Those Who Retain or Re-Acquire Philippine Citizenship Under

I. Personal Law: the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing
Lex Patriae and Lex Domicilii of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn
renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any
public officer authorized to administer an oath;
Republic Act No. 9225 – Citizenship Retention and
Reacquisition Act 2003 (3) Those appointed to any public office shall subscribe and
swear to an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Section 1. Short Title – this act shall be known as the Philippines and its duly constituted authorities prior to their
"Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition Act of assumption of office: Provided, That they renounce their oath
2003." of allegiance to the country where they took that oath;
Section 2. Declaration of Policy - It is hereby declared the (4) Those intending to practice their profession in the
policy of the State that all Philippine citizens of another country Philippines shall apply with the proper authority for a license or
shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship permit to engage in such practice; and
under the conditions of this Act.
(5) That right to vote or be elected or appointed to any public
Section 3. Retention of Philippine Citizen ship - Any office in the Philippines cannot be exercised by, or extended
provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, natural-born to, those who:
citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a
foreign country are hereby deemed to have re-acquired (a) are candidates for or are occupying any public office in the
Philippine citizenship upon taking the following oath of country of which they are naturalized citizens; and/or
allegiance to the Republic:
(b) are in active service as commissioned or non-commissioned
"I _____________________, solemny swear (or affrim) that I will officers in the armed forces of the country which they are
support and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the naturalized citizens.
Philippines and obey the laws and legal orders promulgated by
the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines; and I hereby
declare that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of A. Nationality/Citizenship: (Lex Patriae)
the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance
thereto; and that I imposed this obligation upon myself
Constitution, Art. IV. Citizenship
voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of evasion."
SECTION 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
Natural born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity (1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the
of this Act, become citizens of a foreign country shall retain adoption of this Constitution;
their Philippine citizenship upon taking the aforesaid oath. (2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the
Philippines;
Section 4. Derivative Citizenship - The unmarried child, (3) Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers,
whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, below eighteen who elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of
(18) years of age, of those who re-acquire Philippine citizenship majority; and
upon effectivity of this Act shall be deemed citizenship of the (4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
Philippines.
SECTION 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens
Section 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities - of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act
Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who
this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3),
to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.
laws of the Philippines and the following conditions:
SECTION 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired
(1) Those intending to exercise their right of surffrage must in the manner provided by law.
Meet the requirements under Section 1, Article V of the
Constitution, Republic Act No. 9189, otherwise known as "The SECTION 4. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall
Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003" and other existing retain their citizenship, unless by their act or omission they are
laws; deemed, under the law, to have renounced it.
(2) Those seeking elective public in the Philippines shall meet SECTION 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the
the qualification for holding such public office as required by national interest and shall be dealt with by law.
B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |1

Facts:
Civil Code 1. Joselito Yu petitioned the Juvenile and Domestic Relations

Court to have his name changed to Ricardo Yu, averring that
Art. 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the he was a 13-year old minor, that he was a Chinese citizen
status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding resident of Manila for more than three years prior to filing of
upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living the petition, that he has been using the name Ricardo Yu for as
abroad. (9a) long as he can remember, that he grew up under care of his
guardian ad litem Juan Sy Barrera, that he was baptized
Art. 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject Ricardo Sy, and that he was enrolled in school as Ricardo Sy.
to the law of the country where it is stipulated.
2. Without hearing, the lower court dismissed the petition on
However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with the ground that Rule 103 of the Rules of Court could not apply
respect to the order of succession and to the amount of to aliens. The use of surnames is based on family rights, and
successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary since under Article 15 of the Civil Code laws relating to family
provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity
whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines even
nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein though living abroad, the converse of the principle must be
said property may be found. (10a) recognized, that is to say, the same matters in respect of an
alien must be governed by the laws of his own country.
Art. 66. When either or both of the contracting parties are
citizens or subjects of a foreign country, it shall be necessary, 3. Yu contended that the lower court erred (1) in ruling that an
before a marriage license can be obtained, to provide alien cannot avail himself of the provisions of the rules of court
themselves with a certificate of legal capacity to contract relating to change of name; (2) in concluding that in this
marriage, to be issued by their respective diplomatic or jurisdiction family or personal rights of an alien should be
consular officials. governed by the laws of his country; (3) in concluding that a
simple reason why an alien's name should not be changed by
Art. 1036. Alienations of hereditary property, and acts of judicial decree in this jurisdiction may be found in the inability
administration performed by the excluded heir, before the of the local judicial authority to provide for the alien's change
judicial order of exclusion, are valid as to the third persons who of name in his passport; and (4) in engaging in judicial
acted in good faith; but the co-heirs shall have a right to legislation beyond its authority when it applied the law on
recover damages from the disqualified heir. (n) change of name.
R.A. No. 8171 – See uploaded pdf Issue: Whether of not an alien may avail of proceedings under
the Rules of Court to change his/her name. [YES]
1.Importance of a personal law
Ratio:
Civil Code
1. Rule 103 Section 1 provides that "a person desiring to
change his name shall present the petition to the Court of First
Art. 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the
status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding Instance of the province in which he resides, or, in the City of
Manila to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court." Here
upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living
the word "person" is a generic term which is not limited to
abroad. (9a)
Filipino citizens, but embraces all natural persons.
Yu vs. Republic – Makalintal, J.

2. It is enough that the petition be verified, signed by the
Petitioner: Joselito Yu
petitioner or some other person in his behalf, and set forth (a)
Respondent: Republic of the Philippines
that the petitioner has been a bona fideresident of the
province where the petition is filed for at least three (3) years
Brief Facts: Joselito Yu, a Chinese citizen, petitioned the
prior to the date of filing; (b) the cause for which the change of
lower court to have his name changed under the procedures
name is sought; and (c) the name asked for (Section 2). The rule
provided under the then Rules of Court. The lower court
is clear and affords no room for interpretation. It sets forth all
dismissed the petition on the ground that the Rules of Court
the requirements, and Filipino citizenship is not one of them.
on change of name cannot apply to aliens. It reasoned out that
one’s family name involves family rights. Family are covered by
3. The major premise of the lower court may be true in a
the principle lex nationalis.
general sense: one's surname is usually that by which not only
Doctrine: See nos. 3 and 4 of Ratio.

one as an individual but one's family as well is known. Thus elected Filipino citizenship due to his actions (like exercising
Title XIII of the Civil Code (Articles 364 to 373) contains his right of suffrage)
provisions for the use of surnames by legitimate, legitimated,
illegitimate, and adopted children, as well as by women who FACTS:
are married, widowed or legally separated from their 1. On May 11, 1987, the congressional election for the
husbands. But a change of name as authorized under Rule 103 second district of Northern Samar was held.
does not by itself define, or effect a change in, one's existing a. Among the candidates who vied for the
family relations, or in the rights and duties flowing therefrom; position were petitioners Antonio Co and
nor does it create new family rights and duties where none Sixto Balinguit and private respondent Jose
before were existing. It does not alter one's legal capacity, civil Ong, Jr.
status or citizenship. b. Jose Ong, Jr. won and was duly proclaimed.
c. Hence, petitioners Co and Balinguit filed
4. What is altered is only the name, which is that word or election protests against Jose Ong, Jr.
combination of words by which a person is distinguished from alleging that:
others and which he bears as the label of appellation for the i. Jose Ong, Jr. is not a natural-born
convenience of the world at large in addressing him, or in citizen of the Philippines
speaking of or dealing with him (38 Am. Jur. 596). The situation ii. Jose Ong, Jr. is not a resident of
is no different whether the person whose name is changed be the second district of Northern
a citizen or an alien. Samar
d. The HRET declared Jose Ong, Jr. as natural-
5. There could be instances where the change applied for may born citizen and a resident of the second
be open to objection by parties who already bear the surname district of Northern Samar. Motion for
desired by the applicant, not because he would thereby reconsideration was denied.
acquire certain families with them but because the existence of 2. According to the records of the case:
such ties might be erroneously impressed on the public mind. a. In 1895, Jose Ong, Jr.’s grandfather Ong Te
But this is precisely the purpose of the judicial application — to arrived in the Philippines from China. He
determine whether there is proper and reasonable cause for established his residence in the municipality
the change of name. of Laoang, Samar.
b. Ong Te was able to obtain a certificate of
Disposition: The order appealed from is set aside and the residence from the then Spanish colonial
case is remanded. administration.
c. The father of Jose Ong, Jr., Jose Ong
2. Determination of nationality (The Hague Chuan, was born in China in 1905 but was
Convention on Conflict of National Laws) brought by Ong Te to Samar in 1915.
d. Jose Ong Chuan then spent his childhood in
a. Natural-born citizens (Article IV, Philippine Samar and established his residence in
Constitution) Laoang where he was able assimilate well in
the community.
i. Jose Ong Chuan absorbed Filipino
Co v. HRET – Gutierrez, Jr., J. cultural values and practices.
Petitioner: Antonio Y. Co and Sixto T. Balinguit, Jr. ii. He was also baptized into
Respondent: Jose Ong Jr. Christianity.
Concept: Determination of Nationality – Natural-born citizens iii. He eventually met a natural-born
Digest by: Auren Mopera Filipina Agripina Lao and in 1932,
they got married according to
Catholic faith and practice.
Brief Facts: Co, Balinguit and Ong were running for the iv. The couple bore eight children, one
position representative of the second district of Northern of whom was private respondent
Samar. Ong received an overwhelming amount of votes and Jose Ong, Jr.
was declared the winner. Petitioners Co and Balinguit assailed 1. He was born on June 19,
the citizenship of Jose Ong, Jr., arguing that he was not a 1948. [He attained age of
natural-born citizen of the Philippines. The HRET ruled that majority on June 19, 1969]
Jose Ong, Jr. was a natural-born Filipino. The SC affirmed the e. Jose Ong Chuan never emigrated from this
ruling. It ruled that Jose Ong, Jr., by reason of the citizenship country. He even put up a hardware store
of his father (naturalized father), need not anymore elect and shared and survived the vicissitudes of
Filipino citizenship. And even if there was such a need, the life in Samar.
records of the case would show that he already impliedly

i.This business expanded and later o. In 1984 and 1986, Jose Ong, Jr. registered
on, a branch was established in himself as a voter and correspondingly voted
Binondo. therein during the elections.
f. On February 15, 1954, Jose Ong Chuan then p. In 1987, Jose Ong, Jr. ran in the elections to
applied for naturalization before the CFI of become a representative of the second
Samar. district of Northern Samar.
g. On April 28, 1955, the CFI of Samar declared i. He was overwhelmingly voted by
Jose Ong Chuan a Filipino citizen. It issued the people of Northern Samar as
an order declaring the April 28, 1955 their representative. Even if the
decision as final and executory on May 15, votes received by the opponents
1957. were combined, Jose Ong, Jr.’s
i. On the same day, Jose Ong Chuan vote would still be higher by 7k.
then declared an Oath of 3. Co and Balinguit filed this petition for certiorari with
Allegiance and was issued a the SC.
certificate of naturalization.
h. During this time (naturalization of Jose Ong ISSUES:
Chuan), private respondent Jose Ong, Jr. 1. Whether or not Jose Ong, Jr. was a natural-born
was then 9 years old and was finishing his citizen of the Philippines [YES. Jose Ong, Jr. is a
elementary education in Samar. natural-born citizen of the Philippines.]
i. There is no showing that Jose Ong, 2. Whether or not Jose Ong, Jr. is a resident of the
Jr. was any different from other second district of Northern Samar [YES. Jose Ong, Jr.
Filipinos as far as customs and was a resident of Laoang Samar.]
practice of the local populace were 3. Whether or not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction
concerned. over the case at bar [NO. There was no grave abuse
i. One day, the house of Jose Ong, Jr. in of discretion in this case]
Laoang, Samar was burned to the ground.
They however constructed another house in RULING:
the same place. WHEREFORE, the petitions are hereby DISMISSED. The
j. After completing his elementary education, questioned decision of the House of Representatives Electoral
Jose Ong, Jr. went to Manila for secondary Tribunal is AFFIRMED
and college education.
k. In the meantime, their house in Laoang, RATIO:
Samar was razed by fire again. The family 1. YES. Jose Ong, Jr. is a natural-born citizen of the
constructed another one, this time, a 16- Philippines. Under Article IV of the Constitution:
door apartment building. 2 of which were SECTION 1 – The following are
reserved for the family. citizens of the Philippines:
l. Eventually, Jose Ong, Jr. graduated from 1. Those who are citizens of the
college and became a CPA. Philippines at the time of the
i. He became an examiner in the adoption of the Constitution;
Central Bank of the Philippines but 2. Those whose fathers or
later on worked in their family’s mothers are citizens of the
hardware business in Manila. Philippines;
m. In 1971, Jose Ong, Jr.’s full brother Emil was 3. Those born before January
elected as a delegate to the 1971 17, 1973, of Filipino
Constitutional Convention. mothers, who elect
i. Emil’s natural-born status was Philippine citizenship
questioned. Hence, the upon reaching the age of
Constitutional Convention, in majority; and
drafting the Constitution, removed 4. Those who are naturalized in
the unequal treatment given to accordance with law.
derived citizenship on the basis of
the mother’s citizenship formally SECTION 2 – Natural-born Citizens are
and solemnly declared Emil as a those who are citizens of the Philippines
natural-born Filipino. from birth without having to perform any
n. Jose Ong, Jr. still frequently went home to act to acquire or perfect their
Laoang, Samar. In 1984, he met Desiree Lim citizenship. Those who elect
and eventually, they got married. Philippine citizenship in

accordance with paragraph 3 citizenship inspite of his already having been a citizen
hereof shall be deemed natural- since 1957.
born citizens.
In any case, election is both a formal and informal
Paragraph 3 of Section 1 was intended to correct the process. In In Re: Florencio Mallare, the court held
unfair discrimination against women. According to the that the exercise of right of suffrage and the
deliberations of the Constitutional Convention, the participation in the election constitute a positive act
said provision applies “to anybody who elected of election of Philippine citizenship. In this case, Jose
Philippine citizenship by virtue of the provision of the Ong, Jr. did not just exercise his right of suffrage. He
1935 Constitution whether the election was done even established his life here. He lived the life of a
before or after January 17, 1973.” Further, the Filipino since birth. His father applied for
deliberations would show that it was actually decided naturalization when the child was still a small boy. He
“to extend the interpretation of who is a natural-born is a Roman Catholic. He has worked for a sensitive
citizen as provided in section 4 of the 1973 government agency. His profession requires
Constitution by adding that persons who have elected citizenship for taking the examinations and getting a
Philippine Citizenship under the 1935 Constitution license. He has participated in political exercises as a
shall be natural-born” Filipino and has always considered himself a Filipino
citizen. He was even overwhelmingly voted to the
The unfair situation existed between 1935 and 1973. position. Because of his acts since childhood, they
During that time, those born of Filipino fathers but of have considered him as a Filipino.
alien mothers were considered as natural-born
Filipino while those born of Filipino mothers but of There is no need to file a sworn certification or formal
alien fathers would have to elect Filipino citizenship declaration for those who are already Filipinos when
upon reaching the age of majority and even if they do the time to elect came up. Here, there is no doubt
elect, they would not be considered as natural-born. about Mr. Ong's being a Filipino when he turned
Hence, the 3rd paragraph in Article 4, Section 1, must twenty-one (21). In addition, under the Revised
not be narrowly and prospectively interpreted. It must Naturalization Act, minor children of those who apply
be given a retroactive application. It gives natural- for naturalization are essentially benefited by such as
born status to those who elected Filipino citizenship long as they are residents here. Hence, the law itself
before or after February 2, 1987. “A Constitutional elected Philippine citizenship for Jose Ong, Jr.
provision should be construed so as to give it
effective operation and suppress the mischief at To further assail Jose Ong, Jr.’s citizenship, the
which it is aimed, hence, it is the spirit of the provision petitioners questioned the naturalization of Jose Ong
which should prevail over the letter thereof.” Chuan (father of private respondent). The Supreme
Court said that “it cannot go into the collateral
The bestowment of the status of "natural-born" procedure of stripping Mr. Ong's father of his
cannot be made to depend on the fleeting accident citizenship after his death and at this very late date
of time or result in two kinds of citizens made up of just so we can go after the son. In our jurisdiction, an
essentially the same similarly situated members. This attack on a person's citizenship may only be done
specific constitutional provision is curative in nature through a direct action for its nullity.”
meant to correct the inequitable and absurd situation
which then prevailed. In addition to the above reasoning, the Supreme
Court ruled that the Constitutional Convention of
But the question now is: Did Jose Ong, Jr. elect 1971 already decided that Emil Ong, private
Filipino citizenship? It is clear that Jose Ong, Jr.’s respondent’s brother, was a natural born citizen of the
mother was a Filipina. Jose Ong, Jr. would only Philippines on the basis of the fact that Ong Te
become a Filipino if he in fact elected to be a Filipino (private respondent’s grandfather) was a Spanish
citizen. The Supreme Court ruled that “to expect the subject. According to Article 17 of the Civil Code of
respondent to have formally or in writing elected Spain, “those without such papers, who may have
citizenship when he came of age is to ask for the acquired domicile in any town in the Monarchy” shall
unnatural and unnecessary.” He was already a citizen. be considered as Spaniards. Here, as already stated,
Not only was his mother a natural born citizen but his Ong Te already became a resident of Laoang Samar
father had been naturalized when the respondent was at that time. While the original documentary and
only nine (9) years old. He could not have divined testamentary evidence as well as the transcript of the
when he came of age that in 1973 and 1987 the proceedings during the 1971 Convention were not
Constitution would be amended to require him to presented, there was no violation of the best
have filed a sworn statement in 1969 electing evidence rule because it was established before the

