantan and her children lived in the house of ● The fact of marriage by an alien to a citizen does not withdraw her
Bañez. They were admitted to PH as temporary visitors under from the operation of the immigration laws governing the
Section 9(a) of the Immigration Act of 1940. admission and exclusion of aliens.
● Later on, Marina Cabael discovered the true relationship of Bañez ● Marriage of an alien woman to a Filipino husband does not
and Djumantan, and filed a complaint for "concubinage" with the ipso facto make her a Filipino citizen and does not excuse
MTC against them. However, it was dismissed for lack of merit. her from her failure to depart from the country upon the
● The Immigration status of Djumantan was changed to permanent expiration of her extended stay here as an alien.
resident under Section 13(a) of the same law. Djumantan was ● Sec. 9 of the Immigration Act: it is not mandatory for the CID to
issued an alien certificate of registration. admit any alien who applies for a visitor's visa. Once admitted into
● Not accepting the set-back, Bañez' eldest son, Leonardo, filed a the country, the alien has no right to an indefinite stay.
letter complaint with the Ombudsman, who subsequently referred ● Sec. 13 of the same law: An alien allowed to stay temporarily
the letter to the Commission on Immigration and Deportation may apply for a change of status and "may be admitted" as a
(CID). On that basis, Djumantan was detained at the CID permanent resident. Among those considered qualified to apply
detention cell. She was later released pending the deportation for permanent residency is the wife or husband of a Philippine
proceedings after posting a cash bond. citizen. The entry of aliens into the country and their admission as
● Djumantan manifested to the CID that she be allowed to depart immigrants is not a matter of right, even if they are legally
voluntarily from the PH and asked for time to purchase her airline married to Filipino citizens.
ticket. However, she had a change of heart and moved for the
dismissal of the deportation case on the ground that she was ISSUE (3)
validly married to a Filipino citizen. Under clause 1 of Section 37(a), an "alien who enters the Philippines
● CID ruled that the 2nd marriage of Bañes to Djumantan was void. after the effective date of this Act by means of false and misleading
It revoked the visa previously granted to her. It also denied statements or without inspection and admission by the immigration
Djumantan’s motion for reconsideration. authorities at a designated port of entry or at any place other than at a
● Hence, this petition. TRO was issued for the implementation of designated port of entry" is subject to deportation.
Order. SolGen argues that the power of CID to deport has
prescribed. The deportation of an alien under said clause of Section 37(a) has
a prescriptive period and "shall not be effected ... unless the
ISSUE: arrest in the deportation proceedings is made within five years
(1) WON Djumantan was legally admitted into the PH (NO) after the cause for deportation arises".
(2) WON the change of status from temporary to permanent resident is
valid (NO) Congress may impose a limitation of time for the deportation of alien
from the country.
5. Prov Election Supervisor of Leyte informed petitioner
In Board of Commissioners (CID) v. Dela Rosa: under Section 37(b) that they cannot accept the amended certificate
of the Immigration Act, the deportation of an alien may be barred after
because it was filed out of time.
the lapse of five years after the cause of deportation arises.
6. Imelda then filed the Amended COC with COMELEC
● Dissenting opinions of J. Feliciano and J. Davide in that case
qualified the statement of law: 5-year limitation is applicable in Manila on March 31, 1995. She countered the
only where deportation is sought to be effected under clauses of petition of private respondent that it was an honest
Sec. 37 (a) other than clauses 2, 7, 8, 11 and 12; In respect to misinterpretation. She maintains that Tacloban City is
clauses 2, 7, 8, 11, and 12, the limitation does not apply. (NOTE: her residence and domicile. In addition, Imelda
in this case, the clause applicable is clause #1) argues that private respondent has ill intent.
7. COMELEC found the petition to be meritorious,
The right of public respondents to deport petitioner has
striking off the amendment on the certificate and
prescribed. Petitioner was admitted and allowed entry into the
Philippines on January 13, 1979 on the basis of false and misleading
cancelled her original COC. COMELEC found that
statements in her application and in the other supporting documents she was also registered voter in Tolosa and not
submitted to the immigration authorities. Leonardo Bañez first Tacloban, which she claims she is a resident of.
complained with the CID on November 19, 1980 about the manner Based from this, there was no honest mistake. She
petitioner was admitted into the country and asked for her deportation. also just transferred residence from Manila to Tolosa
After the EDSA Revolution, he sent a follow-up letter to the CID seven months prior. Because she has not complied
requesting action on his 1980 letter-complaint.
with the residency requirement, she is disqualified to
run
Tolling the prescriptive period from November 19, 1980, when
Leonardo C. Banez informed the CID of the illegal entry of petitioner 8. Upon MR, COMELEC en banc denied the MR.
into the country, more than five years had elapsed before the 9. May 11, 1995, COMELEC allowed Imelda’s
issuance of the order of her deportation on September 27, 1990. proclamation because she obtained the highest
number of votes. But COMELEC reversed itself and
In their Comment, respondents urged that what is barred under Section suspended the proclamation
37(b) is the deportation of an alien and claimed that what they ordered 10. Imelda filed a supplemental petition that she was the
was not the deportation of petitioner but merely the revocation of
winner and looks to relief.
Section 13(a) which refers to the visa previously granted her.
However, the "arrest" contemplated by Section 37(b) refers to the ISSUE: WON Imelda was a resident for election purposes of
arrest for the purpose of carrying out an order for deportation and the First District of Leyte for a period of One Year at the time of
not the arrest prior to proceedings to determine the right of the May 9, 1995 Elections?
alien to stay in the country. When public respondents revoked the
permanent residence visa issued to petitioner, they, in effect, Held:
ordered her arrest and deportation as an overstaying alien.
Residence is used synonymously with domicile for election
purposes. The court are in favor of a conclusion supporting
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the temporary restraining
order issued on June 4, 1991 is MADE PERMANENT. petitoner’s claim of legal residence or domicile in the First
District of Leyte despite her own declaration of 7 months
10. Imelda Romualdez-Marcos v. Commission on Elections residency in the district for the following reasons:
G.R. No. 119976|September 18, 1995| Kapunan| Tutanes
Doctrine: 1. A minor follows domicile of her parents. Tacloban became
Imelda’s domicile of origin by operation of law when her father
Facts: brought them to Leyte;
1. Petitioner Imelda filed her COC for the position of
Representative of the First District of Leyte with the 2. Domicile of origin is only lost when there is actual removal
Provincial Election Supervisor on March 8, 1995. or change of domicile, a bona fide intention of abandoning the
2. According to her COC, she specified that she only former residence and establishing a new one, and acts which
resided in Leyte for only 7 months correspond with the purpose. In the absence and concurrence
3. Private Respondent Montejo, the incumbent Rep of of all these, domicile of origin should be deemed to continue.
the 1st District of Leyte and a candidate for the same
position filed a Petition for Cancellation and 3. A wife does not automatically gain the husband’s domicile
DIsqualification with the COMELEC alleging that because the term “residence” in Civil Law does not mean the
Imelda did not meet the constitutional residency same thing in Political Law. When Imelda married late
requirement, which is one year. He prays that Imelda President Marcos in 1954, she kept her domicile of origin and
be Disqualified merely gained a new home and not domicilium necessarium.
4. Imelda filed an Amended/Corrected Certificate of
Candidacy changing the entry “seven” to “since 4. Assuming that Imelda gained a new domicile after her
childhood” marriage and acquired right to choose a new one only after the
death of Pres. Marcos, her actions upon returning to the Constitution and laws under the principle of
country clearly indicated that she chose Tacloban, her domicile jus soli.
of origin, as her domicile of choice. To add, petitioner even ○ He was also a natural born Filipino citizen by
obtained her residence certificate in 1992 in Tacloban, Leyte operation of the 1935 Philippine Constitution,
while living in her brother’s house, an act, which supports the as his father and mother were Filipinos at the
domiciliary intention clearly manifested. She even kept close time of his birth. At the age of six (6), his
ties by establishing residences in Tacloban, celebrating her parents brought him to the Philippines using
birthdays and other important milestones. an American passport as travel document.
