CASE 1: MARY GRACE NATIVIDAD S. POE-LLAMANZARES vs.

COMELEC AND
ESTRELLA C. ELAMPARO, G.R. No. 221697, March 8, 2016

DOCTRINE: Foundlings are Natural Born Citizens; May Run for President.

The challenge to Poe’s citizenship rested on the fact that foundlings are not expressly mentioned as
citizens in any of the country’s Constitutions. On this point, the majority of the Supreme Court held that
“As a matter of law, foundlings are, as a class, natural-born citizens. While the 1935 Constitution’s
enumeration is silent as to foundlings, there is no restrictive language which would definitely exclude
foundlings either.”

The Court examined the intent of the framers of the Constitution and found that there was an attempt to
include foundlings in the enumeration of who natural born citizens in the Constitution. This was not
carried out “not because there was any objection to the notion that persons of ‘unknown parentage’ are
not citizens but only because their number was not enough to merit specific mention.”

The Court could not discern any “intent or language permitting discrimination against foundlings” and
instead found that all three Constitutions guarantee the basic right to equal protection of the laws and
exhort the State to render social justice. It cited provisions in the present Constitution that do not show
any intent to discriminate against foundlings “on account of their unfortunate status.”

BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE PETITIION:

Quick to capitalize on her past, Rizalito David, a losing candidate in the 2010 senatorial elections
challenged her qualifications as a Senator before the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET). The SET is the sole
judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the Senate. The SET has nine
Members, three of whom are Justices of the Supreme Court designated by the Chief Justice, and the
remaining six are Senators. The SET ruled in Senator Poe’s favor.

On March 8, 2016, the Philippine Supreme Court promulgated a landmark decision holding that Senator
Grace Poe, a foundling, is a natural born citizen and eligible to run for President in the May 2016 national
elections.

Poe had been naturalized as a citizen of the United States in 2001 after being petitioned by her husband
who has dual citizenship. After her father’s death, however, she gave up US citizenship and entered
public life, serving briefly as the chair of the Movie and Television Regulatory and Classification Board.
Thereafter, she ran as a Senator in 2010 garnering the highest number of votes.

Immensely popular, political parties have been eyeing Poe as a potential candidate either as President or
as a Senator. Her status as a foundling, however, posed serious problems because according to the
Philippine Constitution, a Senator and the President must be a natural born citizen.

FACTS

Petitioner Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares was found abandoned as a newborn infant in the
Parish Church of Jaro, Iloilo on Sept. 3, 1968. After passing the parental care and custody over petitioner
by Edgardo Militar to Emiliano Militar and his wife, she has been reported and registered as a foundling
and issued a Foundling Certificate and 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 Ronal Allan Kelley (aka Fernando Poe,
Jr) and Jesusa Sonora Poe (aka 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.

Petitioner registered as a voter in San Juan City at the age of 18 in 1986; in 1988, she applied and was
issued Philippine Passport by the DFA; in 1993 and 1998, she renewed her passport.

She left for the United States (U.S.) in 1988 to continue her studies after enrolling and pursuing a degree
in Development Studies at the University of the Philippines. She graduated in 1991 from Boston College
where she earned her Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Studies.

She married Teodoro Misael Daniel V. Llamanzares, a citizen of both the Philippines and the U.S., in San
Juan City and decided to flew back to the U.S. after their wedding. She gave birth to her eldest child
while in the U.S.; and her two daughters in the Philippines.
She became a naturalized American citizen in 2001. She came back to the Philippines to support her
father’s candidacy for president in the May 2004 elections and gave birth to her youngest daughter. They
then returned to the U.S. in 2004 but after few months, she rushed back to the Philippines to attend to her
ailing father. After her father’s death, the petitioner and her husband decided to move and reside
permanently in the Philippines in 2005 and immediately secured a TIN, then her children followed suit;
acquired property where she and her children resided.

In 2006, She 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; she filed a sworn petition to reacquire
Philippine citizenship together with petitions for derivative citizenship on behalf of her three children
which was granted. She registered as a voter; secured Philippine passport; appointed and took her oath as
Chairperson of the MTRCB after executing an affidavit of Renunciation of American citizenship before
the Vice Consul of the USA and was issued a Certificate of Loss of Nationality of the USA in 2011.

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.

