Case Name Cirilo R. Valles v.

Commission on Elections and Rosalind Ybasco Lopez

Case Citation G.R. No. 137000
Operative Facts
Cirilo Valles, petitioner, is the rival candidate of Rosalind Ybasco
Clear and brief summary of
relevant facts
Lopez, respondent for the position of governor for Davao Oriental in the
May 11, 1998 elections. According to Valles, Ybasco Lopez is not
eligible for re-election because she is of Australian citizenship. Ybasco
Lopez’s father is a Filipino citizen, while her mother is an Australian.
She was born on May 16, 1934 in Broome, Western Australia but left
when she was fifteen to settle in the Philippines.

Procedural Facts
Undaunted by the unfavorable rulings of the lower courts, Valles filed
How did the action get to
the current court
for a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 assailing Resolutions dated
July 17, 1998 and January 15, 1999 of the COMELEC in SPA No. 98-
336.

Issue

What is the question being Is Rosalind Ybasco Lopez considered a Filipino citizen?
presented to the court?

Short
Yes, Rosalind Ybasco Lopez is a Filipino citizen under the principle of
Answer/Holding jus sanguinis (confers citizenship by virtue of blood relationship) 
subsequently retained under the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions.
Court’s answer to the issue
Law

What is the rule the court is

using
According to the case, “The Philippine law on citizenship adheres to the
principle of jus sanguinis”, wherein, the nationality of the child follows
that of his/her parents, regardless of the place of his/her birth. Moreover,
the Court also used The Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law,
which were the laws effective during the time of birth of Ybasco Lopez.

Rationale
How did the court apply the
law to the facts of the case
According to the Court, under both organic acts, the private respondent’s
father, Telesforo Ybasco is a certified citizen of the Philippines. Thus,
under both laws, the daughter of Telesforo Ybasco, Rosalind Ybasco
Lopez, “likewise a citizen of the Philippine laws”. Not only that, but the
allegations of the petitioner that the respondent applied for issuance of
an Immigrant Certificate of Residence is bereft of merit because under
Commonwealth Act No. 63, renunciation of a citizenship must be
express. Finally, the Court stated that, “The filing of a certificate of
candidacy sufficed to renounce foreign citizenship, effectively removing
any disqualification as a dual citizen”.