His parents also registered him as an alien
11. Mercado vs. Manzano with the Philippine Bureau of Immigration.
G.R. No. 135083 | May 26, 1999 | J. Mendoza | Cess He was issued an alien certificate of
Umbalin registration. This, however, did not result in
DOCTRINE: the loss of his Philippine citizenship, as he
did not renounce Philippine citizenship and
FACTS: did not take an oath of allegiance to the
● Petitioner Mercado and private respondent Manzano United States.
were candidates for vice mayor of Makati in the May ○ It is an undisputed fact that when respondent
11, 1998 elections. Manzano got the highest number attained the age of majority, he registered
of votes. himself as a voter, and voted in the elections
● However, the proclamation of Manzano was of 1992, 1995 and 1998, which effectively
suspended in view of a pending petition for renounced his US citizenship under
DISQUALIFICATION filed by Mamaril who alleged American law. Under Philippine law, he no
that Manzano was not a citizen of the Philippines but longer had U.S. citizenship.
of the United States. ○ At the time of the May 11, 1998 elections,
● The COMELEC (Second Division) granted the petition the resolution of the Second Division,
of Mamaril and ordered the CANCELLATION of the adopted on May 7, 1998, was not yet final.
certificate of candidacy of Manzano on the ground Respondent Manzano obtained the highest
that he is a DUAL CITIZEN and, under §40(d) of the number of votes among the candidates for
Local Government Code, persons with dual vice-mayor of Makati City.
citizenship are disqualified from running for any ○ In applying election laws, it would be far
elective position. better to err in favor of the popular choice
● Manzano, in his answer, admitted that he is registered than be embroiled in complex legal issues
as a foreigner with the Bureau of Immigration under involving private international law which may
an Certificate of Registration and alleged that he is a well be settled before the highest court.
Filipino citizen because he was born in 1955 of a ○ The Commission directs the Makati City
Filipino father and a Filipino mother. He was born in Board of Canvassers to proclaim Manzano
the United States, San Francisco, California, on as the winning candidate for vice-mayor
September 14, 1955, and is considered an American of Makati City. The board of canvassers, on
citizen under US Laws. But notwithstanding his the evening of August 31, 1998, proclaimed
registration as an American citizen, he did not lose his Manzano as vice mayor of the City of Makati,
Filipino citizenship. pursuant to the resolution of the COMELEC
● The facts provide that Manzano is both a Filipino and enbanc.
a US citizen. He holds dual citizenship, thus, ● Thus, Mercado filed this petition.
disqualified to run.
● The board of canvassers tabulated the votes cast but ISSUE #1
suspended the proclamation of the winner, pursuant Whether Manzano possesses dual citizenship. NOT
to COMELEC’s Omnibus Resolution. ANYMORE.
● On August 31, 1998, the COMELEC enbanc reversed
the ruling of its Second Division and declared HELD:
Manzano QUALIFIED to run for vice mayor of Makati Before the filing of certificate of candidacy, he was a dual
in the May 11, 1998 elections. citizen. However, his act of filing a COC tantamount to his
● The pertinent portions of the resolution of the election of Phil. citizenship – meaning he forswears allegiance
COMELEC enbanc read: to the other country and thereby terminating his status as dual
○ Manzano was born in San Francisco, citizen.
California, U.S.A. He acquired US citizenship
by operation of the United States
The record shows that Manzano was born in San Francisco, ● In 1952 Rosalind married Leopoldo Lopez who was a
California on September 4, 1955, of Filipino parents. Since the Filipino citizen. Since then, she has continuously
Philippines adheres to the principle of jus sanguinis, while the participated in the electoral process not only as a voter
United States follows the doctrine of jus soli, the parties agree but as a candidate, as well. She served as Provincial
that, at birth at least, he was a national both of the Philippines Board Member of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
and of the United States. Davao Oriental.
● In 1992, Rosalind ran for and was elected governor of
The COMELEC enbanc held that, by participating in Philippine Davao Oriental. Her election was contested by her
elections in 1992, 1995, and 1998, private respondent opponent, Gil Taojo, Jr., in a petition for quo warranto,
“effectively renounced his U.S. citizenship under American docketed as EPC No. 92-54, alleging as ground
law,” so that now he is solely a Philippine national. therefor her alleged Australian citizenship. However,
finding no sufficient proof that Rosalind had renounced
ISSUE #2 her Philippine citizenship, the Commission on Elections
Whether Manzano is disqualified from being a candidate for en banc dismissed the petition.
vice mayor of Makati City. NO. ● The Comelec in EPC No.92-54 ruled that there were
no evidence presented that Rosalind renounced her
HELD: Filipino citizenship. Rosalind was able to prove that
Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. What is she was a Filipino since her father was a Filipino this is
inimical is not dual citizenship per se, but with naturalized in line with the principle of jus sanguinis.
citizens who maintain their allegiance to their countries of ● In 1995, Rosalind ran for re-election as governor and
origin even after their naturalization. Hence, the phrase “dual her opponent, Francisco Rabat, filed a petition for
citizenship” in RA 7160 must be understood as referring to disqualification, docketed as SPA No. 95-066 before
“dual allegiance”. Consequently, persons with mere dual the COMELEC, First Division, contesting her Filipino
citizenship do not fall under this disqualification. citizenship but the said petition was likewise dismissed
by the COMELEC, reiterating substantially its decision
DUAL CITIZENSHIP arises when, as a result of the concurrent in EPC 92-54.
application of the different laws of two or more states, a person ● In 1998, Rosalind ran for re-election as governor once
is simultaneously considered a national by the said states. For again and her citizenship was again put in issue. Her
instance, such a situation may arise when a person whose candidacy was questioned by Valles. On July 17, 1998,
parents are citizens of a state which adheres to the the COMELEC 1st division came out with a resolution
principle of jus sanguinis is born in a state which follows reiterating their previous rulings. Valles filed an MR but
the doctrine of jus soli (This was Manzano’s situation). Such this was denied by the COMELEC En Banc.
a person, ipso facto and without any voluntary act on his part, COMELEC:
is concurrently considered a citizen of both states. While dual COMELEC ruled that Rosalind is a Filipino citizen and
citizenship is involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an therefore, qualified to run for a public office because (1) her
individual’s volition. With respect to DUAL ALLEGIANCE, father, Telesforo Ybasco, is a Filipino citizen, and by virtue of
Article IV, §5 of the Constitution provides: “Dual allegiance of the principle of jus sanguinis she was a Filipino citizen under
citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt the 1987 Philippine Constitution; (2) she was married to a
with by law.” Filipino, thereby making her also a Filipino citizen ipso jure
under Section 4 of Commonwealth Act 473; (3) and that, she
DISPOSITIVE: renounced her Australian citizenship on January 15, 1992
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is DISMISSED for lack before the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs of
of merit. Australia and her Australian passport was accordingly
cancelled as certified to by the Australian Embassy in Manila;
12. Valles v. COMELEC and (4) furthermore, there are the COMELEC Resolutions in
G.R. No. 137000| August 9, 2000 | J. Purisima | Trish EPC No. 92-54 and SPA Case No. 95-066, declaring her a
Veluya Filipino citizen duly qualified to run for the elective position of
DOCTRINE: Davao Oriental governor.
On Dual Citizenship
The afore-quoted oath of allegiance is substantially
similar to the one contained in the Certificate of Jacot also erroneously invoked the doctrine in Valles and
Candidacy which must be executed by any person Mercado, wherein the filing by a person with dual citizenship of
who wishes to run for public office in Philippine a certificate of candidacy, containing an oath of allegiance, was
elections. Such an oath reads: already considered a renunciation of foreign citizenship.
I am eligible for the office I seek to be elected. I will -- With regard to the "Affidavit of Renunciation of Allegiance to
support and defend the Constitution of the Philippines the United States and Any and All Foreign Citizenship," the
and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; that Court did not entertain because it was only raised on appeal.