HRET that the original of these documents cannot be citizenship of his mother, but only
found. Since the execution of the document and the upon his reaching the age of
inability to produce were adequately established, the majority.
contents of the questioned documents can be proven ii. A judgment in a naturalization
by a copy thereof or by the recollection of witnesses. proceeding is not, however,
afforded the character of
2. Yes, Jose Ong, Jr. was a resident of the second impregnability under the principle
district of Northern Samar. The term "residence" has of res judicata. Hence, Jose Ong
been understood as synonymous with domicile not Chuan’s naturalization may still be
only under the previous Constitutions but also under questioned. Considering the legal
the 1987 Constitution. As shown in the constitutional implications of the allegation made
deliberations, residence is interpreted as a matter of by the petitioners that the
intent rather than actual residence. The framers of the naturalization of private
Constitution thus said that under this context, respondent's father Ong Chuan, is
residence is the same as domicile which denotes a a nullity, the Court should make a
fixed permanent residence to which when absent for ruling on the validity of said
business or pleasure, one intends to return. Here, naturalization proceedings.
Jose Ong, Jr. had properties in Laoang Samar. In any iii. Here, Jose Ong Chuan took the
case however, it is not even required that he be the oath of allegiance on the same day
owner of properties in the place where he intended to that the CFI issued its order
run. To require the private respondent to own directing the clerk of court to issue
property in order to be eligible to run for Congress the corresponding Certificate of
would be tantamount to a property qualification. Naturalization and for the applicant
to take the oath of allegiance. Such
3. The Constitution explicitly provides that the House of cannot be done because such CFI
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) and the order is still appealable.
Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) shall be the sole Administration of the oath of
judges of all contests relating to the election, returns, allegiance on the same day as
and qualifications of their respective members. Its issuance of order granting
authority is full, clear and complete. It is also original citizenship is irregular and makes
and exclusive. There can only be judicial interference the proceedings so taken null and
if there was a finding of grave abuse of discretion void.
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction as when 1. Even if the naturalization
there is an arbitrary and improvident use of power as was valid, it could not
will constitute a denial of due process. Such is not confer “natural-born
present in this case. status” to Jose Ong, Jr.
iv. Hence, it was necessary for Jose
PADILLA, DISSENT: Ong, Jr. to elect Philippine
1. The SC has jurisdiction. There is a justiciable citizenship because while his
controversy because the case involves mother was a citizen, his father was
membership in the House of Representatives not.
based on the qualifications as prescribed by 1. However, there was no
the Constitution. Further, the matter is of election. It is settled
great public interest and concern. doctrine in this jurisdiction
2. The HRET committed grave abuse of that election of Philippine
discretion. citizenship must be made
i. Following the basic definition in the in accordance with
1987 Constitution of a natural-born Commonwealth Act 625.
citizen, in relation to the 1935 Sections 1 and 2 of the Act
Constitution, private respondent is mandate that the option to
not a natural-born Filipino citizen, elect Philippine citizenship
having been born a Chinese citizen must be effected expressly
by virtue of the Chinese citizenship not impliedly.
of his father at the time of his birth, 2. The In Re: Mallare case is
although from birth, private not applicable because
respondent had the right to elect Esteban Mallare reached
Philippine citizenship, the the age of majority in 1924,

or seventeen (17) years candor, I speak from experience, because
before CA 625 was when the Convention approved the Report
approved and, more in question, I was one of its vice-presidents
importantly, eleven (11) and the presiding officer.
years before the 1935
Constitution (which
granted the right of Bengson III v HRET and Teodoro Cruz (2001) – Kapunan, J.
election) took effect. Petitioner: Antonio Bengson
Moreover, Esteban Mallare Respondents: HRET and Teodoro C. Cruz
was held to be a Filipino Concept: Citizenship
citizen because he was an
illegitimate (natural) child Brief facts: Cruz was a natural-born citizen of the Philippines.
of a Filipino mother and He enlisted in the US Marine Corps and took an oath of
thus followed her allegiance to the US, thereby losing his citizenship. He
citizenship. reacquired his Philippine citizenship through repatriation under
v. There is no doubt in my mind, RA 2630. He ran for and as elected as the Representative of
therefore, that private respondent Pangasinan. Bengson III, his opponent, filed a Quo Warranto
did not elect Philippine citizenship Ad Cautelam alleging that Cruz was not qualified to be a
upon reaching the age of majority member of the House since he was not a natural born citizen
in 1969 or within a reasonable time Doctrine: Repatriation results in the recovery of the original
thereafter as required by CA 625. nationality. This means that a naturalized Filipino who lost his
vi. The 1971 Constitutional Convention citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a naturalized
in the case of Emil L. Ong is, to say Filipino citizen. On the other hand, if he was originally a
the least, inconclusive to the case at natural-born citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he
bar because the 1971 Constitutional will be restored to his former status as a natural-born Filipino.
Convention decision in the Emil L.
Ong case involved the 1935 FACTS:
Constitution; the present case, on 1. Cruz was a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. He was
the other hand involves the 1987 born in San Clemente, Tarlac on April 27, 1960 of Filipino
Constitution: Parents.
- Fundamental law applicable was the 1935 Constitution
Sarmiento, Concurring 2. On November 5, 1985, however, Cruz enlisted in the United
States Marine Corps and, without the consent of the
1. There is no grave abuse of discretion in the Republic of the Philippines, took an oath of allegiance to the
case at bar. While different men may have United States.
different opinion on Ong’s citizenship, such - As a consequence, he lost his Filipino citizenship for under
difference does not amount to grave abuse Commonwealth Act No. 63, Section 1(4), a Filipino citizen may
of discretion. lose his citizenship by, among others, "rendering service to or
2. Jose Ong had relied on the Report dated accepting commission in the armed forces of a foreign
September 4, 1972 of the 1971 Constitutional country."
Convention Committee on Election Protests 3. Whatever doubt that remained regarding his loss of
and Credentials, in which the Committees Philippine citizenship was erased by his naturalization as a
upheld the citizenship, and sustained the U.S. citizen on June 5, 1990, in connection with his service in
qualification to sit as Delegate, of Emil Ong, the U.S. Marine Corps.
Jose Ong's full blood brother. 4. On March 17, 1994, Cruz reacquired his Philippine citizenship
3. According to the Report, Ong Te the Ongs' through repatriation under Republic Act No. 2630.
grandfather, was already a Filipino citizen 5. He ran for and was elected as the Representative of the
having complied with the requirements on Second District of Pangasinan in the May 11, 1998 elections.
Filipinization by existing laws for which his He won by a convincing margin of 26,671 votes over Antonio
successors need not have elected Filipino Bengson III, who was then running for reelection.
citizenship. 6. Subsequently, Bengson III filed a case for Quo Warranto Ad
4. While it is true that Jose Ong Chuan applied Cautelam with House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal
for naturalization (meaning, he might have (HRET) claiming that Cruz was not qualified to become a
believed that he was an alien), it is the law, member of the House of Representatives since he is not a
not his personal belief which shall prevail. natural-born citizen as required under Article VI, Section 6 of
5. I am not, of course, to be mistaken as acting the Constitution.
as mouthpiece of Emil Ong, but in all

7. On March 2, 2000, the HRET rendered its decision 5 - Naturalization is a mode for both acquisition and
dismissing the petition, for quo warranto and declaring reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. As a mode of initially
respondent Cruz the duly elected Representative of the acquiring Philippine citizenship, naturalization is governed by
Second District of Pangasinan in the May 1998 elections. Commonwealth Act No. 473, as amended.
8. Bengson filed the present petition for certiorari assailing the - On the other hand, naturalization as a mode for reacquiring
HRET’s decision. Philippine citizenship is governed by Commonwealth Act No.
63. 16 Under this law, a former Filipino citizen who wishes to
ISSUES: reacquire Philippine citizenship must possess certain
WON Cruz, a natural born Filipino who became an American qualifications and none of the disqualifications mentioned in
citizen, can still be considered a natural-born Filipino upon his Section 4 of C.A. 473.
reacquisition of Philippine citizenship? YES - Repatriation, on the other hand, may be had under various
statutes by those who lost their citizenship due to: (1) desertion
RATIO: of the armed forces; (2) service in the armed forces of the allied
1. YES; repatriation results in the recovery of the forces in World War II; (3) service in the Armed Forces of the
original nationality. This means that a naturalized United States at any other time; (4) marriage of a Filipino
Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to woman to an alien; and (5) political and economic necessity.
his prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen. On - As distinguished from the lengthy process of naturalization,
the other hand, if he was originally a natural-born repatriation simply consists of the taking of an oath of
citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and registering
will be restored to his former status as a natural- said oath in the Local Civil Registry of the place where the
born Filipino. person concerned resides or last resided.
- There are two ways of acquiring citizenship: (1) by birth, and - Moreover, repatriation results in the recovery of the original
(2) by naturalization. nationality . This means that a naturalized Filipino who lost his
- These ways of acquiring citizenship correspond to the two citizenship will be restored to his prior status as a naturalized
kinds of citizens: the natural-born citizen, and the naturalized Filipino citizen. On the other hand, if he was originally a
citizen. natural-born citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he
- A person who at the time of his birth is a citizen of a particular will be restored to his former status as a natural-born Filipino.
country, is a natural-born citizen thereof. - In Cruz's case, he lost his Filipino citizenship when he
- As defined in the same Constitution, natural-born citizens rendered service in the Armed Forces of the United States.
"are those citizens of the Philippines from birth without having However, he subsequently reacquired Philippine citizenship
to perform any act to acquire or perfect his Philippine under R.A. No. 2630
citizenship." - Having thus taken the required oath of allegiance to the
- On the other hand, naturalized citizens are those who have Republic and having registered the same in the Civil Registry
become Filipino citizens through naturalization, generally of Magantarem, Pangasinan in accordance with the aforecited
under Commonwealth Act No. 473, otherwise known as the provision, respondent Cruz is deemed to have recovered his
Revised Naturalization Law, which repealed the former original status as a natural-born citizen, a status which he
Naturalization Law (Act No. 2927), and by Republic Act No. acquired at birth as the son of a Filipino father. It bears
530. stressing that the act of repatriation allows him to recover, or
- To be naturalized, an applicant has to prove that he return to, his original status before he lost his Philippine
possesses all the qualifications and none of the citizenship.
disqualifications provided by law to become a Filipino citizen. - Under the Constitution, two requisites must concur for a
The decision granting Philippine citizenship becomes person to be considered as a natural born citizen: (1) a person
executory only after two (2) years from its promulgation when must be a Filipino citizen from birth and (2) he does not have to
the court is satisfied that during the intervening period, the perform any act to obtain or perfect his Philippine citizenship.
applicant has (1) not left the Philippines; (2) has dedicated - Consequently, only naturalized Filipinos are considered not
himself to a lawful calling or profession; (3) has not been natural-born citizens.
convicted of any offense or violation of Government - A citizen who is not a naturalized Filipino, i.e., did not have to
promulgated rules; or (4) committed any act prejudicial to the undergo the process of naturalization to obtain Philippine
interest of the nation or contrary to any Government citizenship, necessarily is a natural-born Filipino.
announced policies. - The reason therefor is clear: as to such persons, they would
- Filipino citizens who have lost their citizenship may however either be natural-born or naturalized depending on the reasons
reacquire the same in the manner provided by law. for the loss of their citizenship and the mode prescribed by the
Commonwealth Act No. 63 (CA No. 63), enumerates the three applicable law for the reacquisition thereof.
modes by which Philippine citizenship may be reacquired by a - As Cruz was not required by law to go through naturalization
former citizen: (1) by naturalization, (2) by repatriation, and (3) proceedings in order to reacquire his citizenship, he is perforce
by direct act of Congress. a natural-born Filipino. As such, he possessed all the necessary

qualifications to be elected as member of the House of affidavit of reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. Clearly, he
Representatives. did not reacquire his natural-born citizenship.
- The definition of a natural-born citizen in the Constitution
DISPOSITIVE: Petition dismissed must be applied to this petition according to its natural sense.
Panganiban, J. Concurs
1. Repatriation is simply the recovery of original citizenship. Tecson v. COMELEC (2004)
Under Section 1
of RA 2630, a person "who ha[s] lost his citizenship" may G.R. No. 161434 March 3, 2004
"reacquire" it by "taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic
of the Philippines." MARIA JEANETTE C. TECSON and FELIX B. DESIDERIO, JR.,
- Former Senate President Jovito R. Salonga defines petitioners, vs. The COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RONALD
repatriation as "the recovery of the original nationality upon ALLAN KELLY POE (a.k.a. FERNANDO POE, JR.) and
fulfillment of certain conditions." VICTORINO X. FORNIER, respondents.
- In relation to our subject matter, repatriation, then, means
restoration of citizenship. It is not a grant of a new citizenship, x-----------------------------x
but a recovery of one's former or original citizenship. To
"reacquire" simply means "to get back as one's own again." G.R. No. 161634 March 3, 2004
Ergo, since Cruz, prior to his becoming a US citizen, was a
natural-born Filipino citizen, he "reacquired" the same status ZOILO ANTONIO VELEZ, petitioner, vs. RONALD ALLAN
upon repatriation.
KELLEY POE, a.k.a. FERNANDO POE, JR., respondent.
- Cruz should be deemed natural born because he was not
naturalized x-----------------------------x
- Under the 1973 Constitution, excluded from the class of
"natural-born citizens" were (1) those who were naturalized G. R. No. 161824 March 3, 2004
and (2) those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers
who, upon reaching the age of majority, elected Philippine VICTORINO X. FORNIER, petitioner, vs. HON. COMMISSION
citizenship.
ON ELECTIONS and RONALD ALLAN KELLEY POE, ALSO
- The present Constitution, however, has expanded the scope
KNOWN AS FERNANDO POE JR., respondents.
of natural-born citizens to include "[t]hose who elect Philippine
citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof,"
Vitug, J.
meaning those covered under class (2) above.
- Consequently, only naturalized Filipino citizens are not
NATURE: 3 consolidated cases
considered natural-born citizens.
- Premising therefrom, respondent — being clearly and
SUMMARY: Fornier challenged FPJ’s bid to become
concededly not naturalized — is, therefore, a natural-born
President by alleging that FPJ misrepresented that he was a
citizen of the Philippines.
- With respect to repatriates, since the Constitution does not natural-born Filipino citizen. One of the claims of Fornier was
classify them separately, they naturally reacquire their original that in establishing filiation (relationship or civil status of the
classification before the loss of their Philippine citizenship. child to the father or mother) or paternity (relationship or civil
status of the father to the child) of an illegitimate child, FPJ
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J. Dissents evidently being an illegitimate son, the mandatory rules under
- The status of being a natural-born citizen at its incipient is a
civil law must be used. However the SC ruled that the duly
privilege conferred by law directly to those who intended, and
actually continued, to belong to the Philippine Islands. Even at notarized declaration made by Ruby Kelley Mangahas, sister of
the time of its conception in the Philippines, such persons Bessie Kelley Poe might be accepted to prove the acts of Allan
upon whom citizenship was conferred did not have to do F. Poe, recognizing his own paternal relationship with FPJ, i.e,
anything to acquire full citizenship. living together with Bessie Kelley and his children (including
- Section 2, Article IV of the Constitution defines natural-born respondent FPJ) in one house, and as one family. Also, the SC
citizens as "those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth
found, ruling that the law at the time of FPJ’s birth, the 1935
without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their
Constitution, conferred citizenship to all persons whose fathers
Philippine citizenship.
- Cruz had to perform certain acts before he could again were Filipino citizens regardless of whether such children are
become a Filipino citizen. He had to take an oath of allegiance legitimate or illegitimate. The evidence on hand would
to the Republic of the Philippines and register his oath with the preponderate in FPJ’s favor so much so that he could not be
Local Civil Registry of Mangatarum, Pangasinan. He had to held guilty of material misrepresentation in certificate of
renounce his American citizenship and had to execute an candidacy.

DOCTRINE: and, in the affirmative, whether or not the alleged
illegitimacy of respondent prevents him from
• Citizenship is a treasured right conferred on those whom taking after the Filipino citizenship of his putative
the state believes are deserving of the privilege. It is a father. Any conclusion on the Filipino citizenship
“precious heritage, as well as an inestimable of Lorenzo Pou could only be drawn from the
acquisition,”[1] that cannot be taken lightly by anyone - presumption that having died in 1954 at 84 years
either by those who enjoy it or by those who dispute it. old, Lorenzo would have been born sometime in
• The proof of filiation or paternity for purposes of the year 1870, and would have benefited from
determining his citizenship status should thus be the “en masseFilipinization” that the
deemed independent from and not inextricably Philippine Bill had effected in 1902. That
tied up with that prescribed for civil law citizenship (of Lorenzo Pou), if acquired, would
purposes. thereby extend to his son, Allan F. Poe,
o The Civil Code or Family Code provisions on father of respondent FPJ. The 1935 Constitution,
proof of filiation or paternity, although good law, during which regime respondent FPJ has seen
do not have preclusive effects on matters first light, confers citizenship to all persons
alien to personal and family relations whose fathers are Filipino citizens
o The ordinary rules on evidence could well and regardless of whether such children are
should govern. For instance, the matter about legitimate or illegitimate.
pedigree is not necessarily precluded from being o (4) But while the totality of the evidence may not
applicable by the Civil Code or Family Code establish conclusively that respondent FPJ is a
provisions natural-born citizen of the Philippines, the
o For the above rule to apply, it would be evidence on hand still would preponderate in his
necessary that favor enough to hold that he cannot be held
§ (a) the declarant is already dead or guilty of having made a material
unable to testify, misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy
§ (b) the pedigree of a person must be at which must not only be material, but also
issue, deliberate and willful.
§ (c) the declarant must be a relative of
the person whose pedigree is in
question, BRIEF FACTS:
§ (d) declaration must be made before the
controversy has occurred, and • Ronald Allan Kelly Poe, aka Fernardo Poe, Jr. (FPJ),
§ (e) the relationship between the filed his certificate of candidacy (CoC) for the position
declarant and the person whose of President of the Republic of the Philippines. In his
pedigree is in question must be shown CoC, FPJ, representing himself to be a natural-born
by evidence other than such act or citizen of the Philippines, stated his name to be
declaration. "Fernando Jr.," or "Ronald Allan" Poe, his date of
• SC CONCLUSION birth to be 20 August 1939 and his place of birth to be
o (1) The Court, in the exercise of its power of Manila.
judicial review, possesses jurisdiction over the • Petitioner Fornier initiated a petition before
petition in G. R. No. 161824, filed under Rule 64, COMELEC to disqualify FPJ upon the thesis that FPD
in relation to Rule 65, of the Revised Rules of Civil made a material misrepresentation in his CoC by
Procedure. claiming to be a natural-born Filipino citizen when in
o (2) The Court must dismiss, for lack of truth, according to Fornier, his parents were
jurisdiction and prematurity, the petitions in G. R. foreigners
No. 161434 and No. 161634 both having been o His mother, Bessie Kelley Poe, was an
directly elevated to this Court in the latter’s American, and his father, Allan Poe, was a
capacity as the only tribunal to resolve a Spanish national, being the son of Lorenzo
presidential and vice-presidential election Pou, a Spanish subject.
contest. o Granting that Allan Poe was a Filipino citizen,
o (3) In ascertaining, in G.R. No. 161824, whether he could not have transmitted his
grave abuse of discretion has been committed by citizenship to FPJ, the latter being an
the COMELEC, it is necessary to take on the illegitimate child of an alien mother
matter of whether or not respondent FPJ is a o Fornier based the allegation of illegitimacy
natural-born citizen, which, in turn, depended on on 2 assertions
whether or not the father of respondent, Allan F. § First, Allan F. Poe contracted a prior
Poe, would have himself been a Filipino citizen marriage to a certain Paulita Gomez

before his marriage to Bessie Kelley o 6) a certification from the Officer-In-Charge
and, of the Archives Division of the National
§ Second, even if no such prior Archives to the effect that no available
marriage had existed, Allan F. Poe, information could be found in the files of the
married Bessie Kelly only a year National Archives regarding the birth of
after the birth of FPJ. Allan F. Poe.
• COMELEC dismissed for lack of merit. • FPJ, presented twenty-two documentary pieces of
evidence, the more significant ones being –
o a) a certification issued by Estrella M.
[Antecedent Case Settings-Longer Version] Domingo of the Archives Division of the
National Archives that there appeared to be
• On 31 December 2003, respondent Ronald Allan Kelly no available information regarding the birth
Poe, also known as Fernando Poe, Jr. ("FPJ"), filed his of Allan F. Poe in the registry of births for
certificate of candidacy for President of the RP under San Carlos, Pangasinan,
the Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino (KNP) Party, o b) a certification issued by the Officer-In-
• In his certificate of candidacy, FPJ, representing Charge of the Archives Division of the
himself to be a natural-born citizen of National Archives that no available
the Philippines, stated his name to be "Fernando Jr.," information about the marriage of Allan F.
or "Ronald Allan" Poe, his date of birth to be 20 Poe and Paulita Gomez could be found,
August 1939 and his place of birth to be Manila. o c) a certificate of birth of Ronald Allan Poe,
• Victorino X. Fornier, petitioner in G.R. No. 161824 o d) Original Certificate of Title No. P-2247 of
initiated, on 09 January 2004, a petition docketed SPA the Registry of Deeds for the Province of
No. 04-003 before the Commission on Elections Pangasinan, in the name of Lorenzo Pou,
("COMELEC") to disqualify FPJ and to deny due o e) copies of Tax Declaration No. 20844, No.
course or to cancel his certificate of candidacy upon 20643, No. 23477 and No. 23478 in the name
the thesis that FPJ made a material misrepresentation of Lorenzo Pou,
in his certificate of candidacy by claiming to be a o f) a copy of the certificate of death of
natural-born Filipino citizen when in truth, according Lorenzo Pou, g) a copy of the purported
to Fornier, his parents were foreigners; his mother, marriage contract between Fernando Pou
Bessie Kelley Poe, was an American, and his and Bessie Kelley, and h) a certification
father, Allan Poe, was a Spanish national, issued by the City Civil Registrar of San
being the son of Lorenzo Pou, a Spanish subject. he Carlos City, Pangasinan, stating that the
could not have transmitted his Filipino citizenship to records of birth in the said office during the
FPJ, the latter being an illegitimate child of an alien period of from 1900 until May 1946 were
mother. Allan F. Poe contracted a prior marriage to a totally destroyed during World War II.
certain Paulita Gomez before his marriage to Bessie • COMELEC dismissed SPA No. 04-003 for lack of
Kelley and, second, even if no such prior marriage had merit. MR denied
existed, Allan F. Poe, married Bessie Kelly only a year • The other petitions, challenged the jurisdiction of the
after the birth of respondent. COMELEC and asserting that, under Article VII,
• Petitioner presented several documentary exhibits – Section 4, paragraph 7, of the 1987 Constitution, only
o 1) a copy of the certificate of birth of FPJ, the Supreme Court had original and exclusive
o 2) a certified photocopy of an affidavit jurisdiction to resolve the basic issue on the case.
executed in Spanish by Paulita Poe y Gomez
attesting to her having filed a case for
bigamy and concubinage against the father ISSUE:
of respondent, Allan F. Poe, after discovering
his bigamous relationship with Bessie Kelley, 1. Jurisdiction Issues
o 3) an English translation of the affidavit 2. Did FPJ make a material misrepresentation in his
aforesaid, CoC? No
o 4) a certified photocopy of the certificate of a. Note: the totality of evidence may not
birth of Allan F. Poe, establish conclusively that FPJ was a natural-
o 5) a certification issued by the Director of the born citizen, but is deemed enough to not
Records Management and Archives Office, hold FPJ guilty of making material
attesting to the fact that there was no record misrepresentations
in the National Archives that a Lorenzo Poe
or Lorenzo Pou resided or entered the
Philippines before 1907, and RATIO:

