GRACE POE VS.

COMELEC
G.R. No. 221697 | 08 March 2016
Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares, Petitioner
vs.
COMELEC, and Estrella C. Elamparo, Respondents.
FACTS:
Petitioner Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares was found abandoned as
a newborn infant in the Parish Church of Jaro, Iloilo on 03 September 1968 by a
certain Edgardo Militar. Edgardo Militar then passed the parental care and custody
over the Petitioner to his relatives, Emiliano Militar and his wife. Three days later,
Emiliano Militar reported and registered petitioner as a foundling with the Office of
the Civil Registrar of Iloilo City (OCR-Iloilo), wherein she was given a Foundling
Certificate and a Certificate of Live Birth, thus was given the name, Mary Grace
Natividad Contreras Militar.
When the petitioner reached the age of five (5), celebrity spouses Ronald Allan
Kelley Poe (Fernando Poe, Jr) and Jesusa Sonora Poe (Susan Roces) filed a
petition for her adoption. The trial court granted their petition and ordered that her
name be changed to Mary Grace Natividad Sonora Poe.
She, together with her daughter Hanna, came back to the Philippines to support
her father’s candidacy for president in the May 2004 elections. While in the
Philippines, Petitioner gave birth to her youngest daughter. They then returned to
the U.S. in 2004.
After few months, however, Petitioner rushed back to the Philippines to attend to
her ailing father. After her father’s death, Petitioner decided to move and reside
permanently in the Philippines in 2005, and immediately secured a Tax Identification
Number (TIN). Their three children immediately followed her in the Philippines, while
her husband was forced to stay for a while in the US to complete pending projects
and to arrange the sale of their family home there.
In the second half of 2005, Petitioner and her husband acquired a condominium
property in San Juan City where she and her children resided.
In early 2006, petitioner's husband officially informed the U.S. Postal Service of
the family's change and abandonment of their address in the US. In the same year,
petitioner and her husband acquired a 509-square meter lot in Corinthian Hills,
Quezon City where they built their family home, which up to this day, is where the
couple and their children have been residing. A Transfer Certificate of Title covering
said property was issued in the couple's name by the Register of Deeds of Quezon
City on 01 June 2006.