I will obey the laws, legal orders and decrees
Appeal is dismissed.
promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the
Republic of the Philippines; and that I impose this 15. Cordora vs. COMELEC
obligation upon myself voluntarily, without mental G.R. No. 176497 February 19, 2009
reservation or purpose of evasion. I hereby certify that Gaudencio Cordora vs COMELEC and Gustavo
the facts stated herein are true and correct of my own Tambunting
personal knowledge.
FACTS:
The law categorically requires persons seeking elective public
● Cordora asserted that Tambunting made false
office, who either retained their Philippine citizenship or those
assertions in his Certificate of Candidacy for the 2001
who reacquired it, to make a personal and sworn renunciation
elections.
of any and all foreign citizenship before a public officer
● Cordora stated that Tambunting was not eligible to
authorized to administer an oath simultaneous with or before
run for local public office because Tambunting lacked
the filing of the certificate of candidacy.
the required citizenship and residency requirements.
Hence, Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225 compels ● Cordora presented a certification from the Bureau of
natural-born Filipinos, who have been naturalized as citizens of Immigration which stated that, in two instances,
a foreign country, but who reacquired or retained their Tambunting claimed that he is an American.
Philippine citizenship (1) to take the oath of allegiance under ● Tambunting maintained that he did not make any
Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225, and (2) for those seeking misrepresentation in his certificates of candidacy. He
elective public offices in the Philippines, to additionally execute presented a copy of his birth certificate which showed
a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign that he was born of a Filipino mother and an
citizenship before an authorized public officer prior or American father. Tambunting further denied that he
was naturalized as an American citizen.
● Tambunting further stated that he has resided in the
Philippines since birth. The petition filed by Cordora was dismissed.
In 2009, Jalosjos filed a COC for Governor of To hold that Jalosjos has not establish a new domicile in
Zamboanga Sibugay for the 2010 elections. Zamboanga Sibugay despite the loss of his domicile of
origin (Quezon City) and his domicile of choice and by
Erasmo filed a petition to deny due course or to cancel operation of law (Australia) would violate the settled
Jalosjos COC’s on ground of material misrepresentation maxim that a man must have a domicile or residence
having failed to comply with RA 9225 and 1-year somewhere.
residency.
The COMELEC concluded that Jalosjos has not come to
COMELEC 2nddivision ruled that while Jalosjos regained settle his domicile in Ipil since he has merely been
PH citizenship under RA 9225, he failed to prove staying at his brother’s house. But this circumstance
residency requirement. He failed to present ample proof alone cannot support such conclusion. Indeed, the Court
of a bona fide intention to establish his domicile in Ipil, has repeatedly held that a candidate is not required to
Zamboanga Sibugay. COMELEC En Banc affirmed have a house in a community to establish his residence
ruling that Jalosjos had been a mere guest or transient or domicile in a particular place. It is sufficient that he
visitor in his brother’s house and, for this reason, he should live there even if it be in a rented house or in the
cannot claim Ipil as his domicile. house of a friend or relative. To insist that the candidate
own the house where he lives would make property a
ISSUE qualification for public office.What matters is that
Whether Jalosjos has complied with the residency Jalosjos has proved two things: actual physical presence
requirement under the LGC in Ipil and an intention of making it his domicile.
HELD Qualified.
Yes.
LGC requirement: a resident of the province for at least 19. Svetlana Jalosjos vs. COMELEC
one year before the election for Governor.
20. REGINA ONGSIAKO REYES, Petitioner, v. Here, this Court finds that petitioner failed to adequately and
substantially show that grave abuse of discretion exists.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND JOSEPH
SOCORRO B. TAN, Respondents. Relevant Discussion:
G.R. No. 207264, June 25, 2013
Petitioner was given every opportunity to argue her case before
the COMELEC when from the time the petition against her was
Facts:
filed until the First Division of the COMELEC rendered its
This case is a Motion for Reconsideration of the En Banc
resolution. Petitioner Tan’s submission of newly discovered
Resolution of 25 June 2013. The first sentence below refers to the
evidence establishing the fact that respondent is a holder of an
petition first filed by Reyes.
American passport which she continued to use until June 2012
puts the burden upon respondent Reyes to prove that she is a
The petitioners assail through a Petition for Certiorari
natural-born Filipino citizen. Thus, leading to the conclusion that
with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary
Reyes misrepresented in her COC that she is a natural-born
Injunction resolution of the Commission on Election ordering the
Filipino citizen. Unless and until she can establish that she had
cancellation of the Certificate of Candidacy of petitioner for the
availed of the privileges of RA 9225 by becoming a dual
position of the Representative of the lone district of Marinduque.
Filipino-American citizen, and thereafter made a valid sworn
On October 31. 2012, Joseph Socorro Tan filed with the Comelec
renunciation of her American citizenship, she remains to be an
an Amended Petition to Deny Due Course or to Cancel the
American citizen and is, therefore, ineligible to run for and hold
Certificate of Candidacy of Regina Ongsiako Reyes, the petitioner,
any elective public office in the Philippines.
on the ground that it contained material representations.On March
27, 2013, the COMELEC cancelled the certificate of candidacy of
Aside from her bare allegation that she is a natural-born Filipino
the petitioner. She filed an MR on April 8, 2013. On May 14, 2013,
citizen, Reyes did not submit any proof to support such
COMELEC en banc denied her MR.
contention. Neither did she submit any proof that RA 9225 does
not apply to her.
However, on May 18, 2013, she was proclaimed winner
of the May 13, 2013 Elections. On June 5, 2013, COMELEC
------------------------------------
declared the May 14, 2013 Resolution final and Executory. On the
In her Motion for Reconsideration before the COMELEC En Banc,
same day, petitioner took her oath of office before Feliciano
petitioner admitted that she is a holder of a US passport, but she
Belmonte, the Speaker of the House of Representatives. She has
averred that she is only a
yet to assume office at that time, as her term officially starts at
dual Filipino-American citizen, thus the requirements of R.A. No.
noon of June 30, 2013.According to petitioner, the COMELEC was
9225 do not apply to her. Still, attached to the said motion is an
ousted of its jurisdiction when she was duly proclaimed because
Affidavit of Renunciation of Foreign
pursuant to Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, the
Citizenship dated 24 September 2012. Petitioner explains that she
HRET has the exclusive jurisdiction to be the “sole judge of all
attached said Affidavit “if only to show her desire and zeal to
contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications” of the
serve the people and to comply with rules, even as a superfluity.”
Members of the House of Representatives.
We cannot, however, subscribe to petitioner’s explanation. If
Issue: petitioner executed said
Whether or not COMELEC has jurisdiction over the petitioner who Affidavit “if only to comply with the rules,” then it is an admission
is proclaimed as winner and who has already taken her oath of that R.A. No. 9225 applies to her. Petitioner cannot claim that she
office for the position of member of the House of Representative executed it to address the
of Marinduque. observations by the COMELEC as the assailed Resolutions were
Held: promulgated only in 2013, while the Affidavit was executed in
Hindi to relevant sa discussion natin, pero isinama na lang. September 2012. Moreover, in the present petition, petitioner
Yes, COMELEC retains jurisdiction because the jurisdiction of the added a footnote to her oath of office as Provincial Administrator,
HRET begins only after the candidate is considered a Member of to this effect: “This does not mean that Petitioner did not, prior to
the House of Representatives, as stated in Section 17, Article VI of her taking her oath of office as Provincial Administrator, take her
the 1987 Constitution. For one to be considered a Member of the oath of allegiance for purposes of re acquisition of natural-born
House of Representatives, there must be a concurrence of these Filipino status, which she reserves to present in the proper
requisites: (1) valid proclamation; (2) proper oath, and (3) proceeding. The reference to the taking of oath of office is in
assumption of office. order to make reference to what is already part of the records and
Thus the petitioner cannot be considered a member of the HR yet evidence in the
as she has not assumed office yet. Also, the 2nd requirement was present ca
not validly complied with as a valid oath must be made (1) before se and to avoid injecting into the records evidence on matters of
the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and (2) in open fact that was not previously passed upon by Respondent
session. Here, although she made the oath before Speaker COMELEC.” This statement raises a lot of questions — Did
Belmonte, there is no indication that it was made during plenary petitioner execute an oath of allegiance for reacquisition of
or in open session and, thus, it remains unclear whether the natural-born Filipino status? If she did, why did she not present it
required oath of office was indeed complied. at the earliest opportunity before the COMELEC? And is this an
Furthermore, petition for certiorari will prosper only if grave admission that she has indeed
abuse of discretion is alleged and proved to exist. For an act to be lost her natural-born Filipino status? To cover-up her apparent
struck down as having been done with grave abuse of discretion, lack of an oath of allegiance as required by R.A. No. 9225,
the abuse of discretion must be patent and gross. petitioner contends that, since she took her oath of allegiance in
connection with her appointment as Provincial Administrator of
Marinduque, she is deemed to have reacquired her status as a again departed on 29 July 2009, arriving back in
natural -born Filipino citizen. This contention is misplaced. For the Philippines on 24 November 2009.