1. Preliminaries of the Supreme Court to be the
GR161824 (Allowed) members of the tribunal.
• In seeking the disqualification of FPJ and to have the § The statutory set-up would now be
COMELEC deny due course to FPJ’s CoC, Fornier deemed revived under the present
invoked Sec. 78 of the Omnibus Elections Code in Section 4, paragraph 7, of the 1987
consonance with the general powers of the Constitution.
COMELEC under Sec. 52 of the same Code • Ordinary usage would characterize a "contest" in
• Decisions of the COMELEC on disqualification cases reference to a post-election scenario. Election
may be reviewed by the SC per Rule 64 in an action contests consist of either an election protest or a quo
for certiorari under Rule 65 warranto which, although two distinct remedies,
• In conjunction with Sec. 7, Article IX and Sec. Article would have one objective in view, i.e., to dislodge the
VIII of the 1987 Constitution, judicial power is vested winning candidate from office.
in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as o The rules (Rules of the Presidential Electoral
may be established by law which power "includes the Tribunal) categorically speak of the
duty of the courts of justice to settle actual jurisdiction of the tribunal over contests
controversies involving rights which are legally relating to the election, returns and
demandable and enforceable, and to determine qualifications of the "President" or "Vice-
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of President", of the Philippines, and not of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction "candidates" for President or Vice-President.
on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the o In such context, the election contest can only
Government." contemplate a post- election scenario.
• It is this clear that the petition under this GR Number • It is fair to conclude that the jurisdiction of the
was aptly elevated to, and could well be taken Supreme Court, defined by Section 4, paragraph 7, of
cognizance of by, this Court the 1987 Constitution, would not include cases
o A contrary view could be a gross denial to directly brought before it, questioning the
our people of their fundamental right to be qualifications of a candidate for the presidency or
fully informed, and to make a proper choice, vice-presidency before the elections are held.
on who could or should be elected to
occupy the highest government post in the 2. The Citizenship Issue
land. How about a little History
• Perhaps, the earliest understanding of citizenship was
GR161434 and GR161634 (Dismissed) that given by Aristotle, who, sometime in 384 to 322
• Petitioners invoke Sec. 4, par. 7, Article VII of the B.C., described the "citizen" to refer to a man who
Constitution in assailing the jurisdiction of the shared in the administration of justice and in the
COMELEC when it took cognizance of the case holding of an office.
concerning FPJ, and in urging the SC to instead take o Its significance is to determine the
on the petitions they directly instituted constituency of the "State," which he
• The cited provisions in an innovation of the current described as being composed of such
Constitution. persons who would be adequate in number
o The omission in the 1935 and the 1973 to achieve a self-sufficient existence.
Constitution to designate any tribunal to be o The concept grew to include one who would
the sole judge of presidential and vice- both govern and be governed, for which
presidential contests, has constrained this qualifications like autonomy, judgment and
Court to declare, as "not (being) justiciable" loyalty could be expected.
controversies or disputes involving contests o In its ideal setting, a citizen was active in
on the elections, returns and qualifications of public life and fundamentally willing to
the President or Vice-President. submit his private interests to the general
o The constitutional lapse prompted Congress interest of society.
to enact Republic Act No. 1793, "An Act • The concept of citizenship had undergone changes
Constituting an Independent Presidential over the centuries.
Electoral Tribunal to Try, Hear and Decide o In the 18th century, the concept was limited,
Protests Contesting the Election of the by and large, to civil citizenship, which
President-Elect and the Vice-President-Elect established the rights necessary for
of the Philippines and Providing for the individual freedom, such as rights to
Manner of Hearing the Same." property, personal liberty and justice.
§ Said law designated the Chief
Justice and the Associate Justices

• Its meaning expanded during the 19th century to • An accepted principle of international law dictated
include political citizenship, which encompassed the that a change in sovereignty, while resulting in an
right to participate in the exercise of political power. abrogation of all political laws then in force, would
• The 20th century saw the next stage of the have no effect on civil laws, which would remain
development of social citizenship, which laid virtually intact.
emphasis on the right of the citizen to economic well- o Under Article IX of the Treaty of Paris, the
being and social security. civil rights and political status of the native
inhabitants of the territories ceded to the
From Spanish Times to the Present United States would be determined by its
• There was no such term as "Philippine citizens" Congress
during the Spanish regime but "subjects of Spain" or o Upon the ratification of the treaty, and
"Spanish subjects." pending legislation by the United States
o In church records, the natives were called Congress on the subject, the native
'indios', denoting a low regard for the inhabitants of the Philippines ceased to be
inhabitants of the archipelago. Spanish subjects
• Spanish laws on citizenship became highly codified o Although they did not become American
during the 19th century but their sheer number made citizens, they, however, also ceased to be
it difficult to point to one comprehensive law. "aliens" under American laws and were thus
o Not all of these citizenship laws of Spain issued passports describing them to be
however, were made to apply to the citizens of the Philippines entitled to the
Philippine Islands except for those explicitly protection of the United States.
extended by Royal Decrees • The term "citizens of the Philippine Islands" appeared
• Spanish laws on citizenship were traced back to the for the first time in the Philippine Bill of 1902, also
Novisima Recopilacion, promulgated in Spain on 16 commonly referred to as the Philippine Organic Act of
July 1805 but as to whether the law was extended to 1902, the first comprehensive legislation of the
the Philippines remained to be the subject of differing Congress of the United States on the Philippines
views among experts; • Under the organic act, a "citizen of the
o 3 royal decress were made applicable to Philippines" was one who was an inhabitant
Spaniards in the Philippines of the Philippines, and a Spanish subject on
§ Order de la Regencia the 11th day of April 1899. The term "inhabitant"
§ Royal Decree of 23 Aug 1868 was taken to include
defining the political status of o 1) a native-born inhabitant,
children born in the Philippine o 2) an inhabitant who was a native of
Islands Peninsular Spain, and
§ Ley Extranjera de Ultramar which o 3) an inhabitant who obtained Spanish
expressly made applicable to the papers on or before 11 April 1899
Phillppines by Royal Decree • Controversy arose on to the status of children born in
• The Spanish Constitution of 1876 was never extended the Philippines from 11 April 1899 to 01 July 1902,
to the Philippine Islands because of the express during which period no citizenship law was extant in
mandate of its Article 89, according to which the the Philippines
provisions of the Ultramar among which this country • In 23 March 1912, an amedment to the Philippine Bill
was included, would be governed by special laws. of 1902 was made, which provided that the Philippine
• It was the Civil Code of Spain which came out with the Legislature was authorized to provide by law for the
first categorical enumeration of who were Spanish acquisition of Philippine citizenship by those natives
citizens of the Philippine Islands who do not come within the
o (a) Persons born in Spanish territory, prior provisions
o (b) Children of a Spanish father or mother, • With the adoption of the Philippine Bill of 1902, the
even if they were born outside of Spain, concept of "Philippine citizens" had for the first time
o (c) Foreigners who have obtained crystallized. The word "Filipino" was used by William
naturalization papers, H. Taft, the first Civil Governor General in the
o (d) Those who, without such papers, may Philippines when he initially made mention of it in his
have become domiciled inhabitants of any slogan, "The Philippines for the Filipinos."
town of the Monarchy. • In 1916, the Philippine Autonomy Act, also
• In 1898, Spain was forced to so cede her sole colony known as the Jones Law, restated virtually the
in the East to an upcoming world power, the United provisions of the Philippine Bill of 1902, as so
States. amended by the Act of Congress in 1912

• Under the Jones Law, a native-born inhabitant of o Section 2 of Article III provided: "A female
the Philippines was deemed to be a citizen of citizen of the Philippines who marries an
the Philippines as of 11 April 1899 if he was alien retains her Philippine citizenship, unless
o 1) a subject of Spain on 11 April 1899, by her act or omission she is deemed, under
o 2) residing in the Philippines on said date, the law to have renounced her citizenship."
and, • The 1987 Constitution generally adopted the
o 3) since that date, not a citizen of some other provisions of the 1973 Constitution, except for
country. subsection (3) thereof that aimed to correct the
• While there was, at one brief time, divergent views on irregular situation generated by the questionable
whether or not jus soli was a mode of acquiring proviso in the 1935 Constitution.
citizenship, the 1935 Constitution brought to an o (1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines
end to any such link with common law, by at the time of the adoption of this
adopting, once and for all, jus sanguinis or blood Constitution.
relationship as being the basis of Filipino citizenship o (2) Those whose fathers or mothers are
o (1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine citizens of the Philippines.
Islands at the time of the adoption of this o (3) Those born before January 17, 1973 of
Constitution Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine
o (2) Those born in the Philippines Islands of citizenship upon reaching the age of
foreign parents who, before the adoption of majority; and
this Constitution, had been elected to public o (4) Those who are naturalized in accordance
office in the Philippine Islands. with law.
o (3) Those whose fathers are citizens of
the Philippines. The Case of FPJ
o (4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the • The term "natural-born citizens," is defined to include
Philippines and upon reaching the age of "those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth
majority, elect Philippine citizenship. without having to perform any act to acquire or
o (5) Those who are naturalized in accordance perfect their Philippine citizenship."
with law. • The date, month and year of birth of FPJ appeared to
• Subsection (4), Article III, of the 1935 be 20 August 1939 during the regime of the
Constitution, taken together with existing civil law 1935 Constitution.
provisions at the time, which provided that women o With the adoption of the 1935 Constitution
would automatically lose their Filipino citizenship and and the reversal of Roa in Tan Chong vs.
acquire that of their foreign husbands, resulted in Secretary of Labor (used jus soli), jus
discriminatory situations that effectively incapacitated sanguinis or blood relationship would
the women from transmitting their Filipino citizenship now become the primary basis of
to their legitimate children and required illegitimate citizenship by birth.
children of Filipino mothers to still elect Filipino
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.
Documentary Evidence
o Seeking to correct this anomaly, as well as
• Documentary evidence adduced by petitioner would
fully cognizant of the newly found status of
tend to indicate that the earliest established direct
Filipino women as equals to men, the
ascendant of FPJ was his paternal grandfather
framers of the 1973 Constitution crafted the
Lorenzo Pou, married to Marta Reyes, the father of
provisions of the new Constitution on
Allan F. Poe
citizenship to reflect such concerns
o While the record of birth of Lorenzo Pou had
§ (1) Those who are citizens of the
not been presented in evidence, his death
Philippines at the time of the
certificate, however, identified him to be a
adoption of this Constitution.
Filipino, a resident of San Carlos,
§ (2) Those whose fathers or
Pangasinan, and 84 years old at the time of
mothers are citizens of the
his death
Philippines.
• The certificate of birth of the father of FPJ, Allan F.
§ (3) Those who elect Philippine
Poe, showed that he was born on 17 May 1915 to an
citizenship pursuant to the
Español father, Lorenzo Pou, and a mestiza Español
provisions of the Constitution of
mother, Marta Reyes
nineteen hundred and thirty-five.
• Introduced by Fornier was an "uncertified" copy of a
§ (4) Those who are naturalized in
supposed certificate of the alleged marriage of Allan
accordance with law.
F. Poe and Paulita Gomez on 05 July 1936.

o The marriage certificate of Allan F. Poe and have had complete records of all residents of
Bessie Kelley reflected the date of their the Philippines from 1898 to 1902.
marriage to be on 16 September 1940.
o In the same certificate, Allan F. Poe was Proof of Paternity and Filiation
stated to be twenty-five years old, Under Civil Law
unmarried, and a Filipino citizen, and Bessie
• In any case, Fornier submits that, in establishing filiation
Kelley to be twenty-two years old,
(relationship or civil status of the child to the father or
unmarried, and an American citizen
mother) or paternity (relationship or civil status of the
o The birth certificate of FPJ, would disclose
father to the child) of an illegitimate child, FPJ evidently
that he was born on 20 August 1939 to Allan
being an illegitimate son, the mandatory rules under civil
F. Poe, a Filipino, twenty-four years old,
law must be used
married to Bessie Kelly, an American citizen,
• Thus, under the Civil Code of Spain,
twenty-one years old and married.
acknowledgement was required to establish
• SC Conclusions based on the documents presented:
filiation or paternity
o 1. The parents of FPJ were Allan F. Poe and
o Acknowledgment was either judicial (compulsory)
Bessie Kelley; 
or voluntary.
o 2. FPJ was born to them on 20 August 1939; 
§ Judicial or compulsory acknowledgment
o 3. Allan F. Poe and Bessie Kelley were
was possible only if done during the
married to each other on 16 September,
lifetime of the putative parent;
1940;
§ Voluntary acknowledgment could only
o 4. The father of Allan F. Poe was Lorenzo
be had in a record of birth, a will, or a
Poe; and 
public document.
o 5. At the time of his death on 11 September
o Complementary to the Code was Act No. 3753,
1954, Lorenzo Poe was 84 years old.
the Civil Registry Law, particularly Sec. 51
• Application of the Rules on Evidence
§ In order that the birth certificate could
o Being public documents, the death
then be utilized to prove voluntary
certificate of Lorenzo Pou, the marriage
acknowledgment of filiation or paternity,
certificate of Allan F. Poe and Bessie Kelly,
the certificate was required to be signed
and the birth certificate of FPJ, constitute
or sworn to by the father.
prima facie proof of their contents
§ The failure of such requirement
o The death certificate of Lorenzo Pou would
rendered the same useless as being an
indicate that he died on 11 September 1954,
authoritative document of recognition
at the age of 84 years, in San Carlos,
• In FPJ’s birth certificate, nowhere in the document was the
Pangasinan. It could thus be assumed that
signature of Allan F. Poe found
Lorenzo Pou was born sometime in the year
• There being no will apparently executed, or at least shown
1870 when the Philippines was still a colony
to have been executed, by decedent Allan F. Poe, the only
of Spain.
other proof of voluntary recognition remained to be
o Fornier would argue that Lorenzo Pou was
"some other public document."
not in the Philippines during the crucial
o In Pareja v. Pareja, the Court define what could
period of from 1898 to 1902 considering that
be such other document:
there was no existing record about such fact
§ "Under the Spanish Civil Code there are
in the Records Management and Archives
two classes of public documents, those
Office.
executed by private individuals which
§ He, however, likewise failed to show
must be authenticated by notaries, and
that Lorenzo Pou was at any other
those issued by competent public
place during the same period.
officials by reason of their office. The
o In his death certificate, the residence of
public document pointed out in Article
Lorenzo Pou was stated to be San Carlos,
131 as one of the means by which
Pangasinan.
o In the absence of any evidence to the
contrary, it should be sound to conclude, or

at least to presume, that the place of 1
"In case of an illegitimate child, the birth certificate shall be signed and sworn
residence of a person at the time of his to jointly by the parents of the infant or only by the mother if the father refuses. In
death was also his residence before death. the latter case, it shall not be permissible to state or reveal in the document the
o It would be extremely doubtful if the Records name of the father who refuses to acknowledge the child, or to give therein any
Management and Archives Office would information by which such father could be identified."

recognition may be made belongs to indeed, provisions on "citizenship" could be found in the
the first class." Civil Code, such provisions must be taken in the context of
• The 1950 Civil Code categorized the acknowledgment or private relations, the domain of civil law
recognition of illegitimate children into voluntary, legal or o The relevance of "citizenship" or "nationality" to
compulsory. Civil Law is best exemplified in Article 15 of
o Voluntary recognition was required to be the Civil Code, stating that: "Laws relating to
expressedly made in a record of birth, a will, a family rights and duties, or to the status,
statement before a court of record or in any condition and legal capacity of persons are
authentic writing. binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even
o Legal acknowledgment took place in favor of full though living abroad"
blood brothers and sisters of an illegitimate child o Similarly, citizenship is significant in civil
was recognized or judicially declared as natural. relationships found in different parts of the Civil
o Compulsory acknowledgment could be Code.
demanded generally in cases when the child had § In adoption, for instance, an adopted
in his favor any evidence to prove filiation. child would be considered the child of
§ Unlike an action to claim legitimacy his adoptive parents and accorded the
which would last during the lifetime of same rights as their legitimate child but
the child, and might pass exceptionally such legal fiction extended only to
to the heirs of the child, an action to define his rights under civil law and not
claim acknowledgment, however, could his political status.
only be brought during the lifetime of • The distinctions between legitimacy and illegitimacy were
the presumed parent. codified in the Spanish Civil Code, and the invidious
• Amicus Curiae Ruben F. Balane defined, during the oral discrimination survived when the Spanish Civil Code
argument, "authentic writing," so as to be an authentic became the primary source of our own Civil Code. Such
writing for purposes of voluntary recognition, simply as distinction, however, remains and should remain only in
being a genuine or indubitable writing of the father. the sphere of civil law and not unduly impede or impinge
o The term would include a public instrument (one on the domain of political law.
duly acknowledged before a notary public or • The proof of filiation or paternity for purposes of
other competent official) or a private writing determining his citizenship status should thus be
admitted by the father to be his. deemed independent from and not inextricably
o The Family Code has also further liberalized the tied up with that prescribed for civil law
rules. Particularly FC172, FC173, FC 175, which purposes.
retroactively apply insofar as it does not o The Civil Code or Family Code provisions on
prejudice or impair vested rights (FC256) proof of filiation or paternity, although good law,
o Hence, it was held in Vda. De Sy-Quia v. CA: do not have preclusive effects on matters
§ "We hold that whether Jose was a alien to personal and family relations
voluntarily recognized natural child o The ordinary rules on evidence could well and
should be decided under Article 278 of should govern. For instance, the matter about
the Civil Code of the Philippines. Article pedigree is not necessarily precluded from being
2260 of that Code provides that 'the applicable by the Civil Code or Family Code
voluntary recognition of a natural child provisions
shall take place according to this Code, o For the above rule to apply, it would be
even if the child was born before the necessary that
effectivity of this body of laws' or before § (a) the declarant is already dead or
August 30, 1950. Hence, Article 278 may unable to testify,
be given retroactive effect." § (b) the pedigree of a person must be at
• It should be apparent that the growing trend to issue,
liberalize the acknowledgment or recognition of § (c) the declarant must be a relative of
illegitimate children is an attempt to break away the person whose pedigree is in
from the traditional idea of keeping well apart question,
legitimate and non-legitimate relationships § (d) declaration must be made before the
within the family in favor of the greater interest controversy has occurred, and
and welfare of the child. § (e) the relationship between the
• There is little, if any, to indicate that the declarant and the person whose
legitimate or illegitimate civil status of the pedigree is in question must be shown
individual would also affect his political rights or, by evidence other than such act or
in general, his relationship to the State. While, declaration.

