Angat v Republic The motion was well taken by the trial court.
On
G.R. No. 132244, September 14, 1999
Vitug, J.
Ortiz, Group 4
Petitioner: Gerardo Angat
vs.
Respondent: Republic of the Philippines
Relevant Provisions:
RA No. 8171 (October 23, 1995)
An act providing for the repatriation
a.) of Filipino Women who have lost their
Philippine citizenship by marriage to
aliens and
b.) of natural-born Filipinos who have lost
their Philippine Citizenship on account
of political or economic necessity.
Facts and Procedural History
Gerardo Angat was a natural born citizen of the
Philippines until he lost his citizenship by
naturalization in the United States.
Now residing in the Philippines, Angat filed on
March 11 1996 before the RTC of Marikina City,
a petition to regain his status as citizen of the PH
under Commonwealth Act No. 63 and R.A. No.
2630. The trail court scheduled a hearing for this
on January 27, 1997.
On June 13, 1996 Petitioner filed another motion
to take his oath of allegiance to the republic of
the PH in pursuant to R.A. 8171 where he avers
that he possesses all the qualifications and none
of the disqualifications under R.A. 8171.
September 20, 1996 the court found the
petition meritorious and the petitioner took his
oath of allegiance on October 3, 1996.
On October 4, another order was issued by the
trial judge decreeing that the petitioner is now
repatriated and declared as a citizen of the
Philippines pursuant to R.A. 8171.
On March 19, 1997 a Manifestation and motion
(motion for reconsideration) was filed by the
OSG. The motion asserted that the petition itself
should have been dismissed by the court for
lack of jurisdiction because the proper forum
for it was the Special Committee on
Naturalization consistent with A.O. No. 285
(August 22, 1996) tasking that the Special
Committee be the implementing agency of R.A.
8171.
September 22, 1997 it adjudicated that
1.) the motion to dismiss by the OSG is
granted.
2.) The previous court orders (Sept 20
1996 and October 4 1996) are set
aside..
A motion for reconsideration was filed by the
petitioner on Oct 13 1997 arguing that since he
filed the petition on March 11 1996, the court
had authority to take the case because A.O. No.
285 was constituted by the President months
after (August 22 1996) the action.
Trial court denied the motion for
reconsideration.
The Case at Bar:
The instant appeal for certiorari under Rule 45
of the 1997 Rules of Procedure submits a lone
assignment of error that the RTC has erred that
it gave A.O. 285 retroactive application, absent a
provision on Retroactive Application.
Issues
W/N the Trial Court had has erred that it gave
A.O. 285 retroactive application, absent a
provision on Retroactive Application.
Judgement
No. The contention is not meritorious.
The petition for review is denied.
Holding
Under section 1 of PD No. 725 (june 5 1975)
amending C.A. 63 petitions for repatriation can
be filed with the Special Committee on
Naturalization.
The Committee was created pursuant to LOI No.
270. It was deactivated in March 27, 1987 but
was reactivated in June 8, 1996.
Thus when Petitioner filed his petition in March
11, 1996 the Special committee on
naturalization was already in place (AO. 285 in
Aug 22 was merely a confirmatory issuance.)
The OSG was right in maintaining that the
petition should have been filed with the
Committee.