one, this issue is being presented for the first time before this
● Balua likewise presented a certification from the
Court, as it was never raised before the COMELEC. For another,
Bureau of Immigration dated 23 April 2010,
said oath of allegiance cannot be considered compliance with
Sec. 3 of certifying that the name "Arnado, Rommel
R.A. No. 9225 as certain requirements have to be met as Cagoco" appears in the available Computer
prescribed by Memorandum Circular No. AFF-04-01, otherwise Database/Passenger manifest/IBM listing on file
known as the Rules Governing Philippine Citizenship under R.A. as of 21 April 2010, using the same US passport.
No. 9225 and Memorandum Circular ● Arnado failed to answer the complaint and
No. AFF-05-002 (Revised Rules) and Administrative Order No. 91, Comelec also failed to act on Balua’s motions.
Series of 2004 issued by the Bureau of Immigration. Thus,
Hence, the elections ensued and Arnado won.
petitioner’s oath of office as Provincial Administrator cannot be
considered as the oath of allegiance in compliance
● After his proclamation, he filed an answer with
with R.A. No. 9225. These circumstances, taken together, show documents stating his renunciation of US
that a doubt citizenship.
was clearly cast on petitioner’s citizenship. Petitioner, however, ● COMELEC-Arnado appears to have substantially
failed to clear such doubt. complied with the requirements of R.A. No. 9225,
Arnado’s act of consistently using his US
passport after renouncing his US citizenship on
03 April 2009 effectively negated his Affidavit of
Renunciation. Granted the cancellation of cert. Of
21. Maquiling vs. COMELEC- De Guia
candidacy/disqualification.
Facts:
● MR Comelec en banc was filed by arnado.
● Arnado is a natural born Filipino citizen. However,
● Casan Macode Maquiling (Maquiling), another
as a consequence of his subsequent
candidate for mayor of Kauswagan, and who
naturalization as a citizen of the United States of
garnered the second highest number of votes in
America, he lost his Filipino citizenship. Arnado
the 2010 elections, intervened in the case and
applied for repatriation under Republic Act No.
filed before the COMELEC En Banc a Motion for
9225 before the Consulate General of the
Reconsideration together with an Opposition to
Philippines in San Franciso, USA and took the
Arnado’s Amended Motion for Reconsideration.
Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the
Maquiling argued that while the First Division
Philippines on July 2008 and April of 2009. On the
correctly disqualified Arnado, the order of
same day an Order of Approval of his Citizenship
succession under Section 44 of the Local
Retention and Re-acquisition was issued in his
Government Code is not applicable in this case.
favor.
Consequently, he claimed that the cancellation of
● By November of 2009, Arnado filed his Certificate
Arnado’s candidacy and the nullification of his
of Candidacy for Mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del
proclamation, Maquiling, as the legitimate
Norte.
candidate who obtained the highest number of
● Subsequently, Linog C. Balua (Balua), another
lawful votes, should be proclaimed as the winner.
mayoralty candidate, filed a petition to disqualify
● COmelec en banc- granted Mr. Reversed and set
Arnado and/or to cancel his certificate of
aside first div decision.
candidacy for municipal mayor of Kauswagan,
Reason: By renouncing his US citizenship as
Lanao del Norte in connection with the 10 May
imposed by R.A. No. 9225, the respondent embraced his
2010 local and national elections.
Philippine citizenship as though he never became a citizen
● Balua contended that Arnado is not a resident of
of another country. It was at that time, April 3, 2009, that
Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte and that he is a
the respondent became a pure Philippine Citizen again.
foreigner, attaching thereto a certification issued
The use of a US passport … does not operate to revert
by the Bureau of Immigration dated 23 April 2010
back his status as a dual citizen prior to his renunciation
indicating the nationality of Arnado as
as there is no law saying such. More succinctly, the use of
"USA-American." To further bolster his claim of
a US passport does not operate to "un-renounce" what he
Arnado’s US citizenship, Balua presented in his
has earlier on renounced.
Memorandum a computer-generated travel record
dated 03 December 2009 indicating that Arnado
● Hence, an appeal under rule 65 was filed to the sc.
has been using his US Passport No. 057782700 in
Issue: Won arnaldo is eligible to be the mayor?
entering and departing the Philippines. The said
record shows that Arnado left the country on 14
Held: SC-No. the Petition is GRANTED. The Resolution of
April 2009 and returned on 25 June 2009, and
the COMELEC En Banc is hereby ANNULLED and SET
ASIDE. Respondent ROMMEL ARNADO y CAGOCO is country. While those who acquire dual citizenship
disqualified from running for any local elective position. by choice are afforded the right of suffrage, those
CASAN MACODE MAQUILING is hereby DECLARED the who seek election or appointment to public office
duly elected Mayor of Kauswagan. are required to renounce their foreign citizenship
● The use of foreign passport after renouncing to be deserving of the public trust. Holding public
one’s foreign citizenship is a positive and office demands full and undivided allegiance to
voluntary act of representation as to one’s the Republic and to no other.
nationality and citizenship; it does not divest ● The popular vote does not cure the
Filipino citizenship regained by repatriation but it ineligibility of a candidate. The ballot cannot
recants the Oath of Renunciation required to override the constitutional and statutory
qualify one to run for an elective position. requirements for qualifications and
disqualifications of candidates. When the law
Section 5(2) of The Citizenship Retention and requires certain qualifications to be possessed or
Re-acquisition Act of 2003 provides: that certain disqualifications be not possessed by
persons desiring to serve as elective public
Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine officials, those qualifications must be met before
citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and one even becomes a candidate.
political rights and be subject to all attendant ● Maquiling is not a second-placer as
liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws he obtained the highest number of
of the Philippines and the following conditions: votes from among the qualified
(2)Those seeking elective public in the Philippines candidates. We have ruled in the recent cases of
shall meet the qualification for holding such Aratea v. COMELEC and Jalosjos v. COMELEC
public office as required by the Constitution and that a void COC cannot produce any legal effect.
existing laws and, at the time of the filing of the
certificate of candidacy, make a personal and Thus, the votes cast in favor of the ineligible
sworn renunciation of any and all foreign before candidate are not considered at all in determining
any public officer authorized to administer an the winner of an election.
oath.