o Thus, the duly notarized declaration made by § But if the pronouncement was
Ruby Kelley Mangahas, sister of Bessie Kelley Poe irrelevant to the lis mota, the
might be accepted to prove the acts of Allan F. pronouncement would not be a
Poe, recognizing his own paternal relationship decision but a mere obiter dictum
with FPJ, i.e, living together with Bessie Kelley which did not establish doctrine
and his children (including respondent FPJ) in o Morano v. Vivo: The case was not about an
one house, and as one family illegitimate child of a Filipino father.
§ It was about a stepson of a Filipino,
Ruby Kelley Mangahas Declarant DNA Testing a stepson who was the child of a
• In case proof of filiation or paternity would be unlikely to Chinese mother and a Chinese
satisfactorily establish or would be difficult to obtain, DNA father. The issue was whether the
testing, which examines genetic codes obtained from stepson followed the naturalization
body cells of the illegitimate child and any physical residue of the stepfather. Nothing about jus
of the long dead parent could be resorted to. A positive sanguinis there. The stepson did
match would clear up filiation or paternity. not have the blood of the
• Tijing v. CA acknowledges the strong weight of DNA naturalized stepfather.
testing o Chiongbian vs. de Leon: This case was not
o …Eventually, as the appropriate case comes, about the illegitimate son of a Filipino father.
courts should not hesitate to rule on the § It was about a legitimate son of a
admissibility of DNA evidence. For it was said, father who had become Filipino by
that courts should apply the results of science election to public office before the
when competently obtained in aid of situations 1935 Constitution pursuant to
presented, since to reject said result is to deny Article IV, Section 1(2) of the 1935
progress. Constitution. No one was
illegitimate here.
o Serra vs. Republic: The case was not about
History and Civil Law not enough? Here’s some
the illegitimate son of a Filipino father.
Jurisprudence
§ Serra was an illegitimate child of a
• Fornier would have it that even if Allan F. Poe were a Chinese father and a Filipino
Filipino citizen, he could not have transmitted his mother. The issue was whether one
citizenship to respondent FPJ, the latter being an who was already a Filipino because
illegitimate child. of his mother who still needed to be
o The documentary evidence introduced by no naturalized. There is nothing there
less than FPJ himself, consisting of his birth about invidious jus sanguinis.
certificate and a marriage certificate of his o Paa vs. Chan This is a more complicated
parents showed that FPJ was born on 20 case.
August 1939 to a Filipino father and an § The case was about the citizenship
American mother who were married to each of Quintin Chan who was the son of
other a year later, or on 16 September 1940. Leoncio Chan. Quintin Chan
o Birth to unmarried parents would make FPJ claimed that his father, Leoncio,
an illegitimate child. Fornier contended that was the illegitimate son of a
as an illegitimate child, FPJ so followed the Chinese father and a Filipino
citizenship of his mother, Bessie Kelley, an mother. Quintin therefore argued
American citizen, basing his stand on the that he got his citizenship from
ruling of this Court in Morano vs. Vivo, citing Leoncio, his father.
Chiongbian vs. de Leo and Serra vs. Republic § But the Supreme Court said that
• On the above score, the disquisition made by amicus there was no valid proof that
curiae Joaquin G. Bernas, SJ, is most convincing Leoncio was in fact the son of a
(Why thank you good Father) Filipina mother. The Court
o Fr. Bernas examined the cases from the therefore concluded that Leoncio
point of view of their lis mota was not Filipino. If Leoncio was not
§ If the pronouncement of the Court Filipino, neither was his son Quintin.
on jus sanguinis was on the lis Quintin therefore was not only not a
mota, the pronouncement would natural- born Filipino but was not
be a decision constituting doctrine even a Filipino.
under the rule of stare decisis. § The Court should have stopped
there. But instead it followed with

an obiter dictum. The Court said o It was to help the child, not to
obiter that even if Leoncio, prejudice or discriminate against him.
Quintin's father, were Filipino, • The 1935 Constitution, providing neither conditions
Quintin would not be Filipino nor distinctions, states that among the citizens of the
because Quintin was illegitimate. Philippines are "those whose fathers are citizens of
This statement about Quintin, the Philippines." There utterly is no cogent
based on a contrary to fact justification to prescribe conditions or
assumption, was absolutely distinctions where there clearly are none
unnecessary for the case provided.
§ Aside from the fact that such a
pronouncement would have no
textual foundation in the DISPOSITIVE: Dismissed.
Constitution, it would also violate
the equal protection clause of the
Constitution not once but twice.
First, it would make an illegitimate SEPARATE OPINION
distinction between a legitimate
child and an illegitimate child, and Davide, Jr., CJ
second, it would make an
illegitimate distinction between the • These consolidated petitions must be dismissed.
illegitimate child of a Filipino father • The actions contemplated in the said provision (Sec.
and the illegitimate child of a 4, Article VII) of the Constitution are post-election
Filipino mother. remedies, namely, regular election contests and quo
o What is the relevance of legitimacy or warranto.
illegitimacy to elective public service? o Tecson and Velez should have, instead,
What possible state interest can there resorted to pre-election remedies, such as
be for disqualifying an illegitimate those prescribed in Section 68
child from becoming a public officer. (Disqualifications), in relation to Section 72;
o It was not the fault of the child that his Section 69 (Nuisance candidates); and
parents had illicit liaison. Why deprive the Section 78 (Petition to deny course to or
child of the fullness of political rights for no cancel a certificate of candidacy), in relation
fault of his own? To disqualify an illegitimate to Section 74, of the Omnibus Election
child from holding an important public office Code, which are implemented in Rules 23, 24
is to punish him for the indiscretion of his and 25 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.
parents. There is neither justice nor • Upon the other hand, this Court has jurisdiction over
rationality in that. Fornier’s petition (G.R. No. 161824) under Section 7 of
§ And if there is neither justice nor Article IX-A of the Constitution
rationality in the distinction, then o This Court can also take cognizance of the
the distinction transgresses the issue of whether the COMELEC committed
equal protection clause and must grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
be reprobated or excess of jurisdiction in issuing the
• The other amici curiae, Mr. Justice Vicente Mendoza challenged resolution
(a former member of this Court), Professor Ruben • On the issue of whether private respondent FPJ is a
Balane and Dean Martin Magallona, at bottom, have natural-born Filipino citizen, the following facts have
expressed similar views. been established by a weighty preponderance of
o The thesis of Fornier, unfortunately hinging evidence either in the pleadings and the documents
solely on pure obiter dicta, should indeed attached thereto or from the admissions of the
fail. (BOOM sarado) parties, through their counsels, during the oral
• Where jurisprudence regarded an illegitimate child as arguments:
taking after the citizenship of its mother, it did so o 1. FPJ was born on 20 August 1939 in Manila,
for the benefit the child. It was to ensure a Philippines. 
Filipino nationality for the illegitimate child o 2. FPJ was born to Allan Poe and Bessie
of an alien father in line with the assumption that Kelley. 
the mother had custody, would exercise parental o 3. Bessie Kelley and Allan Poe were married
authority and had the duty to support her illegitimate on 16 September 1940.
child. o 4. Allan Poe was a Filipino because his
father, Lorenzo Poe, albeit a Spanish subject,

was not shown to have declared his o The only legally known parent of an
allegiance to Spain by virtue of the Treaty of illegitimate child, by the fact of illegitimacy,
Paris and the Philippine Bill of 1902. is the mother of the child who conclusively
• From the foregoing it is clear that respondent FPJ was carries the blood of the mother.
born before the marriage of his parents. Thus, o Thus, unless the father acknowledges the
pursuant to the Civil Code then in force, he could illegitimate child at birth, the illegitimate
either be (a) a natural child if both his parents had no child can only acquire the citizenship of the
legal impediments to marry each other; or (b) an only legally known parent - the mother.
illegitimate child if, indeed, Allan Poe was married to • However, if the Filipino father is legally known
another woman who was still alive at the time FPJ was because the filiation of the child to the Filipino father
born. is established in accordance with law, the child follows
• By revolving his case around the illegitimacy of FPJ, the citizenship of the Filipino father.
Fornier effectively conceded paternity or filiation as a Nature
non-issue.
• Since paternity or filiation is in fact admitted by • If the Filipino father acknowledges the illegitimate
petitioner Fornier, the COMELEC committed no child at birth, the child is a natural-born Philippine
grave abuse of discretion in holding that FPJ is a citizen because no other act after his birth is required
Filipino citizen, pursuant to paragraph 3 of Section 1 to acquire or perfect his Philippine citizenship. The
of Article IV of the 1935 Constitution, child possesses all the qualifications to be a Philippine
citizen at birth.
• If the Filipino father acknowledges the child after
DISSENTING OPINION birth, the child is a Philippine citizen as of the time of
the acknowledgment. In this case, the child does not
Carpio, J. possess all the qualifications to be a Philippine citizen
at birth because an act - the acknowledgement of the
Jurisdiction Filipino father - is required for the child to acquire or
perfect his Philippine citizenship
• To hold that the Court acquires jurisdiction to • If the illegitimacy of a child is established, there is no
determine the qualification of a candidate for presumption that the child has the blood of any man
President only after the elections would lead to an who is supposed to be the father.
absurd situation. The Court would have to wait for an o There is only a conclusive presumption that
alien to be elected on election day before he could the child has the blood of the mother. If an
be disqualified to run for President. If the case is not illegitimate child claims to have the blood of
decided immediately after the election, an alien who a man who is supposed to be the child’s
wins the election may even assume office as President father, such blood relation must be
before he is finally disqualified established in accordance with proof of
filiation as required by law.
• Where the illegitimate child of an alien mother claims
Citizenship to follow the citizenship of the putative father, the
burden is on the illegitimate child to establish a blood
• Since FPJ was born on 20 August 1939, his citizenship relation to the putative Filipino father since there is no
at the time of his birth depends on the Constitution presumption that an illegitimate child has the blood
and statutes in force at the time of his birth. of the putative father.
• A legitimate child of a Filipino father follows the • Citizenship, being a matter of public and State
citizenship of the father. A child born within wedlock interest, cannot be conferred on an illegitimate child
is presumed to be the son of the father and thus of an alien mother on the mere say so of the putative
carries the blood of the father. Under the doctrine of Filipino father
jus sanguinis, a legitimate child, by the fact of o The State has a right to examine the veracity
legitimacy, automatically follows the citizenship of the of the claim of paternity. Otherwise, the
Filipino father. grant of Philippine citizenship to an
o An illegitimate child, however, enjoys no illegitimate child of an alien mother is left to
presumption at birth of blood relation to any the sole discretion of the putative Filipino
father unless the father acknowledges the father.
child at birth o The illegitimate child must prove to the
o The law has always required that "in all cases proper administrative or judicial authority the
of illegitimate children, their filiation must be paternity of the alleged Filipino father by
duly proved

"sufficient and convincing documentary • Besides, legitimation vests only civil, not political
evidence." rights, to the legitimated child. The framers of the
• The rationale behind requiring that only natural-born Civil Code had no intention whatsoever to regulate
citizens may hold certain high public offices is to therein political questions.
insure that the holders of these high public offices • Clearly, even assuming that the marriage of Allan F.
grew up knowing they were at birth citizens of the Poe and Bessie Kelley legitimated FPJ, such
Philippines. legitimation did not vest retroactively any civil or
o This is particularly true to the President who political rights to FPJ.
is the commander-in-chief of the armed Treat of Paris and Phil. Bill of 1902
forces. The President of the Philippines must
owe, from birth, allegiance to the Philippines • There is no evidence on record that Lorenzo Pou was
and must have grown up knowing that he a Philippine inhabitant and resident on 11 April 1899.
was a citizen of the Philippines at birth. The date of arrival of Lorenzo Pou in the Philippines is
Proof of Filiation not known. If he arrived in the Philippines after 11
April 1899, then he could not benefit from the mass
Article 131 of the Spanish Civil Code, the law in force
• naturalization under the Treaty of Paris of 1898 and
in 1939, recognized only the following as proof of the Philippine Bill of 1902.
filiation of a natural child: • There is also no evidence that Lorenzo Pou was
o a. acknowledgment in a record of birth;  naturalized as a Philippine citizen after 11 April 1899.
o b. acknowledgment in a will;  Thus, there can be no presumption that Lorenzo Pou
o c. acknowledgment in some other public was a Philippine citizen.
document. • There is also no evidence on record that Allan F. Poe,
• To establish his Philippine citizenship at birth, FPJ the son of Lorenzo Pou and the alleged father of FPJ,
must present either an acknowledgement in a record was naturalized as a Philippine citizen. Thus, based on
of birth, or an acknowledgment in some other public the evidence adduced there is no legal basis for
document executed at the time of his birth. claiming that Allan F. Poe is a Philippine citizen.
• If a person is not a citizen at birth, no subsequent • Whether or not Lorenzo Pou and Allan F. Poe were
legislation can retroactively declare him a citizen at Philippine citizens is not material in resolving whether
birth since it would violate the constitutional FPJ is a natural-born Philippine citizen.
definition of a natural-born citizen. Convention on the Rights of the Child
• Any person who claims to be a citizen of the
Philippines has the burden of proving his Philippine • The Convention defines a child to mean "every
citizenship. Any person who claims to be qualified to human being below the age of eighteen years unless,
run for President because he is, among others, a under the law applicable to the child, majority is
natural-born Philippine citizen, has the burden of attained earlier."
proving he is a natural-born citizen. • Obviously, FPJ cannot invoke the Convention since he
o Since the undisputed facts show that FPJ is is not a child as defined in the Convention, and he
an illegitimate child, having been born out of was born half a century before the Convention came
wedlock, the burden is on FPJ to prove his into existence. FPJ’s citizenship at birth in 1939 could
blood relation to his alleged Filipino father. not in any way be affected by the Convention which
Legitimation entered into force only on 2 September 1990.
• The Convention cannot amend the definition in the
• Under Article 123 of the Spanish Civil Code, Constitution that natural-born citizens are "those who
legitimation took effect as of the date of marriage. are citizens of the Philippines from birth without
There was no retroactivity of the effects of having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their
legitimation on the rights of the legitimated child. Philippine citizenship."
o Thus, a legitimated child acquired the rights • The Convention does not guarantee a child a
of a legitimate child only as of the date of citizenship at birth, but merely "the right to acquire a
marriage of the natural parents. nationality" in accordance with municipal law.
o Allan F. Poe and Bessie Kelley were married The Doctrine in Ching Leng v. Galang
on 16 September 1940 while FPJ was born
more than one year earlier on 20 August • The prevailing doctrine today is that an illegitimate
1939. child of a Filipino father and an alien mother follows
o Assuming that Allan F. Poe was FPJ’s natural the citizenship of the alien mother as the only legally
father, the effects of legitimation did not known parent. The illegitimate child, even if
retroact to the birth of FPJ on 20 August acknowledged and legally adopted by the Filipino
1939. father, cannot acquire the citizenship of the father.

The Court made this definitive doctrinal ruling in have some known lucrative trade, profession, or lawful
Ching Leng v. Galang
occupation;
• The Court categorically ruled that “minor children”
refer to legitimate children only, and not to
illegitimate children.
Fifth. He must be able to speak and write English or Spanish
• Although, adoption gives "to the adopted person the
same rights and duties as if he were a legitimate child and any one of the principal Philippine languages; and cban
of the adopter", pursuant to said Article 341 of our robles virtual law library
Civil Code, we have already seen that the rights
therein alluded to are merely those enumerated in
Sixth. He must have enrolled his minor children of school age,
Article 264, and do not include the acquisition of the
nationality of the adopter. in any of the public schools or private schools recognized by
• Moreover, as used in said section 15 of the the Office of Private Education of the Philippines, where the
Naturalization Law, the term "children" could not Philippine history, government and civics are taught or
possibly refer to those whose relation to the
prescribed as part of the school curriculum, during the entire
naturalized person is one created by legal fiction, as,
period of the residence in the Philippines required of him prior
for instance, by adoption, for, otherwise, the place
and time of birth of the child would be immaterial. to the hearing of his petition for naturalization as Philippine
• Nevertheless, I believe that it is now time to abandon citizen.cban robles virtual law library
the Ching Leng doctrine. The inexorable direction of
the law, both international and domestic in the last
Sec. 3. Special qualifications. The ten years of continuous
100 years, is to eliminate all forms of discrimination
between legitimate and illegitimate children. residence required under the second condition of the last
preceding Sec. shall be understood as reduced to five years for
b. Citizens by naturalization any petitioner having any of the following qualifications:
Commonwealth Act No. 473 1. Having honorably held office under the Government of
the Philippines or under that of any of the provinces, cities,
Sec. 1. Title of Act. – This Act shall be known and may be cited
municipalities, or political subdivisions thereof;
as the "Revised Naturalization Law."
2. Having established a new industry or introduced a useful

Sec. 2. Qualifications. – Subject to Section four of this Act, any
invention in the Philippines;
person having the following qualifications may become a
citizen of the Philippines by naturalization:
3. Being married to a Filipino woman;
First. He must be not less than twenty-one years of age on the 4. Having been engaged as a teacher in the Philippines in a
day of the hearing of the petition; public or recognized private school not established for the
exclusive instruction of children of persons of a particular
nationality or race, in any of the branches of education or
Second. He must have resided in the Philippines for a
industry for a period of not less than two years;
continuous period of not less than ten years;
5. Having been born in the Philippines.
Third. He must be of good moral character and believes in the
principles underlying the Philippine Constitution, and must Sec. 4. Who are disqualified. - The following cannot be
have conducted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner naturalized as Philippine citizens:
during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in
his relation with the constituted government as well as with the 1. Persons opposed to organized government or affiliated
community in which he is living. with any association or group of persons who uphold and
teach doctrines opposing all organized governments;
Fourth. He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not
less than five thousand pesos, Philippine currency, or must 2. Persons defending or teaching the necessity or propriety
of violence, personal assault, or assassination for the success

and predominance of their ideas; declaration of intention. – Persons born in the Philippines and
have received their primary and secondary education in public
3. Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy; schools or those recognized by the Government and not
limited to any race or nationality, and those who have resided
4. Persons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude;
continuously in the Philippines for a period of thirty years or
5. Persons suffering from mental alienation or incurable more before filing their application, may be naturalized without
contagious diseases; having to make a declaration of intention upon complying with
the other requirements of this Act. To such requirements shall
be added that which establishes that the applicant has given
6. Persons who, during the period of their residence in the primary and secondary education to all his children in the
Philippines, have not mingled socially with the Filipinos, or who public schools or in private schools recognized by the
have not evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace the Government and not limited to any race or nationality. The
customs, traditions, and ideals of the Filipinos; same shall be understood to be applicable with respect to the
widow and minor children of an alien who has declared his
7. Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the United intention to become a citizen of the Philippines, and dies
States and the Philippines are at war, during the period of such before he is actually naturalized.
war;
Sec. 7. Petition for citizenship. – Any person desiring to acquire
8. Citizens or subjects of a foreign country other than the Philippine citizenship shall file with the competent court, a
United States whose laws do not grant Filipinos the right to petition in triplicate, accompanied by two photographs of the
become naturalized citizens or subjects thereof. petitioner, setting forth his name and surname; his present and
former places of residence; his occupation; the place and date
of his birth; whether single or married and the father of
Sec. 5. Declaration of intention. – One year prior to the filing of children, the name, age, birthplace and residence of the wife
his petition for admission to Philippine citizenship, the and of each of the children; the approximate date of his or her
applicant for Philippine citizenship shall file with the Bureau of arrival in the Philippines, the name of the port of debarkation,
Justice, a declaration under oath that it is bona fide his and, if he remembers it, the name of the ship on which he
intention to become a citizen of the Philippines. Such came; a declaration that he has the qualifications required by
declaration shall set forth name, age, occupation, personal this Act, specifying the same, and that he is not disqualified for
description, place of birth, last foreign residence and naturalization under the provisions of this Act; that he has
allegiance, the date of arrival, the name of the vessel or complied with the requirements of Sec. five of this Act; and
aircraft, if any, in which he came to the Philippines, and the that he will reside continuously in the Philippines from the date
place of residence in the Philippines at the time of making the of the filing of the petition up to the time of his admission to
declaration. No declaration shall be valid until lawful entry for Philippine citizenship. The petition must be signed by the
permanent residence has been established and a certificate applicant in his own handwriting and be supported by the
showing the date, place, and manner of his arrival has been affidavit of at least two credible persons, stating that they are
issued. The declarant must also state that he has enrolled his citizens of the Philippines and personally know the petitioner
minor children, if any, in any of the public schools or private to be a resident of the Philippines for the period of time
schools recognized by the Office of Private Education of the required by this Act and a person of good repute and morally
Philippines, where Philippine history, government, and civics irreproachable, and that said petitioner has in their opinion all
are taught or prescribed as part of the school curriculum, the qualifications necessary to become a citizen of the
during the entire period of the residence in the Philippines Philippines and is not in any way disqualified under the
required of him prior to the hearing of his petition for provisions of this Act. The petition shall also set forth the
naturalization as Philippine citizen. Each declarant must furnish names and post-office addresses of such witnesses as the
two photographs of himself. cban robles virtual law library petitioner may desire to introduce at the hearing of the case.
The certificate of arrival, and the declaration of intention must
Sec. 6. Persons exempt from requirement to make a be made part of the petition.