On 15 October 2015, petitioner filed her COC for the Presidency for the May 2016 Elections. In her
COC, the petitioner declared that she is a natural-born citizen and that her residence in the Philippines up
to the day before 9 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.

Petitions were filed before the COMELEC to deny or cancel her candidacy on the ground particularly,
among others, that she cannot be considered a natural-born Filipino citizen since she cannot prove that her
biological parents or either of them were Filipinos. 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 & RULING

Whether or not Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares is a natural-born Filipino citizen.

Yes. Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares may be considered a natural-born Filipino.

It ruled that a foundling is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines as there is no restrictive language
which would definitely exclude foundlings as they are already impliedly so recognized.

There are also no provisions in the Constitution with intent or language permitting discrimination against
foundlings as the three Constitutions guarantee the basic right to equal protection of the laws.

Foundlings are citizens under international law as this is supported by some treaties, adhering to the
customary rule to presume foundlings as having born of the country in which the foundling is found.

CASE 2: TECSON VS COMELEC

GR No. 161434

Doctrine: Citizenship is a political status denoting membership, more or less permanent in character, in a
political society and implying the duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on
the part of society. Thus, a citizen is one who, by birth, naturalization, or otherwise, is a member of a
political community, and as such is subject to its laws and entitled to its protection in all his rights
incident to that relation. Derived from the Latin word "cives," the term "citizen" conveys the idea of
connection or identification with the state or government and participation in its function. It denotes
possession within that particular political community of full civil and political rights subject to special
disqualifications such as minority.
FACTS

Victorino X. Fornier, petitioner initiated a petition before the COMELEC to disqualify FPJ and to deny
due course or to cancel his certificate of candidacy. In support of his Petition for Disqualification,
petitioner Fornier asserted that:
1) Allan F. Poe, father of FPJ, was a Spanish citizen, hence, FPJ could not have derived
Philippine citizenship from him;
2) Allan F. Poe's marriage to FPJ's mother, Bessie Kelley, an American citizen, was void
because of the prior subsisting marriage of Allan F. Poe to one Paulita Gomez; and
3) given that the marriage of FPJ's parents was void, even assuming argruendo that Allan F.
Poe was a Filipino citizen, FPJ could still not have derived Philippine citizenship from
him since, as an illegitimate child, he followed the citizenship of his American mother.

Petitioner Fornier thus concluded that FPJ, "not being a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, lacks an
essential qualification and corollarily possesses a disqualification to be elected President of the Republic
of the Philippines, as expressly required under the 1987 Constitution,”.

FPJ denied all the claims and presented evidence to the contrary. Hence COMELEC give due course to
his certificate of candidacy. Petitioners Tecson and Desiderio, Jr. led their Petition (With Application for
Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Restraining Order) this Court questioning the jurisdiction of the
COMELEC over the Petition for Disqualification on the ground under Section 2, Article VII of the
Constitution must be interpreted strictly. Since he was illegitimate, FPJ follows the nationality of his only
legally recognized parent, his mother, who is an American and hence he is not a natural born citizen.

ISSUE & RULING

Whether FPJ is a natural born Filipino citizen.

Yes. Citizenship is a political status denoting membership, more or less permanent in character, in a
political society and implying the duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on
the part of society. Thus, a citizen is one who, by birth, naturalization, or otherwise, is a member of a
political community, and as such is subject to its laws and entitled to its protection in all his rights
incident to that relation. Derived from the Latin word "cives," the term "citizen" conveys the idea of
connection or identification with the state or government and participation in its function. It denotes
possession within that particular political community of full civil and political rights subject to special
disqualifications such as minority. In the Philippines, citizenship is essential not only for the exercise of
political rights and the right to hold public office, but for the exercise of a number of important economic
privileges which the Constitution reserves exclusively to Philippine citizens as well. A comparison of the
1935, 1973 and present 1987 Constitution shows that a number of economic privileges reserved
exclusively to Philippine citizens has increased over time.

ARTICLE IV of the 1935 Constitution provides: CITIZENSHIP Sec. 1.The following are citizens of the
Philippines: (1) those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution. (2)Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before the adoption of this
Constitution, had been elected to public office in the Philippine Islands. (3)Those whose fathers are
citizens of the Philippines. (4)Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching
the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship. (5)Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.