● The act of renunciation as a legal presumption Even when the votes for the ineligible candidate
does not operate permanently and is open to are disregarded, the will of the electorate is still
attack when, after renouncing the foreign respected, and even more so. The votes cast in
citizenship, the citizen performs positive acts favor of an ineligible candidate do not constitute
showing his continued possession of a foreign the sole and total expression of the sovereign
citizenship. voice. The votes cast in favor of eligible and
● The renunciation of foreign citizenship is not a legitimate candidates form part of that voice and
hollow oath that can simply be professed at any must also be respected.
time, only to be violated the next day. It requires
an absolute and perpetual renunciation of the As in any contest, elections are governed by rules
foreign citizenship and a full divestment of all civil that determine the qualifications and
and political rights granted by the foreign country disqualifications of those who are allowed to
which granted the citizenship. participate as players. When there are participants
● We agree with the COMELEC En Banc that such who turn out to be ineligible, their victory is
act of using a foreign passport does not divest voided and the laurel is awarded to the next in
Arnado of his Filipino citizenship, which he rank who does not possess any of the
acquired by repatriation. However, by disqualifications nor lacks any of the
representing himself as an American citizen, qualifications set in the rules to be eligible as
Arnado voluntarily and effectively reverted to his candidates.
earlier status as a dual citizen. Such reversion
was not retroactive; it took place the instant 22. Arnado vs. Comelec
Arnado represented himself as an American
citizen by using his US passport. Doctrine: With regard to the qualification to run for public
● Citizenship is not a matter of convenience. It is a office of a natural- born Filipino citizen who was naturalized
badge of identity that comes with attendant civil abroad and subsequently availed of the privileges under RA
and political rights accorded by the state to its 9225. The use of a foreign passport amounts to repudiation or
citizens. It likewise demands the concomitant recantation of the oath of renunciation..
duty to maintain allegiance to one’s flag and
Facts: Respondent Capitan also filed his CoC for the
· Petitioner Arnado is a natural-born Filipino citizen who lost mayoralty post of Kauswagan.
his Philippine citizenship after he was naturalized as
citizen of the USA. · Before the May 2013 elections, the SC ruled on the
· Subsequently, and in preparation for his plans to run for Maquiling petition. (previous case). It set aside the
public office in the Philippines, Arnado applied for COMELEC en banc’s resolution and disqualified Petitioner
repatriation under RA 9225 before the Consul General of Arnado from running for elective position, and declared
the Philippines in San Franciso, USA. Maquiling as the duly elected mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao
· He took an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Del Norte in the May 2010 elections and that the
Philippines on July 10, 2008 and, on even date, an Order subsequent use of his US passport, Petitioner Arnado
of Approval of Citizenship Retention and Re acquisition effectively disavowed or recalled his April 3, 2009 Affidavit
was issued in his favor. On April 3, 2009, Arnado executed of Renunciation. The issuance of the Maquiling Decision
an Affidavit of Renunciation of his foreign citizenship. sets the stage for the present controversy.
· On November 30, 2009, Arnado filed his Certificate of
Candidacy (CoC) for the mayoralty post of Kauswagan, · Shortly after the Maquiling Decision, on May 9, 2013,
Lanao del Norte for the May 10, 2010 national and local Petitioner Arnado executed an Affidavit Affirming
elections. Rommel C. Arnado's "Affidavit of Renunciation Dated
· Balua, another mayoralty candidate filed a petition to April 3, 2009.”
disqualify Petitioner Arnado and/or to cancel his CoC on · Private Respondent Capitpan, Petitioner Arnado’s lone
the ground that Arnado remained a US citizen because he rival in the May 2013 elections, filed a Petition seeking to
continued to use his US passport for entry to and exit from disqualify him from running for municipal mayor of
the Philippines after executing aforesaid Affidavit of Kauswagan and/or to cancel his CoC based on the ruling
Renunciation. of this Court in Maquiling.
· While Balua's petition remained pending, the May 10, 2010 Arguments:
elections proceeded where Arnado garnered the highest · Petitioner: That the Maquiling case is not on all fours with
number of votes and was proclaimed the winning the present controversy; that Capitan's Petition was filed
candidate. beyond the 25-day reglementary period reckoned from the
· On October 5, 2010, the COMELEC First Division issued filing of the CoC sought to be cancelled; and, that the
held that Arnado's continued use of his US passport Comelec must uphold the sovereign will of the people of
effectively negated his April 3, 2009 Affidavit of Kauswagan who expressed, thru the ballots, their
Renunciation. Thus, he was disqualified to run for public overwhelming support for him as their mayor. Arnado
office for failure to comply with the requirements of RA prayed that the Comelec Second Division's September 6,
9225. The COMELEC First Division accordingly nullified 2013 Resolution be reversed and that he be declared as
his proclamation and held that the rule on succession eligible to run for mayor of Kauswagan. Petitioner Arnado
should be followed. avers that his former counsel, revealed that he executed
· In the meantime, Maquiling, another mayoralty candidate an Affidavit of Renunciation with Oath of Allegiance on
who garnered the second highest number of votes, November 30, 2009. Hence, at the time he filed his CoC
intervened in the case. He argued that the COMELEC on October 1, 2012, he is a citizen of the Philippines who
First Division erred in applying the rule on succession. does not owe allegiance to any other country and,
· The COMELEC En Banc reversed the ruling of the therefore, is qualified to run for mayor of Kauswagan in the
COMELEC First Division. It held that Arnado's use of his May 13, 2013 elections.
US passport did not operate to revert his status to dual · Respondent COMELEC: It disqualified Petitioner Arnado
citizenship; that he continued to use his US passport from running in the May 2013 elections. That at the time
because he did not yet know that he had been issued a he filed his CoC on October 1, 2012, Arnado still failed to
Philippine passport at the time of the relevant foreign trips; comply with the requirement of RA 9225 of making a
and that, after receiving his Philippine passport, Arnado personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
used the same for his subsequent trips. citizenship. While he executed the April 3, 2009 Affidavit of
· Maquiling then appealed to the SC. While Maquiling’s Renunciation, the same was deemed withdrawn or
petition was pending (which was the decision in the recalled when he subsequently traveled abroad using his
previous case), the period for the filing of CoCs for local US passport, as held in Maquiling case.
elective officials for the May 13, 2013 elections officially
began. Issue: Whether Petitioner Arnado is qualified to run
On October 1, 2012, Petitioner Arnado filed his CoC Held: No. The Petition is devoid of merit. COMELEC’s decision
for the same position for the 2013 elections. is affirmed.
Under Section 4(d) of the Local Government Code, a person strictly complying with the eligibility requirements to run for
with "dual citizenship" is disqualified from running for any public office or to simply allow him to correct the deficiency in
elective local position. The phrase "dual citizenship" in said his qualification by submitting another oath of renunciation.
Section 4(d) must be understood as referring to "dual
allegiance.'' The circumstances surrounding the qualification of Arnado to
run for public office during the May 10, 2010 and May 13, 2013
RA 9225 allowed natural-born citizens of the Philippines who elections, to reiterate for emphasis, are the same. In this case,
have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their Arnado's use of his US passport in 2009 invalidated his
naturalization abroad to reacquire Philippine citizenship and to oath of renunciation resulting in his disqualification to run
enjoy full civil and political rights upon compliance with the for mayor of Kauswagan in the 2010 elections. Since then
requirements of the law. They may now run for public office in and up to the time he filed his CoC for the 2013 elections,
the Philippines provided that they: Arnado had not cured the defect in his qualification.
Maquiling, therefore, is binding on and applicable to this case.
(1) meet the qualifications for holding such public office as
required by the Constitution and existing laws; and, Since then and up to the time he filed his CoC for the 2013
(2) make a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all elections, Arnado had not cured the defect in his qualification.
foreign citizenships before any public officer authorized to Maquiling, therefore, is binding on and applicable to this case
administer an oath prior to or at the time of filing of their CoC. following the salutary doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta
movere, which means to adhere to precedents, and not to
In this case, Arnado failed to comply with the second requisite unsettle things which are established.
because, as held in Maquiling v. Commission on Elections, his
April 3, 2009 Affidavit of Renunciation was deemed At any rate, the execution of an Oath of Allegiance is required
withdrawn when he used his US passport after executing by Section 3 of RA 9225. For those who avail themselves of
said affidavit. Consequently, at the time he filed his CoC on RA 9225 and intend to run for public office, Section 5(2)
October 1, 2012 for purposes of the May 13, 2013 elections, thereof provides the additional requirement of making a
Arnado had yet to comply with said second requirement. personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
The Comelec also noted that while Arnado submitted an citizenships prior to or at the time of filing of their CoC.
affidavit dated May 9, 2013, affirming his April 3, 2009 Definitely, the provisions of Section 5(2) are not useless or
Affidavit of Renunciation, the same would not suffice for meaningless surplusage. When the law expressly requires an
having been belatedly executed. explicit renunciation, an implicit one would be insufficient.