Sec. 12. Issuance of the Certificate of Naturalization.—If, after
Sec. 8. Competent court.—The Court of First Instance of the the lapse of thirty days from and after the date on which the
province in which the petitioner has resided at least one year parties were notified of the Court, no appeal has been filed, or
immediately preceding the filing of the petition shall have if, upon appeal, the decision of the court has been confirmed
exclusive original jurisdiction to hear the petition. cban robles by the Supreme Court, and the said decision has become final,
virtual law library the clerk of the court which heard the petition shall issue to the
petitioner a naturalization certificate which shall, among other
Sec. 9. Notification and appearance.—Immediately upon the things, state the following: The file number of the petition, the
filing of a petition, it shall be the duty of the clerk of the court number of the naturalization certificate, the signature of the
to publish the same at petitioner's expense, once a week for person naturalized affixed in the presence of the clerk of the
three consecutive weeks, in the Official Gazette, and in one of court, the personal circumstances of the person naturalized,
the newspapers of general circulation in the province where the dates on which his declaration of intention and petition
the petitioner resides, and to have copies of said petition and a were filed, the date of the decision granting the petition, and
general notice of the hearing posted in a public and the name of the judge who rendered the decision. A
conspicuous place in his office or in the building where said photograph of the petitioner with the dry seal affixed thereto
office is located, setting forth in such notice the name, of the court which granted the petition, must be affixed to the
birthplace and residence of the petitioner, the date and place certificate.
of his arrival in the Philippines, the names of the witnesses
whom the petitioner proposes to introduce in support of his Before the naturalization certificate is issued, the petitioner
petition, and the date of the hearing of the petition, which shall, in open court, take the following oath:
hearing shall not be held within ninety days from the date of
the last publication of the notice. The clerk shall, as soon as "I, ______________________________________, solemnly swear
possible, forward copies of the petition, the sentence, the that I renounce absolutely and forever all allegiance and
naturalization certificate, and other pertinent data to the fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty,
Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Justice, the Provincial and particularly to the ____________________. of which at this
Inspector of the Philippine Constabulary of the province and time I am a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the
the Justice of the Peace of the municipality wherein the Constitution of the Philippines and that I will obey the laws,
petitioner resides. legal orders and decrees promulgated by the duly constituted
authorities of the Commonwealth of the Philippines; [and I
Sec. 10. Hearing of the petition.—No petition shall be heard hereby declare that I recognize and accept the supreme
within thirty days preceding any election. The hearing shall be authority of the United States of America in the Philippines and
public, and the Solicitor-General, either himself or through his will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that I
delegate or the provincial fiscal concerned, shall appear on impose this obligation upon myself voluntarily without mental
behalf of the Commonwealth of the Philippines at all the reservation or purpose of evasion.
proceedings and at the hearing. If, after the hearing, the court
believes, in view of the evidence taken, that the petitioner has "So help me God."
all the qualifications required by, and none of the
disqualifications specified in this Act and has complied with all Sec. 13. Record books.—The clerk of the court shall keep two
requisites herein established, it shall order the proper books; one in which the petition and declarations of intention
naturalization certificate to be issued and the registration of shall be recorded in chronological order, noting all
the said naturalization certificate in the proper civil registry as proceedings thereof from the filing of the petition to the final
required in Section Ten of Act Numbered Three thousand issuance of the naturalization certificate; and another, which
seven hundred and fifty-three. shall be a record of naturalization certificates each page of
which shall have a duplicate which shall be duly attested by the
Sec. 11. Appeal.—The final sentence may, at the instance of clerk of the court and delivered to the petitioner. cban robles
either of the parties, be appealed to the Supreme Court. virtual law library

Sec. 14. Fees.—The clerk of the Court of First Instance shall title or order of nobility in the court to which his application is
charge as fees for recording a petition for naturalization and made, and his renunciation shall be recorded in the court,
for the proceedings in connection therewith, including the unless with the express consent of the National Assembly.
issuance of the certificate, the sum of thirty pesos.
Sec. 18. Cancellation of Naturalization Certificate Issued. -
The Clerk of the Supreme Court shall collect for each appeal Upon motion made in the proper proceedings by the Solicitor-
and for the services rendered by him in connection therewith, General or his representative, or by the proper provincial fiscal,
the sum of twenty-four pesos. the competent judge may cancel the naturalization certificate
issued and its registration in the Civil Register:cralaw
Sec. 15. Effect of the naturalization on wife and children.-Any
woman who is now or may hereafter be married to a citizen of 1. If it is shown that said naturalization certificate was
the Philippines, and who might herself be lawfully naturalized obtained fraudulently or illegally.
shall be deemed a citizen of the Philippines.
2. If the person naturalized shall, within the five years next
Minor children of persons naturalized under this law who have following the issuance of said naturalization certificate, return
been born in the Philippines shall be considered citizens to his native country or to some foreign country and establish
thereof. his permanent residence there: Provided, That the fact of the
person naturalized remaining for more than one year in his
A foreign-born minor child, if dwelling in the Philippines at the native country or the country of his former nationality, or two
time of the naturalization of the parent, shall automatically years in any other foreign country, shall be considered as prima
become a Philippine citizen, and a foreign-born minor child, facie evidence of his intention of taking up his permanent
who is not in the Philippines at the time the parent is residence in the same;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
naturalized, shall be deemed a Philippine citizen only during
his minority, unless he begins to reside permanently in the 3. If the petition was made on an invalid declaration of
Philippines when still a minor, in which case, he will continue to intention;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
be a Philippine citizen even after becoming of age.
4. If it is shown that the minor children of the person
A child born outside of the Philippines after the naturalization naturalized failed to graduate from a public or private high
of his parent, shall be considered a Philippine citizen, unless schools recognized by the Office of Private Education of the
within one year after reaching the age of majority, he fails to Philippines, where Philippine history, government and civics
register himself as a Philippine citizen at the American are taught as part of the school curriculum, through the fault of
Consulate of the country where he resides, and to take the their parents either by neglecting to support them or by
necessary oath of allegiance. transferring hem to another school or schools. A certified copy
of the decree cancelling the naturalization certificate shall be
Sec. 16. Right of Widow and Children of Petitioners who have forwarded by the clerk of the Court to the Department of the
Died. - In case a petitioner should die before the final decision Interior and the Bureau of Justice.
has been rendered, his widow and minor children may
continue the proceedings. The decision rendered in the case 5. If it is shown that the naturalized citizen has allowed
shall, so far as the widow and minor children are concerned, himself to be used as a dummy requiring Philippine citizenship
produce the same legal effect as if it had been rendered as a requisite for the exercise, use or enjoyment of a right,
during the life of the petitioner. franchise or privilege.
Sec. 17. Renunciation of Title or Orders of Nobility. - In case Sec. 19. Penalties for violation of this Act.-Any person who shall
the alien applying to be admitted to citizenship has borne any fraudulently make, falsify, forge, change, alter, or cause or aid
hereditary title, or has been of any of the orders of nobility in any person to do the same, or who shall purposely aid and
the Kingdom or state from which he came, he shall, in addition assist in falsely making, forging, falsifying, changing or altering
to the above requisites, make an express renunciation of his a naturalization certificate for the purpose of making use

thereof, or in order that the same may be used by another the Solicitor General or his representative, is satisfied, and so
finds, that during the intervening time the applicant has (1) not
person or persons, and any person who shall purposely aid and
left the Philippines, (2) has dedicated himself continuously to a
assist another in obtaining a naturalization certificate in lawful calling or profession, (3) has not been convicted of any
violation of the provisions of this Act, shall be punished by a offense or violation of Government promulgated rules, (4) or
fine of not more than five thousand pesos or by imprisonment committed any act prejudicial to the interest of the nation or
for not more than five years, or both, and in the case that the contrary to any Government announced policies.
person convicted is a naturalized citizen his certificate of

Sec. 2. After the finding mentioned in section one, the order
naturalization and the registration of the same in the proper of the court granting citizenship shall be registered and the
civil registry shall be ordered cancelled. oath provided by existing laws shall be taken by the applicant,
whereupon, and not before, he will be entitled to all the
privileges of a Filipino citizen.
Sec. 20. Prescription. - No person shall be prosecuted,
charged, or punished for an offense implying a violation of the
Sec. 3. Such parts of Act Numbered Four hundred seventy-
provisions of this Act, unless the information or complaint is three as are inconsistent with the provisions of the present Act
filed within five years from the detection or discovery of the are hereby repealed.
commission of said offense.
Sec. 4. This Act shall take effect upon its approval, and shall
apply to cases pending in court and to those where the
Sec. 21. Regulation and blanks. - The Secretary of Justice shall applicant has not yet taken the oath of citizenship: Provided,
issue the necessary regulations for the proper enforcement of however, That in pending cases where the requisite of
this Act. Naturalization certificate blanks and other blanks publication under the old law and already been complied with,
the publication herein required shall not apply.
required for carrying out the provisions of this Act shall be
prepared and furnished by the Solicitor-General, subject to the
Approved: June 16, 1950
approval of the Secretary of Justice.
Sec. 22. Repealing clause. - Act Numbered Twenty-nine Republic v. Judge Madella (1969)-- Makalintal, J.
hundred and twenty-seven as amended by Act Numbered FACTS:
Thirty-four hundred and forty-eight, entitled "The • 2 separate petitions for certiorari and prohibition with
preliminary injunction.
Naturalization Law", is repealed: Provided, That nothing in this
• CFI Quezon’s Judge Manolo Maddela rendered a decision in
Act shall be construed to affect any prosecution, suit, action, or
Special Proceeding No. 4012, declaring Miguela Tan Suat, a
proceedings brought, or any act, thing, or matter, civil or Chinese National, a Filipino citizen.
criminal, done or existing before the taking effect of this Act, o It stated that sometime in the year 1937 petitioner was
legally married to Sy Ing Seng, a Filipino citizen; and
but as to all such prosecutions, suits, actions, proceedings,
that the petitioner has all the qualifications and none of
acts, things, or matters, the laws, or parts of laws repealed or the disqualifications to become a Filipino citizen.
amended by this Act are continued in force and effect. o Since the SolGen did not oppose, she was declared a
Filipino citizen by marriage and the Commissioner of
Immigration was ordered to cancel the necessary alien
Sec. 23. Date when this Act shall take effect.-This Act shall take
certificate of registration and immigrant certificate of
effect on its approval. residence of the petitioner and to issue an
identification card.
• On the same day the same court rendered another similarly
Approved: June 17, 1939. worded, decision in its special Proceeding No. 4013, this time in
favor of Chan Po Lan.
R.A. 530 – An Act Making Additional Provisions for • SolGenappealed, asking for an extension of 10 days to file a
Naturalization record on appeal. However, the Clerk of Court failed to forward
said records, and so the petition for certiorari was filed instead,
Section 1. The provisions of existing laws notwithstanding, no including the Commissioner on Immigration.
petition for Philippine citizenship shall be heard by the courts
ISSUE: WON THE JUDICIAL DECLARATION OF
until after six months from the publication of the application
CITIZENSHIP WAS PROPER? -- NO.
required by law, nor shall any decision granting the application
become executory until after two years from its promulgation
and after the court, on proper hearing, with the attendance of

The private respondents' identical prayer in the lower court was for a appeal. It also moved to cancel P’s certificate of
declaration of their Filipino citizenship and for an order to compel the naturalization upon the ground, among others, that it was
Commissioner of Immigration to cancel their respective alien issued and the oath taken before the CFI’s order had
certificates of registration on the ground that they had married become final and executory.
Filipino husbands. In this the court erred, as jurisprudence is clear: no 5. The Court issued an order granting the motion, but at the
person claiming to be a citizen may get a judicial declaration of same time, authorized the taking of a new oath and the
citizenship. issuance of another certificate. Thereafter, the Court
approved the record on appeal and, once more,
• In Tan v. Republic, under our laws, there can be no action or authorized P to take a new oath the validate the first one.
proceeding for the judicial declaration of the citizenship of an
individual.
• Courts of justice exist for the settlement of justiciable ISSUE: WON the 2nd oath of allegiance and certificate of
controversies, which imply a given right, legally demandable
naturalization are valid (NO)
and enforceable, an act or omission violative of said right, and a
remedy, granted or sanctioned by law, for said breach of right.
RATIO:
o As an incident only of the adjudication of the right of the
parties to a controversy, the court may pass upon, and make a
1. At the outset, the 2nd oath of allegiance, certificate of
pronouncement relative to, their status.
naturalization, as well as the authority given therefor by
o Otherwise, such a pronouncement is beyond judicial power.
the LC are null and void.
Thus, for instance, no action or proceeding may be
a. The CFI’s order had not, and up to the present
instituted for a declaration to the effect that plaintiff or
petitioner is married, or single, or a legitimate child, has not, become final and executory in view of
although a finding thereon may be made as a necessary the appeal duly taken by the Government.
premise to justify a given relief available only to one b. Also, P’s 2nd oath was taken, not only after the
enjoying said status. filing of the notice of appeal and the submission
• At times, the law permits the acquisition of a given status, such of the record on appeal, but also after the
as naturalization by judicial decree. approval thereof. Thus, the LC had already lost its
o But there is no similar legislation authorizing the jurisdiction over the case.
institution of a judicial proceeding to declare that a 2. P’s net income in 1960 and 1961 was P3,945.65 and
given person is part of our citizenry. (Tan v. Republic, P5,105.79, respectively. His income tax return showed a
L-14159, April 18, 1960). net income of P6,485.50 for 1962. Considering that P has a
wife and 3 children at the time of the filing of his
DISPOSITIVE: Petition granted. Decision declaring them Filipinos application for naturalization, his income is not a lucrative
set aside. one from the viewpoint of our naturalization laws, namely:
a. P4,200 or P5,000 a year for one married with 5
NOTE: A contempt case was filed against the Clerk of Court for children;
failing to file the records, but since it has shown that it did, and the b. P6,000 a year for one married with 2 minor
same was received by the Court, then such is rendered moot and children; and
academic. c. P6,000 or P6,300 a year for one married with only
one child
3. It is conceded that P has not required from the Minister of
Oh Hek How v Republic (1969) – Concepcion, CJ the Interior of Nationalist China the permission required
by the laws thereof for a valid renunciation of his Chinese
Topic: Citizenship by naturalization citizenship.
a. Sec. 12 of CA No. 473 provides that before the
FACTS: naturalization certificate is issued, the petitioner
shall “solemnly swear,” inter alia, that he
1. A decision was rendered in 1964, granting Oh Hek How’s renounces “absolutely and forever all allegiance
(P’s) petition for naturalization as citizen of the Philippines. and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate” and
2. In 1966, P filed a motion alleging that he had complied particularly to the state “of which” he is “a
with the requirements of RA No. 530 and praying that he subject or citizen.”
be allowed to take his oath of allegiance and issued the b. The obvious purpose of this requirement is to
corresponding certificate of naturalization. divest him of his former nationality, otherwise, he
3. The CFI of Zamboanga del Norte issued an order would have two nationalities and owe allegiance
authorizing the taking of said oath. Thereafter, P took it, to two distinct sovereignties, which our laws do
and the certificate of naturalization was issued to him. not permit.
4. The Government seasonably gave notice of its intention to c. Exception: Pursuant to RA No. 2639, "the
appeal from the order of the CFI, and filed its record on acquisition of citizenship by a natural-born

Filipino citizen from one of the Iberian and any Notice of hearing was sent to the Solicitor General and duly
friendly democratic Ibero-American countries published. The Solicitor General opposed and moved to
shall not produce loss or forfeiture of his dismiss the petition on two main grounds, viz: (1) that "there is
Philippine citizenship, if the law of that country no proceeding established by law, or the rules for the judicial
grants the same privilege to its citizens and such declaration of the citizenship of an individual"; and (2) that as
had been agreed upon by treaty between the an application for Philippine citizenship, "the petition is fatally
Philippines and the foreign country from which defective for failure to contain or mention the essential
citizenship is acquired." allegations required under Section 7 of the Naturalization
d. The question of how a Chinese citizen may strip Law", such as, among others, petitioner's former places of
himself of that status is necessarily governed, residence, and the absence of the affidavits of at least two
pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of our Civil Code, supporting witnesses.
by the laws of China, and not by those of the
Philippines. Trial was held on December 18, 1964, with Burca as sole
witness. Judgment was rendered in her favor.
Burca vs. Republic (1967 – Original Case)2
January 30, 1967 Issues:
Sanchez, J. (1) WON an alien woman who marries a Filipino citizen
automatically acquires Philippine citizenship.
Doctrine: (2) How shall an alien woman who marries a Filipino citizen be
(1) An alien woman married to a Filipino who desires to be a deemed to have acquired Philippine citizenship?
citizen of this country must apply therefor by filing a petition (3) Was Burca able to meet the requirements set forth in the
for citizenship reciting that she possesses all the qualifications Naturalization Law?
set forth in Section 2, and none of the disqualifications under
Section 4, both of the Revised Naturalization Law; Held/Ratio:
(2) Said petition must be filed in the Court of First Instance (1) No. By constitutional and legal precepts, an alien woman
where petitioner has resided at least one year immediately who marries a Filipino citizen, does not — by the mere fact of
preceding the filing of the petition; and marriage - automatically become a Filipino citizen.
(3) Any action by any other office, agency, board or official, Thus, by Article IV of the Constitution3, citizenship is limited to:
administrative or otherwise — other than the judgment of a (1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at
competent court of justice — certifying or declaring that an the time of the adoption of this Constitution.
alien wife of the Filipino citizen is also a Filipino citizen, is (2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign
hereby declared null and void. parents who, before the adoption of this Constitution,
had been elected to public office in the Philippine
Facts: Islands.
Petitioner Zita Ngo Burca (“Burca”) was born in Gigaquit, (3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines.
Surigao (now Surigao del Norte), on March 30, 1933. Her father (4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the
was Ngo Tay Suy and her mother was Dee See (“Lee Co”), Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority,
already deceased, and citizens of Nationalist Republic of elect Philippine citizenship.
China. Burca holds Native Born Certificate of Residence 46333 (5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
and Alien Certificate of Registration A-148054. She married
Florencio Burca a native-born Filipino, on May 14, 1961. And, on the specific legal status of an alien woman married to
a citizen of the Philippines, Congress — in paragraph 1,
Burca then filed a petition to have herself declared "as Section 15 of the Revised Naturalization Law legislated the
possessing all qualifications and none of the qualifications for following:
naturalization under Commonwealth Act 473 for the purpose of “Any woman who is now or may hereafter be married
cancelling her Alien Registry with the Bureau of Immigration". to a citizen of the Philippines, and who might herself
In her petition she averred that she is of legal age, married to be lawfully naturalized shall be deemed a citizen of
Florencio Burca, a Filipino citizen, and a resident of Real St., the Philippines.”
Ormoc City; that before her marriage, she was a Chinese
citizen, subject of Nationalist China, with ACR No. A-148054; Jurisprudence has since stabilized the import of the
that she was born on March 30, 1933 in Gigaquit, Surigao, and constitutional and statutory precepts just quoted with a
holder of Native Born Certificate of Residence No. 46333. uniform pronouncement that an alien wife of a Filipino citizen
may not acquire the status of a citizen of the Philippines
unless there is proof that she herself may be lawfully
naturalized. Which means that, in line with the national policy
2
IN RE petition to declare ZITA NGO to possess all qualifications and none of
the disqualifications for naturalization under Commonwealth Act 473 for the
purpose of cancelling her alien registry with the BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION. 3
1935 Constitution.