When the Constitution says: "The following are citizens of the Philippines . . . 'Those whose fathers are
citizens of the Philippines'", the Constitution means just that without invidious distinction. Ubi lex non
distinguit ne nos distinguere debemus, especially if the distinction has no textual foundation in the
Constitution, serves no state interest, and even imposes an injustice on an innocent child. What owes from
legitimacy are civil rights; citizenship is a political right which owes not from legitimacy but from
paternity. And paternity begins when the ovum is fertilized nine months before birth and not upon
marriage or legitimation.
What is only needed is that the child must be acknowledged by the father to establish his filiation to the
latter. The acknowledgment and establishment of filiation of such child may not be sufficient to entitle
him to support, successional rights, and other benefits under Civil Law, but, for purposes of determining
his political status as a citizen of the Philippines, such proof of acknowledgment and filiation is all that is
required.

As to Fernando Poe, Jr., therefore, if it is established by competent proof that he is the son of a Filipino
father, legitimate or illegitimate, he is a natural-born Filipino citizen.

CASE 3: MERCADO VS MANZANO

G.R. No. 135083. May 26, 1999

Doctrine: Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. The former arises when, as a result of the
application of the different laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a national
by the said states. Dual allegiance on the other hand, refers to a situation in which a person
simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states. While dual citizenship is
involuntary, dual allegiance is a result of an individual's volition.

"Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.

FACTS

Petitioner Ernesto S. Mercado and private respondent Eduardo B. Manzano were candidates for vice
mayor of the City of Makati. The proclamation of private respondent was suspended in view of a pending
petition for disqualification filed by a certain Ernesto Mamaril who alleged that private respondent was
not a citizen of the Philippines but of the United States. Manzano admitted that he is registered as a
foreigner with the Bureau of Immigration and he is a Filipino citizen because he was born of a Filipino
father and a Filipino mother. He was born in the United States and is considered an American citizen
under the principle of jus soli. But notwithstanding his registration as an American citizen, he did not lose
his Filipino citizenship.

When respondent attained the age of majority, he registered himself as a voter, and voted in the elections
of 1992, 1995 and 1998, which effectively renounced his citizenship under American law. Under
Philippine law, he no longer had U.S. citizenship.

Under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code, those holding dual citizenship are disqualified from
running for any elective local position.

ISSUE & RULING

Whether or not a dual citizen is disqualified to hold public elective office in the Philippines.

No. "dual citizenship" in R.A. 7160 Sec. 40 (d) and R.A. 7854 Sec. 20 must be understood as referring to
dual allegiance. Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. The former arises when, as a result of
the application of the different laws of two or more states, a person is simultaneously considered a
national by the said states. Dual allegiance on the other hand, refers to a situation in which a person
simultaneously owes, by some positive act, loyalty to two or more states. While dual citizenship is
involuntary, dual allegiance is a result of an individual's volition. Article IV Sec. 5 of the Constitution
provides "Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.

Respondent, though dual citizen, his act of filing a certificate of candidacy tantamount to his election of
Phil. citizenship – meaning he forswears allegiance to the other country and thereby terminating their
status as dual. The Court stressed that participating in the election is an express renunciation of American
citizenship.

CASE 4: AASJS VS DATUMANONG

G.R. No. 160869, May 11, 2007
What Rep. Act No. 9225 does is allow dual citizenship to natural-born Filipino citizens who have lost
Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country. On its face, it
does not recognize dual allegiance.

FACTS

Petitioner filed a petition for prohibition to prevent Justice Secretary Datumanong from implementing R.
A. 9225 entitled "An Act Making the Citizenship of Philippine Citizens Who Acquire Foreign Citizenship
Permanent, Amending for the Purpose Commonwealth Act No. 63, As Amended, and for Other Purposes. "
which was signed into law by President Gloria M. Arroyo on August 29, 2003. Petitioner argued that
R.A. 9225 is unconstitutional as it violates Sec. 5, Article VI of the Constitution which states that “dual
allegiance of citizens is inimical to national interest and shall be dealt with by law.”

Petitioner contends that RA 9225 cheapens Philippine citizenship. He avers that Sections 2 and 3 thereof,
together, allow dual allegiance and not dual citizenship. Petitioner maintains that Section 2 allows all
Filipinos, either natural-born or naturalized, who become foreign citizens, to retain their Philippine
citizenship without losing their foreign citizenship. Section 3 permits dual allegiance because said law
allows natural-born citizens of the Philippines to regain their Philippine citizenship by simply taking an
oath of allegiance without forfeiting their foreign allegiance.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) claims that Section 2 merely declares as a state policy that
"Philippine citizens who become citizens of another country shall be deemed not to have lost their
Philippine citizenship." The OSG further claims that the oath in Section 3 does not allow dual allegiance
since the oath taken by the former Filipino citizen is an effective renunciation and repudiation of his
foreign citizenship. The fact that the applicant taking the oath recognizes and accepts the supreme
authority of the Philippines is an unmistakable and categorical affirmation of his undivided loyalty to the
Republic.