Furthermore, even assuming that Arnado’s 2008 implied
It is worth noting that the reason for Arnado's disqualification to renunciation is sufficient, the same has also been negated by
run for public office during the 2010 elections — being a his use of his US passport in 2009, following the ruling in
candidate without total and undivided allegiance to the Maquiling.
Republic of the Philippines - still subsisted when he filed his
CoC for the 2013 elections on October 1, 2012. The Comelec In Maquiling, this Court emphasized that popular vote does not
En Banc merely adhered to the ruling of this Court in Maquiling cure the ineligibility of a candidate. Thus, while in this case
lest it would be committing grave abuse of discretion had it Arnado won by landslide majority during the 2013 elections,
departed therefrom. garnering 84% of the total votes cast, the same cannot
override the constitutional and statutory requirements for
The ruling in Maquiling is indeed novel in the sense that it was qualifications and disqualifications.
the first case dealing with the effect of the use of a foreign
passport on the qualification to run for public office of a natural- In Velasco v. COMELEC, 575 SCRA 590 (2008), this Court
born Filipino citizen who was naturalized abroad and pronounced that election victory cannot be used as a magic
subsequently availed of the privileges under RA 9225. formula to bypass election eligibility requirements;
otherwise, certain provisions of laws pertaining to elections will
It is well-settled that the use of a foreign passport amounts become toothless. One of which is Section 39 of the Local
to repudiation or recantation of the oath of renunciation. Government Code of 1991, which specifies the basic positive
Yet, despite the issue being novel and of first impression, plus qualifications of local government officials. If in Velasco the
the fact that Arnado could not have divined the possible Court ruled that popular vote cannot override the required
adverse consequences of using his US passport, the Court in qualifications under Section 39, a fortiori, there is no reason
Maquiling did not act with leniency or benevolence towards why the Court should not follow the same policy when it comes
Arnado. Voting 10-5, the Court ruled that matters dealing with to disqualifications enumerated under Section 40 of the same
qualifications for public elective office must be strictly law. After all, „[t]he qualifications set out in [Section 39] are
complied with. Otherwise stated, the Court in Maquiling did roughly half of the requirements for election to local public
not consider the novelty of the issue as to excuse Arnado from offices. The other half is contained in the succeeding section
which lays down the circumstances that disqualify local SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. – It is hereby declared the policy of the
candidates. State that all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another
country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship
under the conditions of this Act.
ARNADO DISQUALIFIED.
SEC. 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship. – Any provision of law to
23. David vs. Agbay the contrary notwithstanding, natural-born citizens of the Philippines
who have lost their Philippine citizenship by reason of their
FACTS: naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are hereby deemed to
have reacquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the following oath of
In 1974, petitioner migrated to Canada where he became a allegiance to the Republic: xxx Natural-born citizens of the Philippines
who, after the effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a foreign
Canadian citizen by naturalization. Upon their retirement,
country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the
petitioner and his wife returned to the Philippines. aforesaid oath
In 2000, they purchased a beach lot in Tambong, Gloria,
Oriental Mindoro where they constructed a residential house. While Section 2 declares the general policy that Filipinos who
However, in the year 2004, they came to know that the portion have become citizens of another country shall be deemed “not
where they built their house is public land and part of the to have lost their Philippine citizenship,” such is qualified by the
salvage zone. phrase “under the conditions of this Act.” Section 3 lays down
On April 12, 2007, petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Lease such conditions for two categories of natural-born Filipinos
Application (MLA) over the subject land with the Department of referred to in the first and second paragraphs. Under the first
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) at the paragraph are those natural-born Filipinos who have lost their
Community Environment and Natural Resources Office citizenship by naturalization in a foreign country who shall
(CENRO) in Socorro. In the said application, petitioner re-acquire their Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of
indicated that he is a Filipino citizen. Private respondent Editha allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. The second
A. Agbay opposed the application on the ground that petitioner, paragraph covers those natural-born Filipinos who became
a Canadian citizen, is disqualified to own land. She also filed a foreign citizens after R.A. 9225 took effect, who shall retain
criminal complaint for falsification of public documents under their Philippine citizenship upon taking the same oath. The
Article 172 of the RPC against the petitioner. taking of oath of allegiance is required for both categories of
Meanwhile, petitioner re-acquired his Filipino citizenship under natural-born Filipino citizens who became citizens of a foreign
the provisions of Republic Act No. 9225. In his defense, country, but the terminology used is different, “reacquired” for
petitioner averred that at the time he filed his application, he the first group, and “retain” for the second group. The law thus
had intended to re-acquire Philippine citizenship and that he makes a distinction between those natural-born Filipinos who
had been assured by a CENRO officer that he could declare became foreign citizens before and after the effectivity of R.A.
himself as a Filipino. 9225. Although the heading of Section 3 is “Retention of
Philippine Citizenship”, the authors of the law intentionally
Consequently, an information for Falsification of Public employed the terms “re-acquire” and “retain” to describe the
Document was filed before the MTC and a warrant of arrest legal effect of taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic of
was issued against the petitioner. Since the crime for which the Philippines. This is also evident from the title of the law
petitioner was charged was alleged and admitted to have been using both re-acquisition and retention. Considering that David
committed on April 12, 2007 before he had re-acquired his was naturalized as a Canadian citizen prior to the effectivity of
Philippine citizenship, the MTC concluded that petitioner was R.A. 9225, he belongs to the first category of natural born
at that time still a Canadian citizen. Thus, the MTC denied the Filipinos under the first paragraph of Section 3 who lost
motion for lack of jurisdiction over the person of the accused Philippine citizenship by naturalization in a foreign country. As
and for lack of merit. the new law allows dual citizenship, he was able to re-acquire
his Philippine citizenship by taking the required oath of
ISSUE: allegiance. For the purpose of determining the citizenship of
WON David may be indicted for falsification for representing petitioner at the time of filing his MLA, it is not necessary to
himself as a Filipino in his Public Land Application despite his discuss the rulings in Frivaldo and Altarejos on the retroactivity
subsequent re-acquition of Philippine citizenship under the of such reacquisition because R.A. 9225 itself treats those of
provisions of R.A. No. 9225? (YES) his category as having already lost Philippine citizenship, in
contradistinction to those natural-born Filipinos who became
HELD: foreign citizens after R.A. 9225 came into force. In other words,
R.A. 9225, otherwise known as the “Citizenship Retention and Section 2 declaring the policy that considers Filipinos who
Reacquisition Act of 2003,” was signed into law by President became foreign citizens as not to have lost their Philippine
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo on August 29, 2003. Sections 2 and citizenship, should be read together with Section 3, the second
3 of said law read: paragraph of which clarifies that such policy governs all cases
after the new law’s effectivity. Falsification of documents under
paragraph 1, Article 172 in relation to Article 171 of the RPC erred in stating that it lacked jurisdiction over his person.
refers to falsification by a private individual, or a public officer Notwithstanding such erroneous ground stated in the MTC’s
or employee who did not take advantage of his official position, order, the RTC correctly ruled that no grave abuse of discretion
of public, private, or commercial documents. The elements of was committed by the MTC in denying the said motion for lack
falsification of documents under paragraph 1, Article 172 of the of merit.