of selective admission to Philippine citizenship, the wife must proceedings and as a matter of course. An alien wife of a
possess the qualifications under Section 24, and must not be Filipino does not fit into either of the categories just
laboring under any of the disqualifications enumerated in mentioned. Legal action has to be taken to make her a
Section 45, of the Revised Naturalization Law citizen.
Indeed, the political privilege of citizenship should not be If an alien woman married to a Filipino does not become ipso
granted to any alien woman on the sole basis of her marriage facto a citizen, then she must have to file a "petition for
to a Filipino — "irrespective of moral character, ideological citizenship" in order that she may acquire the status of a
beliefs, and identification with Filipino ideals, customs and Filipino citizen. Authority for this view is Section 7 of the
traditions". Revised Naturalization Law in which the plain language is: "Any
person desiring to acquire Philippine citizenship, shall file with
(2) On the premise that such an alien woman does not, by the the competent court" a petition for the purpose. And this,
fact of marriage, acquire Philippine citizenship, Sec. 15 of the because such alien woman is not a citizen, and she desires
Revised Naturalization Law provides that she "shall be deemed to acquire it. The proper forum, Section 8 of the same law
a citizen of the Philippines" if she "might herself be lawfully points out, is the Court of First Instance of the province where
naturalized". the petitioner has resided "at least one year immediately
An examination of the Revised Naturalization Law is quite preceding the filing of the petition". From this, it is quite plain
revealing. For instance, minor children of persons naturalized that the determination of whether said alien wife should be
under the law who were born in the Philippines "shall be given the status of a citizen should fall within the area allocated
considered citizens thereof". Similarly, a foreign-born minor to competent courts
child, if dwelling in the Philippines at the time of the
naturalization of the parents, "shall automatically become a We accordingly rule that: (1) An alien woman married to a
Filipino citizen". No conditions are exacted; citizenship of said Filipino who desires to be a citizen of this country must apply
minor children is conferred by the law itself, without further therefor by filing a petition for citizenship reciting that she
possesses all the qualifications set forth in Section 2, and none
of the disqualifications under Section 4, both of the Revised
4
Section 2. Qualifications. – Subject to section four of this Act, any person
having the following qualifications may become a citizen of the Philippines by Naturalization Law; (2) Said petition must be filed in the Court
naturalization: of First Instance where petitioner has resided at least one year
First. He must be not less than twenty-one years of age on the day of the hearing immediately preceding the filing of the petition; and (3) Any
of the petition;
Second. He must have resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of not
action by any other office, agency, board or official,
less than ten years; administrative or otherwise — other than the judgment of a
Third. He must be of good moral character and believes in the principles competent court of justice — certifying or declaring that an
underlying the Philippine Constitution, and must have conducted himself in a
alien wife of the Filipino citizen is also a Filipino citizen, is
proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in
the Philippines in his relation with the constituted government as well as with the hereby declared null and void.
community in which he is living.
Fourth. He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than five (3) Burca was not able to satisfactorily meet the
thousand pesos, Philippine currency, or must have some known lucrative trade,
profession, or lawful occupation;
requirements set forth in the Naturalization Law. We
Fifth. He must be able to speak and write English or Spanish and any one of the note that the petition avers that petitioner was born in
principal Philippine languages; and Gigaquit, Surigao that her former residence was Surigao,
Sixth. He must have enrolled his minor children of school age, in any of the
Surigao, and that presently she is residing at Regal St., Ormoc
public schools or private schools recognized by the Office of Private Education1
of the Philippines, where the Philippine history, government and civics are taught City. In court, however, she testified that she also resided in
or prescribed as part of the school curriculum, during the entire period of the Junquera St., Cebu, where she took up a course in home
residence in the Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of his petition for economics, for one year. Section 7 of the Naturalization Law
naturalization as Philippine citizen.
5
Section 4. Who are disqualified. - The following cannot be naturalized as
requires that a petition for naturalization should state
Philippine citizens: petitioner's "present and former places of residence".
Persons opposed to organized government or affiliated with any association or Residence encompasses all places where petitioner actually
group of persons who uphold and teach doctrines opposing all organized
and physically resided. Cebu, where she studied for one year,
governments;
Persons defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence, personal perforce comes within the term residence. The reason for
assault, or assassination for the success and predominance of their ideas; exacting recital in the petition of present and former places of
Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy; residence is that "information regarding petitioner and
Persons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude;
Persons suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases;
objection to his application are apt to be provided by people
Persons who, during the period of their residence in the Philippines, have not in his actual, physical surrounding". And the State is deprived
mingled socially with the Filipinos, or who have not evinced a sincere desire to of full opportunity to make inquiries as to petitioner's fitness to
learn and embrace the customs, traditions, and ideals of the Filipinos;
become a citizen, if all the places of residence do not appear in
Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the United States and the Philippines
are at war, during the period of such war; the petition. So it is, that failure to allege a former place of
Citizens or subjects of a foreign country other than the United States whose laws residence is fatal.
do not grant Filipinos the right to become naturalized citizens or subjects
thereof.

There is another flaw in Burca's petition. It is not supported understood and construed when the phrase 'who may be
by the affidavit of at least two credible persons, lawfully naturalized', found in the American statute from which
"stating that they are citizens of the Philippines and personally it was borrowed and copied verbatim, was applied by the
know the petitioner to be a resident of the Philippines for the American courts and administrative authorities. Even after
period of time required by this Act and a person of good America made it patently clear in the Act of Congress of
repute and morally irreproachable, and that said petitioner has September 22, 1922 that alien women marrying Americans
in their opinion all the qualifications necessary to become a cannot be citizens of the United States without undergoing
citizen of the Philippines and is not in any way disqualified naturalization proceedings, our legislators still chose to adopt
under the provisions of this Act". She likewise failed to "set the previous American law of August 10, 1855 as embodied
forth the names and post-office addresses of such witnesses as later in Section 1994 of the Revised Statutes of 1874, which, it is
the petitioner may desire to introduce at the hearing of the worth reiterating, was consistently and uniformly understood as
case". conferring American citizenship to alien women marrying
Americans ipso facto, without having to submit to any
The necessity for the affidavit of two witnesses cannot be naturalization proceeding and without having to prove that
overlooked. It is important to know who those witnesses are. they possess the special qualifications of residence, moral
The State should not be denied the opportunity to check on character, adherence to American ideals and American
their background to ascertain whether they are of good constitution, provided they could show they did not suffer from
standing in the community, whose word may be taken on its any of the disqualifications enumerated in the American
face value, and who could serve as "good warranty of the Naturalization Law.
worthiness of the petitioner". These witnesses should indeed
prove in court that they are reliable insurers of the character of It is not necessary for alien wife of a Filipino citizen to resort to
petitioner. Short of this, the petition must fail. Here, the case the procedure naturalization cases before she can be declared
was submitted solely on the testimony of the petitioner and no a citizen reason of her marriage. There is no such existing
other witnesses were presented. This does not meet with the procedure. However, the Court suggested the following steps
legal requirement. to be considered: The alien woman must file a petition for the
cancellation of her alien certificate of registration alleging,
Burca vs. Republic (1973 – Motion for Reconsideration) among other things, that she is married to a Filipino citizen and
June 15, 1973 that she is not disqualified from acquiring her husband's
Antonio, J. citizenship pursuant to section 4 of Commonwealth Act No.
473, as amended. Upon the filing of said petition, which should
Facts: be accompanied or supported by the joint affidavit of the
Same facts with the first case. Except that on October 4, 1971, petitioner and her Filipino husband to the effect that the
however, before petitioner's motion for reconsideration could petitioner does not belong to any of the groups disqualified by
be resolved, this Court rendered decision in the case of Moy the cited section from becoming naturalized Filipino citizen,
Ya Lim Yao, etc., et al. vs. Commissioner of Immigration, G.R. the Bureau of Immigration conducts an investigation and
No. L-21289, which, effect, passed on all the issues raised in thereafter promulgates its order or decision granting or
said motion favorably to petitioner's position. Accordingly, and denying the petition.' Once the Commissioner of Immigration
there being sufficient number of members of the Court in favor cancels the subject's registration as an alien, there will
of maintaining the ruling in the Moy Ya Lim Yao case, the probably be less difficulty in establishing her Filipino
decision in this case should be modified. citizenship in any other proceeding, depending naturally on
the substance and vigor of the opposition.
Held:
In the decision of this Court in this case rendered on January It is the view of the majority of the Court that insofar as the
30, 1967, the position of the Solicitor General was upheld the decision in the case at bar conflicts with the above rulings laid
above judgment of the trial court was reversed, the Court down in Moy Ya Lim Yao, it should be reconsidered and
holding (1) that the only means by which the alien wife Filipino modified.
citizen may have herself declared as having become a Filipino
citizen by reason of her marriage is through compliance with However, we cannot grant petitioner-appellee's prayer for the
the procedure for naturalization contained in the Naturalization affirmance of the trial court's judgment declaring her a Filipino
Law, Commonwealth Act 473, and (2) in said proceeding aside citizen. It must be noted that the sole and only purpose of the
from the showing that she is laboring under any of the petition is to have petitioner declared a Filipino citizen. Under
disqualifications enumerate Section 4, thereof, she must prove our laws there can be no judicial action or proceeding for the
that she possesses all qualifications under Section 2 of the declaration of the citizenship of an individual. It is as an
same statute. incident only of the adjudication of the rights of the parties to a
controversy, that the courts may pass upon, and make a
In Moy Ya Lim Yao, the Court held that Section 15 of the pronouncement relative to, their status.
Naturalization Law be given effect in the same way as it was

It has been the constant doctrine of this Court, that a final and dismiss the case, which was denied. Commissioner then went
executory decision the question of citizenship, by a court other up to the SC which reversed the lower court, and enjoined the
than in naturalization proceedings, or by an administrative Uy family from representing themselves as Filipinos.
body, generally not considered binding in other cases and for
other purpose than that specifically involved in the case where Doctrine: Temporary visitors could not have their status
such decision is rendered. Thus for instance, in a case involving changed to special non-immigrants without first departing
the determination of the citizenship of a party as a prerequisite from the country. The wife does not, under Sec. 15 of the
to the exercise of a license, franchise or privilege, such as Revised Naturalization Law, automatically become a Filipino
operation of a public utility, and where the administration citizen on account of her marriage to a naturalized Filipino
agency concerned shall have found as an established fact to citizen, since she must first prove that she possesses all the
the applicant is a Filipino citizen, even if such finding, may have qualifications and none of the disqualifications for
been affirmed by this Court on appeal, the same will be naturalization. As to the two minor children, foreign born minor
considered as conclusive on the question of such citizenship. children are extended citizenship “if dwelling in the Ph at the
time of the naturalization of the parent.” (Vivo v. Cloribel 1966)
We declare it to be a sound rule that where the citizenship of a “DWELLING” means lawful residence. Since prior to their
party in a case is definitely resolved by a court or by an father’s taking the oath of citizenship, their lawful period of stay
administrative agency, as a material issue in the controversy, had already expired, the minor children were required to leave,
after a full-blown hearing with the active participation of the thus the requisite of dwelling does not apply.
Solicitor General or his authorized representative, and this
finding or the citizenship of the party is affirmed by this Court, FACTS:
the decision on the matter shall constitute conclusive proof of
such party's citizenship in any other case or proceeding. But it Chua Pic Luan, a Chinese mother, and her minor children, Uy
is made clear that in no instance will a decision on the question Koc Siong and Uy Tian Siong, arrived from HK and were
of citizenship in such cases be considered conclusive or admitted as temporary visitors for an initial authorized stay of 3
binding in any other case or proceeding, unless obtained in months in Oct. 1960. . The husband/father of these aliens, Uy
accordance with the procedure herein stated. Pick Tuy, had applied for naturalization, which CFI Manila had
granted in April 1961.
Thus, in order that the doctrine of res judicata may be applied
in cases of citizenship, the following must be present: 1) a The temporary visitors were initially granted by the Secretary of
person's citizenship must be raised as a material issue in a Foreign Affairs Serrano a change in category from temporary
controversy where said person is a party; 2) the Solicitor visitors to special non-immigrants under Sec. 47 (a) (2) of the
General or his authorized representative took active part in the Immigration Law for a period extending up to April 11, 1963.
resolution thereof, and 3) the finding or citizenship is affirmed Sec. of Foreign Affairs was acting pursuant to Cabinet
by this Court. Resolution that granted him concurrent jurisdiction to act on
petitions for extension of stay of temporary visitors. The
Secretary of Justice Mabanag approved the extension, subject
to the condition that the mother and children secure reentry
3. Procedure for naturalization permits to HK valid at least two months over and beyond their
extended stay, and maintain cash bonds with the Bureau of
Vivo v. Cloribel –Reyes, J.B.L. Immigration. However, Commissioner of Immigration refused
Petitioner: Hon. Martiniano Vivo (Acting) Commissioner of to recognize their extension beyond June 1962 and denied
Immigration acceptance of payment of extension fees.
Respondents: Judge Cloribel, CFI Manila Branch VI, Chua
Pic Luan, Uy Koc Siong, Uy Tian Siong The Uy family requested from the Office of the President of the
Concept: Procedure for Naturalization Ph to extend their stay to coincide with the oath-taking of
allegiance of the father of the family, but the new Secretary of
Short Facts: The Uy family (mother and two minor children) Justice Diokno informed them that the initial Cabinet
entered the Ph for a temporary visit, but later requested for Resolution had no force and effect and thus denied their
extension of their stay until the father of the family can take his request for extension, advising that they leave the country not
naturalization oath. The Secretaries of Foreign and Affairs and later than June 1962.
Justice originally granted the extension, but the Commissioner
of Immigration later declared the extension invalid, stating that Instead of leaving, the Uy family filed a petition for mandamus
the Uy family’s visiting period could not go beyond June 1962. with injunction with the CFI to restrain the Commissioner of
The Uy Family filed a petition for injunction with the lower Immigration from issuing a warrant for their arrest and from
courts to restrain the Commissioner of Immigration from confiscating their bond for temporary stay, and to implement
issuing a warrant for their arrest. The civil case was delayed for the extension that was previously authorized.
three years until finally the Commissioner filed a motion to

At hearing, the Uy Family argued that their extension had been makes no distinctions, and no officer is above the law.
authorized by the Secretaries of Foreign Affairs and Justice, Otherwise, aliens would be encouraged to enter the
they were due for eventual conversion into Filipino citizens by Ph on false pretenses, being permitted to enter for a
virtue of granting of the father’s petition for naturalization since limited time, but then claiming a right to permanent
he was due to take his oath of allegiance on April 11, 1963, and admission. (Chiong Tiao Bing v. CIR)
to be forced to leave the Ph would work great injury. CFI - The Secretaries did not act as alter egos of the
granted their petition for preliminary injunction. President, which the Uy family was well aware of, or
else they would not have written to the President after
Commissioner of Immigration filed an answer stating that the receiving the Secretaries’ indorsements.
authorized stay of the Uy family had expired, that their - The wife does not, under Sec. 15 of the
extension was invalid as subsequently ruled by the successors Revised Naturalization Law, automatically
Secretaries of Foreign Affairs and of Justice, and that it was the become a Filipino citizen on account of her
Commissioner of Immigration who was vested with power to marriage to a naturalized Filipino citizen,
grant extensions of stay. Furthermore, even if the father since she must first prove that she possesses
becomes a Filipino citizen, his wife would not automatically all the qualifications and none of the
become a Filipino citizen, since she had yet to show that she disqualifications for naturalization.
can be lawfully naturalized. o She misrepresented before the Ph consular and
administrative authorities that she cme to the Ph
After three years of the case not being heard, the only for a temporary visit, when her true intention
Commissioner filed an MTD, which was denied. The was to stay permanently.
Commissioner filed an action for certiorari with the SC o For having intentionally delayed court processes
contesting the preliminary injunction granted by the lower to better prolong her stay, she failed to satisfy the
court. The SC restrained the UY family from representing qualifications under Sec. 2 of the Revised
themselves to be Filipinos. Naturalization Law, that she be of good moral
character and conduct herself in a proper and
ISSUE: irreproachable manner during her entire period
of residence in the Ph.
1. Which was the expiry date of the Uy family’s stay, June o Having lived in the Ph from Oct. 1960 to June
1962, as fixed by the Immigration Commissioner, or April 1962, she also failed to meet the required
1963, as authorized by the indorsements by the qualification of continuous residence in the Ph for
Secretaries of Foreign Affairs and Justice? June 1962, as 10 years, her stay beyond June 1962 having
fixed by the Immigration Commissioner. become illegal.
2. WON temporary visitors may change their status to special - As to the two minor children, foreign born
non-immigrants without first departing from the country. minor children are extended citizenship “if
NO dwelling in the Ph at the time of the
naturalization of the parent.” (Vivo v. Cloribel
RATIO: 1966)
o “DWELLING” means lawful residence.
1. The Cabinet Resolution of Feb. 1956 did not Since prior to their father’s taking the
specifically authorize the Secretaries of Foreign oath of citizenship, their lawful period of
Affairs and of Justice to extend the stay of the stay had already expired, the minor
temporary visitors, because under the express children were required to leave, thus the
provisions of the Immigration Law, it is the requisite of dwelling does not apply.
Commissioner of Immigration who is vested with - The Uy family likewise cannot claim any right to stay
power and authority to grant such extensions. The coterminous with the result of the naturalization of the
Cabinet has no power to amend or modify the law, father because their authorized stay was for a definite
nor may the two Secretaries authorize the change of period, up to a fixed day, incompatible with the
status from temporary visitors to special non termination of the naturalization proceeding, which
immigrants. (Lim Chiok et al v. Vivo (1963)). has no definite date.
- The Uy family likewise cannot invoke Civil Code
provisions involving family relations (i.e. that a two
2. [SYLABBUS TOPIC] Temporary visitors could not year old child cannot be separated from the mother,
have their status changed to special non-immigrants that the father has the right to fix the residence of the
without first departing from the country. family, and that the minor children and wife are
- No officer can relieve an alien of the departure obliged to live with him), because these provisions
requirements of Sec. 9 of the Immigration Act, under govern relations between husband and wife i.e.
the guise of “change” or “correction” for the law private persons, and not relations between a visiting