ISSUE & RULING

1. Whether R.A. 9225 is unconstitutional

1. No. It is clear that the intent of the legislature in drafting Rep. Act No. 9225 is to do away with the
provision in Commonwealth Act No. 635 which takes away Philippine citizenship from natural-born
Filipinos who become naturalized citizens of other countries. What Rep. Act No. 9225 does is allow dual
citizenship to natural-born Filipino citizens who have lost Philippine citizenship by reason of their
naturalization as citizens of a foreign country. On its face, it does not recognize dual allegiance. By
swearing to the supreme authority of the Republic, the person implicitly renounces his foreign citizenship.
Plainly, from Section 3, Rep. Act No. 9225 stayed clear out of the problem of dual allegiance and shifted
the burden of confronting the issue of whether or not there is dual allegiance to the concerned foreign
country. What happens to the other citizenship was not made a concern of Rep. Act No. 9225.

2. Whether the court jurisdiction to pass upon the issue of dual allegiance

2. Section 5, Article IV of the Constitution is a declaration of a policy and it is not a self-executing

provision. The legislature still has to enact the law on dual allegiance. In Sections 2 and 3 of Rep. Act No.
9225, the framers were not concerned with dual citizenship per se, but with the status of naturalized
citizens who maintain their allegiance to their countries of origin even after their naturalization. Congress
was given a mandate to draft a law that would set specific parameters of what really constitutes dual
allegiance. Until this is done, it would be premature for the judicial department, including this Court, to
rule on issues pertaining to dual allegiance.

Moreover, in Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, we said that the courts must assume that the legislature is ever
conscious of the borders and edges of its plenary powers, and passed laws with full knowledge of the
facts and for the purpose of promoting what is right and advancing the welfare of the majority. Hence, in
determining whether the acts of the legislature are in tune with the fundamental law, we must proceed
with judicial restraint and act with caution and forbearance. The doctrine of separation of powers
demands no less. We cannot arrogate the duty of setting the parameters of what constitutes dual
allegiance when the Constitution itself has clearly delegated the duty of determining what acts constitute
dual allegiance for study and legislation by Congress

CASE 5: RE:APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO THE BAR VS. VICENTE D. CHING,

APPLICANT BAR MATTER NO. 914, OCTOBER 1, 1999

FACTS

Vicente Ching, a legitimate son of the spouses Tat Ching, a Chinese citizen, and Priscila Dulay, a
Filipina, was born in La Union on April 11, 1964. CHing after graduated Bachelor of Laws in the City of
Baguio, filed an application to take the 1998 bar exam, The Supreme Court allowed him to take the Bar
examinations provided that he can produce proof of his Philippine Citizenship. Ching Complied.

In 1999, Ching was one of the successful bar examinees, however, he was not allowed to take his oath
due to his questionable citizenship. OSG filed his comment that CHing, being the legitimate child of a
Chinese father and a Filipino mother born under the 1935 Constitution was indeed a Chinese citizen and
continued to be so, unless upon reaching the age of majority he elected Philippine citizenship.

ISSUE & RULING

Whether Ching is a Filipino citizen. Whether his election to Philippine citizenship within the
reasonable time.

No. Since the applicant was born on 1964, the governing charter with regards to citizenship issue is the
1935 constitution. Therefor, as said by this Constitution, the citizenship of legitimate child followed the
citizenship of the father unless upon reaching the age of majority which is 21, he elected Philippine
citizenship. In the case at bar, Ching did not elect his citizenship when he reached 21 years of age but
instead in 1999 which is 14 years after reaching the age of majority, and which the court considered as
not within the reasonable period of time. Court also said that Philippine citizenship can never be treated
like commodity that can be claimed when needed and suppressed when convenient. The court denies
Ching’s application for admission to the Philippine bar.