RPC are: (1) that the offender is a private individual or a public
officer or employee who did not take advantage of his official
position; (2) that he committed any of the acts of falsification 24. Poe-Llamanzares vs. Comelec
enumerated in Article 171 of the RPC; and (3) that the
falsification was committed in a public, official or commercial FACTS:
document. David made the untruthful statement in the MLA, a · September 3, 1968- Mary Grace Natividad S.
public document, that he is a Filipino citizen at the time of the Poe-Llamanzares was found abandoned as a newborn
filing of said application, when in fact he was then still a infant in the Parish Church of Jaro, Iloilo by a certain
Canadian citizen. Under CA 63, the governing law at the time Edgardo Militar. Custody over petitioner was passed on by
he was naturalized as Canadian citizen, naturalization in a Edgardo to his relatives, Emiliano Militar and his wife.
foreign country was among those ways by which a natural-born · September 6, 1968- Emiliano Militar reported and
citizen loses his Philippine citizenship. While he reacquired registered petitioner as a foundling with the OCR-Iloilo
Philippine citizenship under R.A. 9225 six months later, the · 1973- When petitioner was five (5) years old, celebrity
falsification was already a consummated act, the said law spouses FPJ and Susan Roces filed a petition for her
having no retroactive effect insofar as his dual citizenship adoption with the MTC of San Juan City.
status is concerned. The MTC therefore did not err in finding · May 13, 1974- The Poe spouses’ petition for adoption was
probable cause for falsification of public document under granted by the trial court and ordered that petitioner's
Article172, paragraph 1 name be changed from "Mary Grace Natividad Contreras
Militar" to "Mary Grace Natividad Sonora Poe."
ISSUE: · December 13, 1986- Having reached the age of 18,
WON the MTC properly denied petitioner’s motion for petitioner registered as a voter with the local COMELEC
re-determination of probable cause on the ground of lack of Office in San Juan City.
jurisdiction over the person of the (petitioner)? (NO) · April 4, 1988- Petitioner applied for and was issued
Philippine Passport No. F9272876 by the Department of
HELD: Foreign Affairs
The MTC further cited lack of jurisdiction over the person of · 1988-1991- Initially, the petitioner enrolled and pursued a
petitioner accused as ground for denying petitioner’s motion for degree in Development Studies at the University of the
re-determination of probable cause, as the motion was filed Philippines but opted to continue her studies abroad and
prior to his arrest. left for the U.S. in 1988.
Our pronouncement in Santiago shows a distinction between · Petitioner graduated in 1991 from Boston College in
custody of the law and jurisdiction over the person. Custody of Chestnuts Hill
the law is required before the court can act upon the · July 27, 1991- Petitioner married Teodoro Misael Daniel V.
application for bail, but is not required for the adjudication of Llamanzares, a citizen of both the Philippines and the
other reliefs sought by the defendant where the mere U.S., at Sanctuario de San Jose Parish in San Juan City.
application therefor constitutes a waiver of the defense of lack · July 29, 1991- Desirous of being with her husband who
of jurisdiction over the person of the accused. Custody of the was then based in the U.S., the couple flew back to the
law is accomplished either by arrest or voluntary surrender, U.S.
while jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired · April 16, 1992- Petitioner gave birth to her eldest child
upon his arrest or voluntary appearance. Brian Daniel
As a general rule, one who seeks an affirmative relief is · April 5, 1993- Renewed her Philippines passport.
deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the court. As · May 19, 1998- Renewed her Philippines passport.
we held in the aforecited case of Santiago, seeking an · July 10, 1998- Petitioner gave birth to daughter Hanna
affirmative relief in court, whether in civil or criminal MacKenzie.
proceedings, constitutes voluntary appearance. To recapitulate · October 18, 2001- Petitioner became a naturalized
what we have discussed so far, in criminal cases, jurisdiction American citizen
over the person of the accused is deemed waived by the · April 8, 2004 – July 8, 2004- Petitioner came back to the
accused when he files any pleading seeking an affirmative Philippines together with Hanna to support her father's
relief, except in cases when he invokes the special jurisdiction candidacy for President in the May 2004 elections. It was
of the court by impugning such jurisdiction over his person. during this time that she gave birth to her youngest
Considering that petitioner sought affirmative relief in filing his daughter Anika.
motion for re-determination of probable cause, the MTC clearly
· December 13, 2004 – February 3, 2005- Petitioner rushed
back to the Philippines upon learning of her father's ISSUE:
deteriorating medical condition who died shortly. 1. Whether it can be concluded that Poe’s parents are
· 2005- Petitioner and husband began preparing for their Filipino
resettlement including notification of their children's 2. Whether as a foundling, Poe is a natural born Citizen
schools that they will be transferring to Philippine schools 3. Whether Poe’s repatriation resulted to reacquisition of
· May 24, 2005- Petitioner came home to the Philippines natural born citizenship
and without delay, secured a Tax Identification Number 4. Whether Poe is a resident of the Philippine for 10 years
from the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
· March 2006- The petitioner's husband officially informed HELD:
the U.S. Postal Service of the family's change and 1. Presumption regarding paternity is neither unknown nor
abandonment of their address in the U.S. petitioner and unacceptable in Philippine Law. There is more sufficient
her husband acquired a 509-square meter lot in Corinthian evidence that Poe has The Solicitor General offered
Hills, Quezon City where they built their family home. official Statistics from the Philippine Statistics office that
· July 7, 2006- Petitioner took her Oath of Allegiance to the from 1965 to 1975, the total number of foreigners born in
Republic of the Philippines pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) the Philippines was 15,985. While the Filipinos born in the
No. 9225 or the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition country were more than 10 Million. On this basis, there is
Act of 2003. a 99% chance that the child born in the Philippines would
· July 18, 2006- The Bureau of Immigration acted favorably be a Filipino which in turn, would indicate more than ample
on petitioner's petitions and declared that she is deemed probability that Poe’s parents are Filipinos.
to have reacquired her Philippine citizenship.
· August 31, 2006- Again, petitioner registered as a voter of Other circumstantial evidence of the nationality of
Barangay Santa Lucia, San Juan City. She also secured Poe’s parents are the fact that:
from the DFA a new Philippine Passport bearing the No. 1. She was abandoned in a Roman Catholic Church
XX4731999. in Iloilo
· October 6, 2010- President Benigno S. Aquino III 2. She has typical Filipino features.
appointed petitioner as Chairperson of the Movie and
Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB). There are disputable presumptions that things have
· October 20, 2010- Before assuming her post, petitioner happened according to the ordinary course of nature.
executed an "Affidavit of Renunciation of Allegiance to the On this basis, it is safer to assume that Poe’s parents
United States of America and Renunciation of American are Filipinos. To assume otherwise is to accept the
Citizenship" before a notary public in Pasig City. absurd.
· October 21, 2010- Petitioner submitted the said affidavit to
the Bureau of Immigration and took her oath of office as 2. Foundlings are as a class, natural born citizens. While the
Chairperson of the MTRCB. From then on, petitioner 1935 Constitution is silent as to foundlings, there is no
stopped using her American passport. restrictive language that would exclude them either.
· July 12, 2011- The petitioner executed before the Vice Because of silence and ambiguity in the enumeration,
Consul of the U.S. Embassy in Manila an there is a need to examine the intent of the framers.
"Oath/Affirmation of Renunciation of Nationality of the
United States" and stated that she in the Philippines, from The amendment to the Constitution proposed by
3 September 1968 to 29 July 1991 and from May 2005 to constitutionalist Rafols to include foundlings as
present. natural born citizens was not carried out, not because
· December 9, 2011- The U.S. Vice Consul issued to there was any objection to the notion that persons of
petitioner a "Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the United unknown parentage are not citizens, but only because
States" effective 21 October 2010. their number was not enough to merit specific
· October 2, 2012- The petitioner filed with the COMELEC mention. There was no intent or language that would
her Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for Senator for the permit discrimination against foundlings. On the
2013 Elections wherein she answered "6 years and 6 contrary, all three Constitutions guarantee the basic
months" to the question "Period of residence in the right to equal protection of the laws. Likewise,
Philippines before May 13, 2013." domestic laws on adoption support the principle that
· October 15, 2015- Petitioner filed her COC for the foundlings are Filipinos. These laws do not provide
Presidency for the May 2016 Elections. In her COC, the that adoption confers citizenship upon the adoptee,
petitioner declared that she is a natural-born citizen and rather, the adoptee must be Filipino in the first place
that her residence in the Philippines up to the day before 9 to be adopted. Recent legislation all expressly refer to
May 2016 would be 10 years and 11 months counted from “Filipino children” and include foundlings as among
May 24, 2005. Filipino children who may be adopted.