 The Lawyer of the Petitioner’s adoptive parents failed to secure from the OCR-Iloilo a new
Certificate of Live Birth indicating Petitioner’s new name and the names of her adoptive
parents.
 Without delay, petitioner's mother executed an affidavit attesting to the lawyer's omission
which she submitted to the OCR-Iloilo. On 4 May 2006, OCR-Iloilo issued a new Certificate
of Live Birth in the name of Mary Grace Natividad Sonora Poe.
Petitioner registered as a voter in San Juan City at the age of 18 in 1986.
In 1988, she applied for and was issued with a Philippine Passport by the DFA;
She renewed her Philippine Passport in 1993 and 1998, respectively.
The Petitioner enrolled and pursued a degree in Development Studies at the
University of the Philippines, but opted to continue her studies abroad and left for
the United States of America (U.) in 1988. In 1991, Petitioner graduated from Boston
College with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Studies.
She then married Teodoro Misael Daniel V. Llamanzares, a citizen of both the
Philippines and the U.S., in a church in San Juan City. The couple, however, decided
to flew back to the US two days after their wedding since Teodoro was then based
in the US. Petitioner gave birth to her eldest child while in the US, and her two
daughters in the Philippines.
She became a naturalized American citizen in 2001.
In July 2006, Petitioner took her Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the
Philippines pursuant to RA No. 9225 or the Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition
Act of 2003. Under the same Act, she filed a sworn petition to reacquire Philippine
citizenship together with petitions for derivative citizenship on behalf of her three
children – which were all granted by the Bureau of Immigration.
Petitioner then registered as a voter, and also secured a Philippine passport.
On October 2010, Petitioner was appointed to be the Chairperson of the MTRCB.
Before assuming her post, she executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of American
Citizenship in satisfaction of the legal requisites stated in Section 5 of R.A. No.
9225. A day after, Petitioner submitted the said affidavit to the BI, and took her oath
of office as Chairperson of the MTRCB. From then on, petitioner stopped using her
American passport.
In 2011, Petitioner executed before the Vice Consul of the US Embassy in Manila
an Oath/Affirmation of Renunciation of Nationality of the United States, and was
issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the USA.
In 2012, she filed with the COMELEC her Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for
Senator for the 2013 Elections wherein she answered “6 years and 6 months” to the
question “Period of residence in the Philippines before May 13, 2013.” Petitioner
obtained the highest number of votes and was proclaimed Senator on 16 May 2013.
 In 2015, Petitioner filed her COC for the Presidency for the May 2016 Elections.
In her COC, Petitioner declared that she is a natural-born citizen and that her
residence in the Philippines up to the day before 09 May 2016 would be ten (10)
years and eleven (11) months counted from 24 May 2005. The petitioner attached
to her COC an “Affidavit Affirming Renunciation of U.S.A. Citizenship” subscribed
and sworn to before a notary public in Quezon City on 14 October 2015.
Several petitions were filed before the COMELEC to deny or cancel her
candidacy on the grounds that:
1. She committed misrepresentation in her COC when she stated that she
is a resident of the Philippines for at least 10 years and 11 months up
to the day before the 09 May 2016 Elections;
2. She is not a natural-born Filipino citizen since she is a foundling; and,
3. Her candidacy should be denied, rejected or canceled for committing
material misrepresentations in her Certificate of Candidacy.
SPECIFICS:
ESTRELLA ELAMPARO: Petitioner committed material misrepresentation when
she stated in her COC that she is a natural-born Filipino citizen and that she is a
resident of the Philippines for at least ten (10) years and eleven (11) months up
to the day before the 9 May 2016 Elections
FRANCISCO S. TATAD: Petitioner lacks the requisite residency and citizenship
to qualify her for the Presidency.
ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS: Petitioner's residency in the Philippines should be
from 18 July 2006, the date when her petition to reacquire Philippine citizenship
was approved by the BI.
AMADO D. VALDEZ: Petitioner’s repatriation under R.A. No. 9225 did not
bestow upon her the status of a natural-born citizen
. The COMELEC en banc cancelled her candidacy on the ground that she was
in want of citizenship and residence requirements, and that she committed material
misrepresentations in her COC.
On certiorari, the Supreme Court reversed the ruling and held (9-6 votes) that
Poe is qualified as a candidate for Presidency. Three justices, however, abstained
to vote on the natural-born citizenship issue.
ISSUES:
 WON Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares is a natural-born Filipino
citizen.
 WON Grace Poe satisfies the 10-year residency requirement
 WON Grace Poe’s candidacy should be denied or cancelled for committing
material misrepresentation in her COC
RULING:
 Grace Poe might be and considerably be natural-born Filipino.
 Grace Poe satisfied the requirements of animus manendi coupled with animus
revertendi in acquiring a new domicile.
 The COMELEC cannot cancel, deny, or reject her COC on the ground that she
misrepresented facts as to her citizenship and residency.
FIRST ISSUE: Grace Poe might be and considerably be natural-born Filipino.
First, there is a very high probability that Grace Poe’s parents are Filipinos. Her
physical features are typical of Filipinos. As a matter of fact, she was abandoned as
an infant in a municipality where the population of the Philippines is overwhelmingly
Filipinos such that there would be more than 99% chance that a child born in such
province is a Filipino is also a circumstantial evidence of her parents’ nationality.
That high probability and the evidence on which it is based are admissible under
Rule 128, Section 4 of the Revised Rules on Evidence. To assume otherwise is to
accept the absurd, if not the virtually impossible, as the norm.
Second, by votes of 7-5, the Supreme Court pronounced and said that foundlings
are as a natural-born citizens. This is based on the finding that the deliberations of
the 1934 Constitutional Convention manifests that the framers intended foundlings
to be covered by the enumeration. While the 1935 Constitution’s enumeration is
silent as to foundlings, there is no restrictive language which would definitely exclude
foundlings either. Because of silence and ambiguity in the enumeration with respect
to foundlings, the Supreme Court felt the need to examine or test the intent of the
framers.
Third, that foundlings are automatically conferred with natural-born citizenship is
supported by treaties and the general principles of international law. Although the
Philippines is not a signatory to some of these treaties, it adheres to the customary
rule to presume foundlings as having born of the country in which the foundling is
found.
SECOND ISSUE: Grace Poe satisfied the requirements of animus manendi
coupled with animus revertendi in acquiring a new domicile.
Grace Poe’s domicile had been timely changed as of May 24, 2005, and not on
July 18, 2006 when her application under RA 9225 was approved by the BI.
COMELEC’s reliance on cases which decree that an alien’s stay in the country
cannot be counted unless she acquires a permanent resident visa or reacquires her
Filipino citizenship is without merit. Such cases are different from the circumstances
in this case, in which Grace Poe presented an overwhelming and somehow an
accurate evidence of her actual stay and intent to abandon permanently her domicile
in the US. Coupled with her eventual application to reacquire Philippine citizenship
and her family’s actual continuous stay in the Philippines over the years, it is clear
that when Grace Poe returned on May 24, 2005, it was for good.

THIRD ISSUE: The COMELEC cannot cancel, deny, or reject her COC on the ground
that she misrepresented facts as to her citizenship and residency.

The COMELEC cannot cancel, deny or reject her Certificate of Candidacy on

the ground that she misrepresented facts as to her citizenship and residency
because such facts refer to grounds for ineligibility in which the COMELEC has no
jurisdiction to decide upon. Only when there is a prior authority finding that a
candidate is suffering from a disqualification provided by law or the Constitution that
the COMELEC may deny due course or cancel her candidacy on ground of false
representations regarding her qualifications. In this case, by authority of the
Supreme Court Grace Poe was pronounced qualified as a candidate for the
presidency. Hence, there cannot be any false representations in her COC regarding
her citizenship and residency.