CASE 6: Bengson vs. HRET and Cruz

G.R. No. 142840, May 7, 2001

DOCTRINE

Repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality this means that a naturalized Filipino who
lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen . On the other
hand, if he was originally a natural-born citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he will be
restored to his former status as a natural-born Filipino.

Having thus taken the required oath of allegiance to the Republic and having registered the same in the
Civil Registry of Magantarem, Pangasinan in accordance with the aforecited provision, Cruz is deemed to
have recovered his original status as a natural-born citizen, a status which he acquired at birth as the son
of a Filipino father. It bears stressing that the act of repatriation allows him to recover, or return to, his
original status before he lost his Philippine citizenship.

FACTS

The citizenship of respondent Cruz is at issue in this case, in view of the constitutional requirement that
“no person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen.”

Cruz was a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. He was born in Tarlac in 1960 of Filipino parents.
In 1985, however, Cruz enlisted in the US Marine Corps and without the consent of the Republic of the
Philippines, took an oath of allegiance to the USA. As a Consequence, he lost his Filipino citizenship for
under CA No. 63 [(An Act Providing for the Ways in Which Philippine Citizenship May Be Lost or
Reacquired (1936)] section 1(4), a Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship by, among other, “rendering
service to or accepting commission in the armed forces of a foreign country.”

Whatever doubt that remained regarding his loss of Philippine citizenship was erased by his naturalization
as a U.S. citizen in 1990, in connection with his service in the U.S. Marine Corps.
In 1994, Cruz reacquired his Philippine citizenship through repatriation under RA 2630 [(An Act
Providing for Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship by Persons Who Lost Such Citizenship by
Rendering Service To, or Accepting Commission In, the Armed Forces of the United States (1960)]. He
ran for and was elected as the Representative of the 2nd District of Pangasinan in the 1998 elections. He
won over petitioner Bengson who was then running for re-election.

Subsequently, petitioner filed a case for Quo Warranto Ad Cautelam with respondent HRET claiming that
Cruz was not qualified to become a member of the HOR since he is not a natural-born citizen as required
under Article VI, section 6 of the Constitution.

HRET rendered its decision dismissing the petition for quo warranto and declaring Cruz the duly elected
Representative in the said election.

ISSUE & RULING:

Whether Cruz, a natural-born Filipino who became an American citizen, can still be considered a
natural-born Filipino upon his reacquisition of Philippine citizenship.

RULING: Yes. Filipino citizens who have lost their citizenship may however reacquire the same in the
manner provided by law. C.A. No. 63 enumerates the 3 modes by which Philippine citizenship may be
reacquired by a former citizen:

1. by naturalization,
2. by repatriation, and
3. by direct act of Congress.

Repatriation may be had under various statutes by those who lost their citizenship due to:
1. desertion of the armed forces;
2. services in the armed forces of the allied forces in World War II;
3. service in the Armed Forces of the United States at any other time,
4. marriage of a Filipino woman to an alien; and
5. political economic necessity

Repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality This means that a naturalized Filipino who
lost his citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen. On the other hand,
if he was originally a natural-born citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to
his former status as a natural-born Filipino.

R.A. No. 2630 provides:

Sec 1. Any person who had lost his Philippine citizenship by rendering service to, or accepting
commission in, the Armed Forces of the United States, or after separation from the Armed Forces
of the United States, acquired United States citizenship, may reacquire Philippine citizenship by
taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and registering the same with
Local Civil Registry in the place where he resides or last resided in the Philippines. The said oath
of allegiance shall contain a renunciation of any other citizenship.

Having thus taken the required oath of allegiance to the Republic and having registered the same in the
Civil Registry of Magantarem, Pangasinan in accordance with the aforecited provision, Cruz is deemed to
have recovered his original status as a natural-born citizen, a status which he acquired at birth as the son
of a Filipino father. It bears stressing that the act of repatriation allows him to recover, or return to, his
original status before he lost his Philippine citizenship

CASE 7: LABO VS. COMELEC

 DOCTRINE:

CA No. 63 enumerates the modes by which Philippine citizenship may be lost. Among these are:
(1) naturalization in a foreign country;
(2) express renunciation of citizenship; and
(3) subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign country.

All of which are applicable to the petitioner. In connection with this, Article IV, Section 5, of the present
Constitution provides that, “Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be
dealt with by law.”