alien and the sovereign host country. Being aliens, subsequently naturalized here follows the Philippine citizenship
they are not in the position to invoke the of her husband the moment he takes his oath as Filipino
Civil Code of the Philippines, for their family citizen, provided that she does not suffer from any of the
rights and duties are governed by their
disqualifications under said Section 4.
personal law, i.e. the law of the nation to
which they belong even when staying in a
foreign country. Facts
- Respondent judge, by refusing to dismiss the case 1. Lau Yuen Yeung applied for a passport visa to enter the
and allowing the alien visitors to remain in the country PH as a non-immigrant, stating that she was a Chinese
for as long as the case remained pending, abusively residing in Hong Kong and that she desired to take a
arrogated unto himself the power to grant extensions pleasure trip in PH and to visit her great-grand uncle.
of stay to temporary visitors, a power that is vested,
• This was approved for a limited period of 1
by law, to the Commissioner of Immigration.
month after filing a bond of P1,000. After
DISPOSITIVE: Injunction issued by the judge set aside, repeated extensions, she was allowed to stay
respondent judge permanently restrained from assuming until February 1962.
jurisdiction over the case except to dismiss it as moot and 2. On January 1962, she contracted marriage with Moy Yao
academic. Injunction by the SC enjoining the Uy family from who was an alleged Filipino citizen.
representing themselves as Filipinos made permanent.
3. When the COI tried to deport her and confiscate her
bond, she filed a writ of injunction to enjoin the action.
Moy Ya Lim Yao vs Commissioner of Immigration (1971)—
• At the hearing, it was admitted that
Barredo, J.
petitioner Lau Yuen Yeung could not write
Petitioner: Moy Ya Lim Yao and Lau Yuen Yeung
either English or Tagalog. Except for a few
Respondents: Commissioner of Immigration
words, she could not speak either English or
Concept: Personal Laws
Tagalog. She could not name any Filipino
neighbor, with a Filipino name except one,
Brief Facts: On 8 February 1961, Lau Yuen Yeung applied for
Rosa. She did not know the names of her
a passport visa to enter the Philippines as a non-immigrant, for
brothers-in-law, or sisters-in-law.
a temporary visitor's visa to enter the Philippines. She was
4. The point of contention is the following provision:
permitted to come into the Philippines on 13 March 1961. On
Sec. 15 of the Naturalization Law provides that :
the date of her arrival, Asher Y, Cheng filed a bond in the
“Effect of the naturalization on wife and children. —
amount of P1,000.00 to undertake, among others, that said Lau
Any woman who is now or may hereafter be married
Yuen Yeung would actually depart from the Philippines on or
to a citizen of the Philippines, and who might herself
before the expiration of her authorized period of stay in this
be lawfully naturalized shall be deemed a citizen of
country or within the period as in his discretion the
the Philippines.” Minor children of persons
Commissioner of Immigration. After repeated extensions, she
naturalized under this law who have been born in the
was allowed to stay in the Philippines up to 13 February 1962.
Philippines shall be considered citizens thereof.
On 25 January 1962, she contracted marriage with Moy Ya Lim
Yao alias Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim an alleged Filipino citizen.
A foreign-born minor child, if dwelling in the
Because of the contemplated action of the Commissioner of
Philippines at the time of the naturalization of the
Immigration to confiscate her bond and order her arrest and
parent, shall automatically become a Philippine
immediate deportation, after the expiration of her authorized
citizen, and a foreign-born child, who is not in the
stay, she brought an action for injunction with preliminary
Philippines at the time the parent is naturalized, shall
injunction. The Court of First Instance of Manila (Civil Case
be deemed a Philippine citizen only during his
49705) denied the prayer for preliminary injunction. Moya Lim
minority, unless he begins to reside permanently in
Yao and Lau Yuen Yeung appealed.
the Philippines when still a minor, in which case, he
will continue to be a Philippine citizen even after
Doctrine: Under Section 15 of Commonwealth Act 473, an
becoming of age.
alien woman marrying a Filipino, native born or naturalized,
becomes ipso facto a Filipina provided she is not disqualified
A child born outside of the Philippines after the
to be a citizen of the Philippines under Section 4 of the same
naturalization of his parent, shall be considered a
law. Likewise, an alien woman married to an alien who is
Philippine citizen unless within one year after reaching

the age of majority he fails to register himself as a assumption of our nationality by whatever legal
Philippine citizen at the American Consulate of the means this has been conferred upon him.
country where he resides, and to take the necessary • In summary, the applicable statute itself more than
oath of allegiance. implies that the naturalization of an alien visitor
as a Philippine citizen logically produces the
TC: denied the writ of injunction. The clause "who might effect of conferring upon him ipso facto all
herself be lawfully naturalized" incontestably implies that an the rights of citizenship including that of
alien woman may be deemed a citizen of the Philippines by being entitled to permanently stay in the
virtue of her marriage to a Filipino citizen only if she Philippines outside the orbit of authority of the
possesses all the qualifications and none of the Commissioner of Immigration vis-a-vis aliens, if only
disqualifications specified in the law, because these are because by its very nature and express
the explicit requisites provided by law for an alien to be provisions, the Immigration Law is a law only
naturalized. In the case at bar, the petitioner lacked the for aliens and is inapplicable to citizens of
required length of residency. Furthermore, the marriage the Philippines
was only contracted for her convenience and to circumvent the • The phrase "who might herself be lawfully
law. naturalized", as contained in the above provision,
Issue: means that the woman who is married to a Filipino
1. Whether or not Lau Yuen Yeung became ipso facto a citizen must not belong to any of the disqualified
Filipino citizen upon her marriage to a Filipino citizen. classes enumerated in Section 4 of the Naturalization
(YES) Law. It may be stated, therefore, that
Ruling: according to the above decisions, the law in
1. YES. An alien woman, upon her marriage to a this country, on the matter of the effect of
Filipino citizen, becomes lawfully naturalized marriage of an alien woman to a Filipino is
ipso facto, provided that she does not that she thereby becomes a Filipina, if it can
possess all of the disqualifications be proven that at the time of such marriage,
enumerated in CA 473 she does not possess any of the
• The provision requiring a non-immigrant admitted to disqualifications enumerated in Section 4 of
the PH to leave the country and go to a foreign the Naturalization Law, without the need of
country to secure a visa from a Philippine Consulate submitting to any naturalization proceedings
does not apply to aliens who after coming into the under said law.\
Philippines as temporary visitors, legitimately become • Procedure for Naturalization by an alien
Filipino citizens or acquire Filipino citizenship. Such woman married to a Filipino Citizen:
change of nationality naturally bestows upon their the 1. The alien woman must file a petition for the
right to stay in the Philippines permanently or not, as cancellation of her alien certificate of
they may choose, and if they elect to reside here, the registration alleging, among other things,
immigration authorities may neither deport them nor that she is married to a Filipino citizen and
confiscate their bonds. that she is not disqualified from acquiring
• True it is that this Court has vehemently expressed her husband's citizenship pursuant to section
disapproval of convenient ruses employed by alien to 4 of Commonwealth Act No. 473, as
convert their status from temporary visitors to amended.
permanent residents in circumvention of the 2. Upon the filing of said petition, which should
procedure prescribed, we cannot see any reason why be accompanied or supported by the joint
an alien who has been here as a temporary visitor but affidavit of the petitioner and her Filipino
who has in the meanwhile become a Filipino should husband to the effect that the petitioner
be required to still leave the Philippines for a foreign does not belong to any of the groups
country, only to apply thereat for a re-entry here and disqualified by the cited section from
undergo the process of showing that he is entitled to becoming naturalized Filipino citizen (please
come back, when after all, such right has become see attached CEB Form 1), the Bureau of
incontestible as a necessary concomitant of his Immigration conducts an investigation and

thereafter promulgates its order or decision alien wife related by marriage to a Filipino citizen to
granting or denying the petition become such citizen, than for a foreigner who is not
• There is also need for such an alien woman to so related. And yet, it seems more than clear that the
possess the qualifications required by Sec. 2, general purpose of the first paragraph of Section 15
such as those of age, residence, good moral was obviously to accord to an alien woman, by reason
character, adherence to the underlying principles of of her marriage to a Filipino, a privilege not similarly
the Philippine Constitution, irreproachable conduct, granted to other aliens. It will be recalled that prior to
lucrative employment or ownership of real estate, the enactment of Act No. 3448 in 1928, amending Act
capacity to speak and write English or Spanish and No. 2927 (the old Naturalization Law), there was no
one of the principal local languages, education of law granting any special privilege to alien wives of
children in certain schools, etc., Filipinos. They were treated as any other foreigner. It
• The phrase, "shall be deemed a citizen," was precisely to remedy this situation that the
while it may imply that the person to whom it Philippine legislature enacted Act No. 3448. If
relates has not actually become a citizen by Section 15 of the, Revised Naturalization Law
ordinary means or in the usual way, as by the were to be interpreted, as this Court did, in
judgment of a competent court, upon a such a way as to require that the alien wife
proper application and proof, yet it does not must prove the qualifications prescribed in
follow that such person is on that account Section 2, the privilege granted to alien
practically any the less a citizen. The word wives would become illusory. It is submitted
"deemed" is the equivalent of that such a construction, being contrary to
"considered" or "judged"; and, the manifested object of the statute must be
therefore, whatever an act of rejected.
Congress requires to be "deemed" or • There is also no need for judicial proceedings
"taken" as true of any person or to confer the alien woman Filipino
thing, must, in law, be considered as citizenship. The phrases "shall be deemed" "shall
having been duly adjudged or be considered," and "shall automatically become" as
established concerning "such person used in the above provision, are undoubtedly
or thing, and have force and effect synonymous. The leading idea or purpose of the
accordingly provision was to confer Philippine citizenship by
• There is need to emphasize that in reality operation of law upon certain classes of aliens as a
and in effect, the so called racial legal consequence of their relationship, by blood or
requirements, whether under the American by affinity, to persons who are already citizens of the
laws or the Philippine laws, have hardly been Philippines. Whenever the fact of relationship of the
considered as qualifications in the same persons enumerated in the provision concurs with the
sense as those enumerated in Section 3 of fact of citizenship of the person to whom they are
Act 2927 and later in Section 2 of related, the effect is for said persons to become ipso
Commonwealth Act 473. More accurately, facto citizens of the Philippines
they have always been considered as • "Ipso facto" as here used does not mean that all alien
disqualifications, in the sense that those who wives and all minor children of Philippine citizens,
did not possess them were the ones who from the mere fact of relationship, necessarily
could not "be lawfully naturalized," just as if become such citizens also. Those who do not meet
they were suffering from any of the the statutory requirements do not ipso facto become
disqualifications under Section 2 of Act 2927 citizens; they must apply for naturalization in order to
and later those under Section 4 of acquire such status. What it does mean, however, is
Commonwealth Act 473, which, incidentally, that in respect of those persons enumerated in
are practically identical to those in the Section 15, the relationship to a citizen of the
former law, except those in paragraphs (f) Philippines is the operative fact which establishes the
and (h) of the latter acquisition of Philippine citizenship by them.
• Treating Sec. 15 as a requirement rather than a Necessarily, it also determines the point of
disqualification would make it more difficult for an time at which such citizenship commences.

Thus, under the second paragraph of Section 15, a Decision: Petition reversed
minor child of a Filipino naturalized under the law,
who was born in the Philippines, becomes ipso facto a 4. Loss of Philippine citizenship
citizen of the Philippines from the time the fact of
Frivaldo v. COMELEC (1989)
relationship concurs with the fact of citizenship of his
parent, and the time when the child became a citizen
Petitioner: Juan Gallanosa Frivaldo
does not depend upon the time that he is able to
prove that he was born in the Philippines. The child Respondent: COMELEC and The League of Municipalities,
may prove some 25 years after the naturalization of Sorsogon Chapter, represented by its president Salvador
his father that he was born in the Philippines and Estuye
should, therefore, be "considered" a citizen thereof.
It does not mean that he became a Philippine citizen
only at that later time. Similarly, an alien woman who
Foreign Element:
married a Philippine citizen may be able to prove only
some 25 years after her marriage (perhaps, because it Juan G. Frivaldo – governor-elect who renounced his
was only 25 years after the marriage that her Philippine citizenship then ran for public office
citizenship status became in question), that she is one
who might herself be lawfully naturalized." It is not
reasonable to conclude that she acquired Philippine
Facts:
citizenship only after she had proven that she "might
herself be lawfully naturalized." It is not reasonable to 1. Jan. 22 1988: Fivaldo was proclaimed governor-elect of
conclude that she acquired Philippine citizenship only Sorsogon and assumed office in due time.
after she had proven that she "might herself be 2. Oct. 27, 1988: Respondents filed with COMELEC a petition
lawfully naturalized." for the annulment of Frivaldo’s election and proclamation
• In all instances where citizenship is conferred by on the ground that he was not a Filipino citizen, having
been naturalized in the US on January 20, 1983.
operation of law, the time when citizenship is
3. Defenses of Frivaldo:
conferred should not be confused with the
a. He sought US citizenship only to protect himself
time when citizenship status is established as against President Marcos
a proven fact. Thus, even a natural-born citizen of b. Challenge to his title is actually a quo warranto petition
the Philippines, whose citizenship status is put in issue that should have been filed within 10 days from his
in any proceeding would be required to prove, for proclamation
instance, that his father is a citizen of the Philippines c. The League was no a party because it is not a voter
4. Comment of private respondents:
in order to factually establish his claim to citizenship.*
a. Petition was not really for quo warranto under Sec. 253
His citizenship status commences from the time of
of the Ominibus Election Code (OEC). The ultimate
birth, although his claim thereto is established as a purpose was to prevent Frivaldo from continuing as
fact only at a subsequent time. Likewise, an alien governor, his candidacy being void ab initio.
woman who might herself be lawfully naturalized b. And even if it were to be considered as one for quo
becomes a Philippine citizen at the time of her warranto, it could not have been filed within 10 days
from him proclamation as it was only in September
marriage to a Filipino husband, not at the time she is
1988 that they received proof of his naturalization.
able to establish that status as a proven fact by
c. Assuming League was not a proper party, Estuye
showing that she might herself be lawfully naturalized. himself who was also suing in his personal capacity
Indeed, there is no difference between a statutory could nevertheless institute the suit by himself alone.
declaration that a person is deemed a citizen of the 5. Sol Gen:
Philippines provided his father is such citizen from a a. Frivaldo not a citizen and had not repatriated himself
declaration that an alien woman married to a Filipino after his naturalization as an American citizen.
b. Election did no cure this defect because electorate of
citizen of the Philippines provided she might herself
Sosogon could not amend the laws
be lawfully naturalized. Both become citizens by
6. Frivaldo:
operation of law; the former becomes a a. He could not have repatriated himself before the 1988
citizen ipso facto upon birth; the later ipso elections because the Special Committee on
facto upon marriage.

Naturalization created for the purpose by LOI No. 27C • Frivaldo: Could not have repatriated himself under LOI
had not yet been organized then. 270 because the Special Committee provided for therein
b. His oath in his certificate of candidacy that he was a had not yet been constituted
natural-born citizen should be a sufficient act of • SC: Such a conclusion would open the floodgates, as it
repatriation. were. It would allow all Filipinos who have renounced this
c. His active participation in the 1987 congressional country to claim back their abandoned citizenship without
elections had divested him of American citizenship formally rejecting their adopted state and reaffirming their
under the laws of the United States, thus restoring his allegiance to the Philippines.
Philippine citizenship. • Frivaldo: Petition filed should be dismissed for tardiness
• SC: It has been established, and not even denied, that the
evidence of Frivaldo's naturalization was discovered only
II. Issues: eight months after his proclamation and his title was
challenged shortly thereafter.
1. WON Frivaldo was a citizen at the time of his election
on January 18, 1988? NO.
Held: Petition dismissed. Frivaldo disqualified.
Ratio:
Frivaldo vs. COMELEC (1996)
1. Petitioner has not done any categorical act to reacquire
his Philippine citizenship by direct act of Congress, by GR 120295
naturalization or by repatriation.
• Frivaldo: claims his naturalization was forced upon him to Petitioner: Juan Frivaldo
protect himself from Marcos government.
• SC: There were many other Filipinos in the United States Respondents: COMELEC and Raul Lee
similarly situated as Frivaldo, and some of them subject to
greater risk than he, who did not find it necessary — nor GR 123755
do they claim to have been coerced — to abandon their
cherished status as Filipinos. They did not take the oath of Petitioner: Raul Lee
allegiance to the United States, unlike the petitioner.
• Frivaldo: invokes Nottebohm case and the international Respondents: COMELE
law principle of effective nationality
• SC: Nottebohm case is not applicable as it is not in four Digested adapted from: Andrew Velasco
squares with this case. It dealt with a conflict between the
nationality laws of two states as decided by a third state.
No third state is involved in the case at bar; in fact, even
the United States is not actively claiming Frivaldo as its Foreign elements:
national. The sole question presented to us is whether or
not Frivaldo is a citizen of the Philippines under our own Frivaldo citizenship was being questioned
laws, regardless of other nationality laws. We can decide
this question alone as sovereign of our own territory,
conformably to Section 1 of the said Convention providing
that "it is for each State to determine under its law who Doctrine: The citizenship requirement in the Local
are its nationals." Government Code is to be possessed by an elective official at
• Frivaldo: Claims that by actively participating in the the latest as of the time he is proclaimed and at the start of
elections in this country, he automatically forfeited the term of office to which he has been elected.
American citizenship under the laws of the United States.
SC: Such laws do not concern us here. The alleged
forfeiture is between him and the United States as his
adopted country. It should be obvious that even if he did Facts:
lose his naturalized American citizenship, such forfeiture
did not and could not have the effect of automatically • Juan Frivaldo filed his Certificate of Candidacy for the
restoring his citizenship in the Philippines that he had office of Governor of Sorsogon. Raul R. Lee filed a petition
earlier renounced. At best, what might have happened as with the Comelec praying that Frivaldo "be disqualified
a result of the loss of his naturalized citizenship was that he from seeking or holding any public office or position by
became a stateless individual. reason of not yet being a citizen of the Philippines," and
that his Certificate of Candidacy be cancelled.