The argument that the process to determine that the Hence, as a foundling, Poe is a natural born Filipino
child is a foundling leading to the issuance of a citizen.
foundling certificate are acts to acquire or perfect
Philippine citizenship is without merit. Hence, the 3. The COMELEC arrogantly disregarded jurisprudence on
argument that as a foundling, Poe underwent a the matter of repatriation which states that repatriation
process in order to acquire or perfect her Philippine results in the recovery of the original nationality. A natural
citizenship, is untenable. born citizen before he lost his Philippine nationality will be
restored to his former status as natural born Filipino after
“Having to perform an act” means that the act must be repatriation (Benson v. HRET, Pareno v. Commission on
personally done by the citizen. In this case, the Audit etc). In passing R.A. 9225, Congress saw it fit to
determination of foundling status was done by decree that natural born citizenship may be reacquired
authorities, not by Poe. Second, the object of the even if it has been lost. It is not for the COMELEC to
process is to determine the whereabouts of the disagree with the Congress’ determination.
parents, not the citizenship of the child and lastly, the
process is not analogous to naturalization Neither is repatriation an act to ‘acquire or perfect’ one’s
proceedings. citizenship. In the case of Bengson, the Court pointed out that
there are only two types of citizens under the 1987 constitution:
Under international law, foundlings are citizens. natural born and naturalized. There is no third category for
Generally accepted principles of international law repatriated citizens. The COMELEC cannot reverse a judicial
which include international customs form part of the precedent. Hence, COMELEC’s decision is wrapped with
laws of the land. The common thread of the Universal grave abuse of discretion.
Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the
Rights of the Child and the International Convent on 4. Poe alleged that her residency should be counted from
Civil and Political Rights obligates the Philippines to May 24, 2005 when she returned for good from the US.
grant nationality from birth and to ensure that no child There are three requisites to acquire a new domicile 1.
is stateless. The principles stated in the: Residence or bodily presence in a new locality 2. Intention
a) Hague Convention on Certain Questions Relation to the to remain (animus manendi) and 3. Intention to abandon
Conflict of Nationality laws (that a foundling is presumed to the old domicile (animus non-revertendi). The purpose to
have the nationality of the country of birth) remain in or at the domicile of choice must be for an
b) Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (foundling indefinite period of time, the change of residence must be
is presumed born of citizens of the country where he is voluntary and the residence at the place chosen for the
found) bind the Philippines although we are not signatory new domicile must be actual.
to these conventions.
Poe presented voluminous evidence showing that she and her
Although we are not a signatory to the Hague family abandoned their US domicile and relocated to the
Convention, we are a signatory to the Universal Philippines for good. These evidence include former US
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which affirms passport showing her arrival on May 24, 2005 and her return to
Article 14 of the Hague Convention. Likewise, the the Philippines every time she travelled abroad, email
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness affirms correspondences with freight company to arrange for the
Article 15 of the UDHR. By analogy, although the shipment of household items as well as with the pet Bureau;
Philippines has not signed the International school records of her children showing enrolment in the
Convention for the Protection of Persons from Philippine to the Philippine schools starting on June 2005 etc.
Enforced Disappearance, we (the Supreme Court)
ruled that the proscription against enforced COMELEC refused to consider the petitioner’s domicile has
disappearance was nonetheless binding as a been timely changed as of May 24, 2005 and maintained that
generally accepted principle of international law. although there is physical presence and animus manendi,
there is no animus revertendi. Respondents contend that the
Poe’s evidence shows that at least 60 countries in stay of an alien former Filipino cannot be counted until he/she
Asia, North and South America and Europe have obtains a permanent resident visa or reacquired Philippine
passed legislation recognizing foundlings as its citizenship since she is still an American until July 7, 2006 on
citizens. 166 out of 189 countries accept that the basis of previous cases ruled upon by the Supreme Court.
foundlings are recognized as citizens. Hence, there is
a generally accepted principle of international law to SC held that the other cases previously decided by the court
presume foundlings as having been born and a wherein residence was counted only from the acquisition of
national of the country in which it is found. permanent residence were decided as such because there is
sparse evidence on establishment of residence. These cases citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic.
cannot be applied in the present case. In the case at bar, there Thus, a Filipino lawyer who becomes a citizen of another
is overwhelming evidence that leads to no to other conclusion country and later re-acquires his Philippine citizenship under
that Poe decided to permanently abandon her US residence R.A. No. 9225, remains to be a member of the Philippine Bar.
and reside in the Philippines as early as May 24, 2005. R.A. No. 9225 provides that a person who intends to practice
his profession in the Philippines must apply with the proper
These evidence, coupled with her eventual application to authority for a license or permit to engage in such practice.
reacquire Philippine citizenship is clear that when she returned
in May 2005, it was for good. In pursuance to the qualifications laid down by the Court for the
practice of law, the OBC required, and in compliance thereof,
The stamp in her passport as a balikbayan does not make Poe petitioner submitted the following:
an ordinary transient.
1. Petition for Re-Acquisition of Philippine Citizenship;
Poe was able to prove that her statement in her 2012 COC 2. Order (for Re-Acquisition of Philippine citizenship);
was only a mistake in good faith. Such a mistake could be 3. Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines;
given in evidence against her but it was by no means 4. Certificate of Re-Acquisition/Retention of Philippine
conclusive considering the overwhelming evidence submitted Citizenship issued by the Bureau of Immigration, in lieu of the
by Poe. Considering that the COMELEC failed to take into IC;
consideration these overwhelming evidence, its decision is 5. Certification dated May 19, 2010 of the IBP-Surigao City
tainted with grave abuse of discretion. The decision of the Chapter attesting to his good moral character as well as his
COMELEC is hereby annulled and set aside. Poe is thus updated payment of annual membership dues;
declared qualified to be a candidate for President in the 6. Professional Tax Receipt (PTR) for the year 2010;
National and Local Election on May 9, 2016. 7. Certificate of Compliance with the MCLE for the 2nd
compliance period; and
8. Certification dated December 5, 2008 of Atty. Gloria
25. In Re: Petition to Re-acquire the Privilege to Practice Estenzo-Ramos, Coordinator, UC-MCLE Program,
Law in the Philippines University of Cebu, College of Law attesting to his compliance
In re: Petition to Reacquire the Privilege to Practice Law in with the MCLE.
the Philippines, Epifanio B. Muneses
BM No. 21112; July 24, 2012 The OBC further required the petitioner to update his
compliance, particularly with the MCLE. After all the
FACTS: requirements were satisfactorily complied with and finding that
● Petitioner became a member of the IBP in 1966 but the petitioner has met all the qualifications, the OBC
lost his privilege to practice law when he became an recommended that the petitioner be allowed to resume his
American citizen in 1981. practice of law.
● In 2006, he re-acquired his Philippine citizenship The practice of law is a privilege burdened with conditions. It is
pursuant to RA 9225 or the “Citizenship Retention so delicately affected with public interest that it is both the
and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003” by taking his oath of power and duty of the State (through this Court) to control and
allegiance as a Filipino citizen before the Philippine regulate it in order to protect and promote the public welfare.
Consulate in Washington, D.C.
Issue:
Whether the petitioner, if after reacquiring Philippine
citizenship, can practice law in the Philippines
Ruling:
Yes. The Court reiterates that Filipino citizenship is a
requirement for admission to the bar and is, in fact, a
continuing requirement for the practice of law. Under R.A. No.
9225, natural-born citizens who have lost their Philippine
citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a
foreign country are deemed to have re-acquired their Philippine