FACTS

In the January 20, 1988 elections, Ramon J. Labo, Jr. was proclaimed as the new elected Mayor of Baguio
City. Six days later, Luis Lardizabal, the private respondent, filed a petition for quo warranto which
according to the petitioner may not be valid because the filing fee was not paid yet. While the petition for
quo warranto was being argued, the question of the petitioner's citizenship was brought about. Through
the records from the Australian Embassy, it was found that the petitioner - who had married an Australian
citizen, acquired an Australian passport with the Consular ID - returned in the Philippines in 1980 for the
reason that his marriage became void because of bigamy. It was also stated that he was granted Australian
citizenship in 1976. There was also an Oath of Allegiance taken by petitioner which renunciation of other
allegiance is included.

ISSUE & RULING

Is the petitioner a Filipino citizen?

NO. CA No. 63 enumerates the modes by which Philippine citizenship may be lost. Among these are: (1)
naturalization in a foreign country; (2) express renunciation of citizenship; and (3) subscribing to an oath
of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a foreign country. All of which are applicable to the
petitioner. In connection with this, Article IV, Section 5, of the present Constitution provides that, “Dual
allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.”

Even if it is assumed that, as the petitioner asserts, his naturalization in Australia was annulled after it was
found that his marriage to the Australian citizen was bigamous, that circumstance alone did not
automatically restore his Philippine citizenship. His divestiture of Australian citizenship does not concern
us here. That is a matter between him and his adopted country. What we must consider is the fact that he
voluntarily and freely rejected Philippine citizenship and willingly and knowingly embraced the
citizenship of a foreign country. The possibility that he may have been subsequently rejected by Australia,
as he claims, does not mean that he has been automatically reinstated as a citizen of the Philippines.

Under CA No. 63 as amended by PD No. 725, Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by direct act of
Congress, by naturalization, or by repatriation. It does not appear in the record, nor does the petitioner
claim that he has reacquired Philippine citizenship by any of these methods. He does not point to any
judicial decree of naturalization as to any statute directly conferring Philippine citizenship upon him.
Neither has he shown that he has complied with PD No. 725, providing that:

… (2) natural-born Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship may reacquire Philippine
citizenship through repatriation by applying with the Special Committee on Naturalization
created by Letter of Instruction No. 270, and, if their applications are approved, taking the
necessary oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, after which they shall be deemed
to have reacquired Philippine citizenship. The Commission on Immigration and Deportation shall
thereupon cancel their certificate of registration.

Philippine citizenship is not a cheap commodity that can be easily recovered after its renunciation . It may
be restored only after the returning renegade makes a formal act of rededication to the country he has
abjured and he solemnly affirms once again his total and exclusive loyalty to the Republic of the
Philippines. This may not be accomplished by election to public office.
 CASE 8: MOY YA LIM VS COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION

DOCTRINE

The alien wife of a Filipino citizen (native born or naturalized) is ipso facto considered a Filipina
provided she is not disqualified to be a citizen of the Philippines under Section 4 of C.A. No. 473.

FACTS

The Commissioner of Immigration wants to deport Lau Yuen Yeung, a Chinese residing at Kowloon,
Hongkong, who came to the Philippines to visit her great (grand) uncle Lau Ching Ping. Originally, she
was only allowed to stay for 1 month in 1961, but there repeated extensions, and she ended up staying for
1.5 years until this case. In 1962, she married Moy Ya Lim Yao alias Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim, an
alleged Filipino citizen. It was admitted that Lau Yuen Yeung could not write either English or Tagalog.
Except for a few words, she could not speak either English or Tagalog. She could not name any Filipino
neighbor, and she does not know her brothers/sisters in law.

She invokes Section 15 of the Revised Naturalization Law which provides: "‘Effect of the naturalization
on wife and children. — Any woman who is now or may hereafter be married to a citizen of the
Philippines, and who might herself be lawfully naturalized shall be deemed a citizen of the Philippines."

The Solicitor General argues that the marriage of an alien to a Filipino citizen does not automatically
confer Philippine citizenship. She does not possess all the qualifications required for an applicant for
naturalization (CA 473), even if she has proven that she possesses none of the disqualifications in said
law.

ISSUE & RULING

Does marriage of an alien woman to Filipino man make the alien ipso facto a Filipino citizen?

Yes. This case provided for an exception to the general rule of restrictive policy when it comes to
naturalization laws (generally, they should be construed strictly against the alien applicant). This case
made an exception for alien women who are married to Filipinos.

To be considered a Filipino citizen, the alien wife must only show that she does not have any of the
disqualifications provided by law. She does not even need to prove that she possesses all the
qualifications for naturalization. She can establish her claim to Philippine citizenship in administrative
proceedings before the immigration authority without the need to file a judicial action for this purpose.

Likewise, an alien woman married to an alien follows the Philippine citizenship of her husband the
moment he takes his oath as Filipino citizen, provided that she does not suffer from any of the
disqualifications under the law.

(Commentary: “Such grant of citizenship is not equally applicable to an alien husband of a Filipina,
thereby violating the equal protection and non-discrimination clauses of the Constitution and international
laws. It appears, therefore, that unless the Legislature amends C.A. No. 473, Section 15 thereof and
current jurisprudence may be used to circumvent the guarded policies of Philippine naturalization laws.”

CASE 9: BOARD OF IMMIGRATION VS CALLANO

G.R. No. L-24530, October 31, 1968

Doctrine
Express renunciation means a renunciation that is made known directly and explicitly, and not left to
inference or implication. It is not enough that the Go Callano brothers lived in China for 15 years before
returning to the Philippines and also the acknowledgement of their Chinese father to renounce their
Philippine citizenship. The Go Callano became Philippine citizens because of their relation with their
mother who is a Filipino. Therefore, even assuming that the Go Callano brothers were not properly
documented, there is no basis for the finding of the Board that they are aliens who can be excluded.
 FACTS

On July 13, 1962, the DFA informed the Commissioner of Immigration that, on the basis of the findings
made by the NBI, the signatures of former Secretary of Foreign Affairson certain documents, amongst
them authorizing the documentation of the Go Callano brothers were not authentic. The Commissioner of
Immigration issued a warrant of exclusion commanding the deportation officers to deport the Go Callano
brothers.

The warrant of exclusion was not served immediately upon the parties ordered deported, who, on
November 16, 1962, filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila an action for injunction to restrain the
Board of Immigration Commissioners and the Commissioner of Immigration from executing the order.

They based their action on the following grounds:

(1) that the Board had no jurisdiction to exclude them from the Philippines because they were not aliens
but Filipino citizens, and
(2) that the order of exclusion was issued by the Board without due process and in violation of the
Constitution.

Months later, the Court of First Instance issued a writ of preliminary injunction restraining the
Commissioner in the case from deporting the Go Callano brothers.

After trial, the Court rendered judgment finding that, according to Go Callano brothers' undisputed
evidence, "the petitioners herein are the illegitimate children of Emilia Callano, a Filipino citizen, with
her common-law husband — a Chinese citizen," and concluding that "until the petitioners left for China
in 1947, they must be considered as citizens of the Philippines as they were born of a Filipino mother and
an alien father who, however, was not married to their mother."

Notwithstanding the above finding and conclusion, however, the Court dismissed the case holding that
the Go Callano brothers are citizens of the Republic of China and not being properly documented for
entry into the Philippines as found by the Immigration Commissioner.

The grounds upon which the Court based its decision were:
(1) because petitioners stayed in China for a period of fifteen years before returning to the Philippines,
they must be considered as citizens of the Chinese Republic;
(2) as petitioners were recognized by their alien father as his children, they became Chinese citizens under
the Chinese law of nationality.

While the Court also found that the cable authorization mentioned heretofore was a forgery, it held that,
for the purpose of the petition before it, "it was immaterial to determine the genuineness or falsity of the
cable authorization. For if the petitioners are Filipino citizens, they are entitled to remain within the
territorial jurisdiction of the Republic in whatever way they might have entered."

ISSUE & RULING

Whether acknowledgement of the Chinese father and the fact that the Go Callano brothers lived in
China for more than a decade sufficient evidence of renunciation of the Philippine citizenship.

No. It is not a sufficient evidence of renunciation of their Philippine citizenship. The Go Callano brothers
are Filipino citizens.

The Go Callano became Philippine citizens because of their relation with their mother who is a Filipino.
Their status was conferred on them neither by the documentation by the consulate in Hongkong nor by
the finding of the Board of Special Inquiry in Manila. Consequently, whatever defects there are in the
proceedings before the consulate and the board of inquiry cannot affect their status. Therefore, even
assuming that the Go Callano brothers were not properly documented, there is no basis for the finding of
the Board that they are aliens who can be excluded.