• The Second Division of the Comelec promulgated a elections, 57,000 in 1992, and 20,000 in 1995 over the same
Resolution declaring that Frivaldo as disqualified to run for opponent Raul Lee. Twice, he was judicially declared a
the Office of Governor of Sorsogon on the ground that he non-Filipino and thus twice disqualified from holding and
was not a citizen of the Philippines. Frivaldo’s certificate of discharging his popular mandate. Now, he comes a third
candidacy was cancelled. time, with a fresh vote from the people of Sorsogon and a
• The Motion for Reconsideration filed by Frivaldo remained favorable decision from the Commission on Elections.
unacted upon until after the May 8, 1995 elections. So, his Moreover, he claims having successfully reacquired
candidacy continued and he was voted for during the citizenship by repatriation under P.D. No. 725. That he
elections. On May 11, 1995, the Comelec en banc affirmed took his oath of allegiance under the provisions of said
the Resolution of the Second Division. The Provincial Decree at 2:00 p.m. on June 30, 1995 is not disputed. He
Board of Canvassers completed the canvass of the insists that he—not Lee—should have been proclaimed as
election returns and a Certificate of Votes showed that the governor when the Provincial Board of Canvassers met
Frivaldo garnered the highest number of votes, followed at 8:30 p.m. on the said date since, clearly and
by Raul Lee. unquestionably, he garnered the highest number of votes
• Lee filed a supplemental petition praying for his in the elections and since at that time, he already
proclamation as the duly-elected Governor of Sorsogon. reacquired his citizenship.
The Comelec directed the Provincial Board of Canvassers • Frivaldo argues that he filed his application for repatriation
of Sorsogon to reconvene for the purpose of proclaiming with the Office of the President in Malacanang Palace on
candidate Raul Lee as the winning gubernatorial August 17, 1994. However, the Special Committee was
candidate. Accordingly, Lee was proclaimed governor of reactivated only on June 8, 1995, when presumably the
Sorsogon. said Committee started processing his application. On
• Frivaldo filed with the Comelec a new petition praying for June 29, 1995, he filled up and re-submitted the FORM
the annulment of the proclamation of Lee and for his own that the Committee required. Under these circumstances,
proclamation. Alleging that on June 30, 1995, at 2:00 it could not be said that there was "indecent haste" in the
in the afternoon, he took his oath of allegiance processing of his application
as a citizen of the Philippines after his petition
for repatriation under P.D. 725 which he filed with the
Special Committee on Naturalization in September 1994 Respondent’s arguments:
had been granted. As such, when the said order (dated
June 21, 1995) (of the Comelec) was released and • Lee argues P.D. No. 725 had "been effectively repealed,"
received by Frivaldo on June 30, 1995 at 5:30 o'clock in the asserting that "then President Aquino exercising
evening, there was no more legal impediment to the legislative powers under the Transitory Provisions of the
proclamation (of Frivaldo) as governor. In the alternative, 1987 Constitution, forbade the grant of citizenship by
he averred that pursuant to the two cases of Labo vs. Presidential Decree or Executive Issuances as the same
Comelec, the Vice-Governor— not Lee — should occupy poses a serious and contentious issue of policy which the
said position of governor. present government, in the exercise of prudence and
• Comelec First Division: promulgated the herein assailed sound discretion, should best leave to the judgment of the
Resolution holding that Lee, not having garnered the first Congress under the 1987 Constitution," adding that in
highest number of votes, was not legally entitled to be her memorandum dated March 27,1987 to the members
proclaimed as duly-elected governor; and that Frivaldo, of the Special Committee on Naturalization constituted for
having garnered the highest number of votes, and having purposes of Presidential Decree No. 725, President
reacquired his Filipino citizenship by repatriation on June Aquino directed them "to cease and desist from
30, 1995 under the provisions of Presidential Decree No. undertaking any and all proceedings within your functional
725, is qualified to hold the office of governor of Sorsogon area of responsibility as defined under Letter of
• Lee filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied Instructions No. 270 dated April 11, 1975, as amended."
by the Comelec. On February 26, 1996, the present • Lee argues that "serious congenital irregularities flawed
petition was filed. Acting on the prayer for a temporary the repatriation proceedings," asserting that Frivaldo's
restraining order, this Court issued a Resolution which application therefor was "filed on June 29, 1995 and
inter alia directed the parties "to maintain the status quo approved in just one day or on June 30, 1995 x x x," which
prevailing prior to the filing of this petition." "prevented a judicious review and evaluation of the merits
thereof."
• Assuming the assailed repatriation to be valid,
Petitioner’s arguments: nevertheless it could only be effective as at 2:00 p.m. of
June 30, 1995 whereas the citizenship qualification
• Despite lack of Philippine citizenship, Frivaldo was prescribed by the Local Government Code "must exist on
overwhelmingly elected governor by the electorate of the date of his election, if not when the certificate of
Sorsogon, with a margin of 27,000 votes in the 1988 candidacy is filed," citing our decision in G.R. 10465430

which held that "both the Local Government Code and citizenship. Frivaldo, was a natural-born citizen who
the Constitution require that only Philippine citizens can faithfully served his country a prior to his naturalization in
run and be elected to Public office" Obviously, however, the United States — a naturalization made only to escape
this was a mere obiter as the only issue in said case was a dictatorship — and who, after the fall of the dictator,
whether Frivaldo's naturalization was valid or not — and wasted no time in returning to his country of birth to offer
NOT the effective date thereof. Since the Court held his once more his services to his people.
naturalization to be invalid, then the issue of when an • Regarding Lee’s third argument, the law does not specify
aspirant for public office should be a citizen was NOT any particular date or time when the candidate must
resolved at all by the Court. possess citizenship, unlike that for residence (which must
consist of at least one year's residency immediately
preceding the day of election) and age (at least twenty
Issue/s: three years of age on election day).
• The difficult objection is that the citizenship qualification
1. Was the repatriation of Frivaldo valid and legal? If so, did it should be possessed at the time the candidate (or for that
seasonably cure his lack of citizenship as to qualify him to be matter the elected official) registered as a voter. Section
proclaimed and to hold the Office of Governor? If not, may it 39, apart from requiring the official to be a citizen, also
be given retroactive effect? If so, from when? YES. specifies as another item of qualification, that he be a
"registered voter." And, under the law a "voter" must be
a citizen of the Philippines. So therefore, Frivaldo could
not have been a voter-much less a validly registered one
Held/Ratio: — if he was not a citizen at the time of such registration.
• The answer lies in discerning the purpose of the
1. YES requirement. If the law intended the citizenship
qualification to be possessed prior to election consistent
• The Local Government Code expressly requires Philippine with the requirement of being a registered voter, then it
citizenship as a qualification for elective local officials, would not have made citizenship a SEPARATE
including that of provincial governor. As Frivaldo had been qualification. The law intended CITIZENSHIP to be a
declared by this Court as a non-citizen, it is incumbent qualification distinct from being a VOTER, even if being a
upon him to show he reacquired citizenship, that he voter presumes being a citizen first. The voter
possesses the qualifications prescribed under R. A. 7160. requirement was included as another qualification (aside
Under Philippine law, citizenship may be reacquired by from "citizenship"), not to reiterate the need for
direct act of Congress, by naturalization or by repatriation nationality but to require that the official be registered as
• Anent Lee’s first argument, the memorandum dated a voter IN THE AREA OR TERRITORY he seeks to govern,
March 27, 198724 cannot be construed as a law i.e., the law states: "a registered voter in the barangay,
authorizing a repeal of P.D. No. 725. Laws are repealed municipality, city, or province where he intends to be
only by subsequent ones and a repeal may be express or elected." It should be emphasized that the Local
implied. No express repeal was made because President Government Code requires an elective official to be a
Aquino in her memorandum did not categorically and/or registered voter. It does not require him to vote actually.
impliedly state that P.D. 725 was being repealed or was Hence, registration—not the actual voting—is the core of
being rendered without any legal effect. She did not even this "qualification." In other words, the law's purpose in
mention it specifically by its number or text. On the other this second requirement is to ensure that the prospective
hand, it is a basic rule of statutory construction that official is actually registered in the area he seeks to govern
repeals by implication are not favored. An implied repeal — and not anywhere else.
will not be allowed unless it is convincingly and • Frivaldo emphasized—and Lee has not disputed — that
unambiguously demonstrated that the two laws are clearly he was and is a registered voter of Sorsogon, and his
repugnant and patently inconsistent that they cannot co- registration as a voter has been sustained as valid by
exist. judicial declaration. His counsel maintained that Frivaldo
• With regard to Lee’s second argument, the presumption has always been a registered voter of Sorsogon. He has
of regularity in the performance of official duty and the voted in 1987,1988, 1992, then he voted again in 1995. In
presumption of legality in the repatriation of Frivaldo have fact, his eligibility as a voter was questioned, but the court
not been successfully rebutted by Lee. The mere fact that dismissed his eligibility as a voter and he was allowed to
the proceedings were speeded up is by itself not a ground vote as in fact, he voted in all the previous elections
to conclude that such proceedings were necessarily including on May 8, 1995.
tainted. The requirements of repatriation under P.D. No. • It is thus clear that Frivaldo is a registered voter in the
725 are not difficult to comply with. This is not unusual province where he intended to be elected.
since in repatriation the applicant is a former natural-born • Another reason why the issue of citizenship should be
Filipino who is merely seeking to reacquire his previous reckoned from the date of proclamation, not necessarily

the date of election or date of filing of the certificate of reason to have the law apply in a retroactive or
candidacy. Section 253 of the Omnibus Election Code retrospective manner to situations, events and
gives any voter the opportunity to question the transactions subsequent to the passage of such law.
ELIGIBILITY (or the disloyalty) of a candidate. This is the • Another argument for retroactivity to the date of filing is
only provision of the Code that authorizes a remedy on that it would prevent prejudice to applicants. If P.D. 725
how to contest before the Comelec an incumbent's were not to be given retroactive effect, and the Special
ineligibility arising from failure to meet the qualifications Committee decides not to act, i.e., to delay the processing
enumerated under Sec. 39 of the Local Government Code. of applications for any substantial length of time, then the
Such remedy of Quo Warranto can be availed of "within former Filipinos who may be stateless, as Frivaldo—having
ten days after proclamation" of the winning candidate. already renounced his American citizenship — was, may
Hence, it is only at such time that the issue of ineligibility be prejudiced for causes outside their control.
may be taken cognizance of by the Commission. And • It is not disputed that on January 20, 1983 Frivaldo
since, at the very moment of Lee's proclamation (8:30 became an American. Would the retroactivity of his
p.m., June 30, 1995), Frivaldo was already and indubitably repatriation not effectively give him dual citizenship, which
a citizen, having taken his oath of allegiance earlier in the under Sec. 40 of the Local Government Code would
afternoon of the same day, then he should have been the disqualify him "from running for any elective local
candidate proclaimed as he unquestionably garnered the position?" We answer this question in the negative, as
highest number of votes in the immediately preceding there is cogent reason to hold that Frivaldo was really
elections and such oath had already cured his previous STATELESS at the time he took said oath of allegiance
"judicially-declared" alienage. Hence, at such time, he was and even before that, when he ran for governor in 1988. In
no longer ineligible. his Comment, Frivaldo wrote that he "had long renounced
• But to remove all doubts, we also hold that the and had long abandoned his American citizenship—long
repatriation of Frivaldo RETROACTED to the date before May 8, 1995. At best, Frivaldo was stateless in the
of the filing of his application on August 17, 1994. interim — when he abandoned and renounced his US
o Generally, under the Civil Code, laws shall have no citizenship but before he was repatriated to his Filipino
retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided. But an citizenship.
exception is when the statute is CURATIVE or REMEDIAL
in nature or when it CREATES NEW RIGHTS.
o In this case, P.D. No. 725 was enacted to cure the defect Dissenting opinion, Davide J:
in the existing naturalization law, specifically C. A. No. 63
wherein married Filipino women are allowed to • I depart from the view in the ponencia that Section 39 of
repatriate only upon the death of their husbands, and the Local Government Code of 1991 does not specify the
natural-born Filipinos who lost their citizenship by time when the citizenship requirement must be met, and
naturalization and other causes faced the difficulty of that it suffices that citizenship be possessed upon
undergoing the rigid procedures of C.A. 63 for commencement of the term of the office involved;
reacquisition of Filipino citizenship by naturalization • Section 39 prescribes the qualifications of elective local
could now re-acquire their Philippine citizenship under officials and not those of an elected local official. These
the simplified procedure of repatriation. adjectives are not synonymous. Elective local officials
• But how can the retroactivity of P.D. 725 benefit Frivaldo refers to the nature of the office, which requires the
considering that said law was enacted on June 5,1975, process of voting by the electorate involved; while elected
while Frivaldo lost his Filipino citizenship much later, on local official refers to a victorious candidate for an elective
January 20, 1983, and applied for repatriation even later, office. The section unquestionably refers to elective — not
on August 17, 1994? elected— local officials. It falls under Title Two entitled
o It is true that the law was already in effect at the time ELECTIVE OFFICIALS; under Chapter 1 entitled
that Frivaldo became an American citizen, nevertheless, Qualifications and Election, and paragraph (a) thereof
it is not only the law itself (P.D. 725) which is to be given begins with the phrase "An elective local official," while
retroactive effect, but even the repatriation granted paragraphs (b) to (f) thereof speak of candidates.
under said law to Frivaldo on June 30, 1995 is to be • Thus, Section 39 refers to no other than the qualifications
deemed to have retroacted to the date of his of candidates for elective local offices and their election.
application, August 17, 1994. The reason for this is Hence, in no way may the section be construed to mean
simply that if, as in this case, it was the intent of the that possession of qualifications should be reckoned from
legislative authority that the law should apply to past the commencement of the term of office of the elected
events — i.e., situations and transactions existing even candidate.
before the law came into being — in order to benefit the • It is not true that Section 39 does not specify the time
greatest number of former Filipinos possible thereby when the citizenship requirement must be possessed. I
enabling them to enjoy and exercise the constitutionally submit that Philippine citizenship must be possessed, not
guaranteed right of citizenship, then there is all the more merely at the commencement of the term, but at the latest

on the election day itself. Section 39 is not ambiguous nor applicant is deemed ipso jure to have reacquired
uncertain that it meant this to be, as one basic Philippine citizenship. If the decree had intended the oath
qualification of an elective local official is that he be "A taking to retroact to the date of the filing of the
REGISTERED VOTER IN THE BARANGAY, MUNICIPALITY, application, then it should not have explicitly provided
CITY OR PROVINCE WHERE HE INTENDS TO VOTE." otherwise.
This means that he possesses all the qualifications to • P.D. No. 725 provides for the reacquisition of Philippine
exercise the right of suffrage. The fundamental citizenship lost through the marriage of a Filipina to an
qualification for the exercise of this sovereign right is the alien and through naturalization in a foreign country of
possession of Philippine citizenship. No less than the natural-bom Filipino citizens. It involves then the
Constitution makes it the first qualification, as Section 1, substantive right of citizenship. It means, in reality, the
Article V thereof provides that “Suffrage may be exercised acquisition of "a new right,". Therefore, it may not be said
by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified to merely remedy or cure a defect considering that one
by law, x x x” who has lost Philippine citizenship does not have the right
• Section 117 of the Omnibus Election Code of the to reacquire it. The Constitution provides that citizenship,
Philippines (B.P. Blg. 881) expressly provides for the once lost, may only be reacquired in the manner provided
qualifications of a voter.: SEC. 117. Qualifications of a by law. Moreover, it has also been observed that the idea
voter — Every citizen of the Philippines, not otherwise is implicit from many of the cases that remedial statutes
disqualified by law, xxx are statutes relating to procedure and not substantive
• This Court twice voided Frivaldo's election as Governor in rights.
the 1988 and 1992 elections on the ground that for lack of • If for the sake of argument, P.D. No. 725 is a curative or
Philippine citizenship—he being a naturalized american remedial statute, it would be an inexcusable error to give
citizen—he was DISQUALIFIED to be elected as such and it a retroactive effect since it explicitly provides the date of
to serve the position. This disqualification nullified its effectivity (June 5, 1975)
Frivaldo's registration as a voter and declared it void ab
initio. Our judgments were self-executory. Thus, he was
never considered a registered voter for the elections of Labo v. COMELEC (1989); Cruz, J.
May 1992, and May 1995, as there is no showing that
Frivaldo registered anew as a voter for the latter elections. G.R. No. 86564
Even if he did —in defiance of his disqualification—this
did not make him a Filipino citizen, hence it was equally Digest writer: Dodot
void ab initio.
• The second reason in the ponencia as to why the Petitioner: Ramon L. Labo, Jr.
citizenship disqualification should be reckoned not from Respondents: The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) En
the date of the election nor the filing of the certificate of Banc and Luis L. Lardizabal
candidacy, but from the date of proclamation, is that quo
warranto is not the sole remedy available to question a Concept: Loss of Philippine Citizenship
candidate's ineligibility for public office. Section 78 of the
Omnibus Election Code allows the filing of a petition to Brief Facts:
deny due course to or cancel the certificate of candidacy
on the ground that any material representation contained In 1988, Labo was proclaimed mayor-elect of Baguio City. Prior
therein is false. Section 74, in turn, requires that the person to being proclaimed, his citizenship had been raised in two
filing the certificate of candidacy must state, inter alia, that separate administrative proceedings: in 1982, when the
he is eligible for the office, which means that he has all the COMELEC found Labo to be a Filipino Citizen, but without
qualifications (including citizenship) and none of the prejudice to the issue of citizenship being raised anew in a
disqualifications as provided by law. The petition under proper case; and, in 1988, when the CID found Labo to be an
Section 78 may be filed at any time not later than 25 days Australian Citizen. While there was no direct proof of Labo’s
from the filing of the certificate of candidacy. Australian citizenship before the COMELEC, the CID in 1988
• Further, Frivaldo's repatriation may not be given had taken into consideration the official statement of the
retroactive effect. Such goes against the spirit and letter of Australian government that Labo was still an Australian Citizen.
P.D. No. 725. The spirit adheres to the principle that Shortly after Labo’s proclamation, his rival filed a petition for
acquisition or re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship is not quo warranto before the COMELEC. Labo filed a petition to
a right, but a mere privilege. Review the Decision of the COMELEC before the SC, to
• Under P.D. No. 725, the steps to reacquire Philippine restrain the COMELEC from looking into his citizenship as a
citizenship by repatriation under the decree are: (1) filing qualification for the position of Mayor of Baguio City –
the application; (2) action by the committee; and (3) taking technically, the only issue raised was whether the petition for
of the oath of allegiance if the application is approved. It is quo warranto had been timely filed before the COMELEC.
only UPON TAKING THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE that the

The SC denied the Petition and went on to decide on the issue Geraldez)
of Labo’s Citizenship. The evidence shows that Labo had 2.2.2. Took into account the OFFICIAL
previously been naturalized as an Australian Citizen. This status STATEMENT, dated 12 Aug 1984, of the
as an Australian Citizen was not lost – Labo was unable to show Australian Government (1984
that he had reacquired Philippine citizenship through any of STATEMENT OF AUSTRALIA), through
the modes available. Thus, Labo was not qualified to be its Consul – as a response to a
elected as Mayor of Baguio City. subpoena testificandum (9 Apr 1984) –
that Labo was STILL an AUSTRALIAN
Doctrine: CITIZEN (as of 12 Aug 1984) by reason of
his NATURALIZATION in 1976.
Three modes of reacquiring Philippine citizenship : 2.2.2.1. Labo, as the spouse of an Australian
• Direct act of Congress; citizen, was NOT required to meet
• Naturalization; normal requirements for the grant of
• Repatriation. Australian citizenship – he was granted
such citizenship by Sydney on 28
FACTS: Jul 1976.
2.2.2.2. Any person over 16 yo granted Australian
Antecedents citizenship must take an OATH OF
ALLEGIANCE 6 or make an
1. 20 Jan 1988: Ramon Labo, Jr. (LABO) was AFFIRMATION OF ALLEGIANCE 7 .
proclaimed mayor-elect of Baguio City. 2.2.2.2.1. This need not necessarily have any
2. Labo’s citizenship had been raised as an issue in 2 effect on his former nationality –
separate instances prior to the 1988 proclamation – the 2 such would depend on the
decisions differed as regards whether Labo had a citizenship laws of his former
FILIPINO or AUSTRALIAN citizenship. country.
2.1. 12 May 1982 (1982 COMELEC DECISION): 2.2.2.3. Labo’s marriage was declared VOID in
COMELEC found Labo to be a Filipino the Australian Federal Court, Sydney – on
Citizen. the ground that the marriage had been
2.1.1. This was “without prejudice to the issue bigamous.
of [Labo’s] citizenship being raised 2.2.2.4. According to [Australia’s] records,
anew in a proper case”, by all but 2 Labo was STILL an Australian
Commissioners. (Chairman Santiago, Jr., Citizen.
Commissioners Pabalete, Savellano, Opinion 2.2.2.5. Should Labo return to Australia, he may
concurring in full; Commissioner Bacungan face court action for giving false or
concurring in the quoted statement; misleading information of a
Commissioner Sagadraca reserved his vote; material nature, vis-à-vis an
Commissioner Felipe was for deferring decision application for Australian
pending coordination with the Australian Citizenship 8.
Embassy) 2.2.2.5.1. If the prosecution is successful –
2.1.2. Note: no direct proof that Labo had been Labo could be deprived of
formally naturalized as an Australian Australian citizenship 9 .
Citizen. 2.2.2.6. 2 other ways by which Labo could divest
2.1.2.1. Conjecture merely inferred from himself of Australian Citizenship:
the fact that – 2.2.2.6.1. Declaration of Renunciation
2.1.2.1.1. Labo married an Australian of Australian Citizenship 10 ;
citizen; 2.2.2.6.2. Acquisition of another
2.1.2.1.2. Labo obtained an Australian nationality by a FORMAL and
Passport;
2.1.2.1.3. Labo registerd as an
Alien with the Commission on
6
I, A.B., renouncing all other allegiance, swear by Almighty God that I will
be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen
Immigration and Deportation of Australia, Her heirs and successors according to law, and that I will faithfully
(CID) upon his return to the observe the laws of Australia and fulfill my duties as an Australian citizen.
Philippines in 1980. 7
I, A.B., solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will be faithful and
bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia,
2.2. 13 Sep 1988 (1988 CID DECISION): CID found
Her heirs and successors according to law, and that I will faithfully observe the
that Labo was NOT a Filipino Citizen. Laws of Australia and fulfill my duties as an Australian citizen.
2.2.1. This was unanimously rendered. (Chairman 8
Sec. 50, Australian Citizenship Act of 1948
Defensor-Santiago, Commissioners Alano and
9
10

VOLUNTARY act, other than petition as a pre-proclamation controversy – the time
marriage, would for filing an election protest or quo warranto
automatically result in loss of proceeding was deemed suspended14.
Australian Citizenship 11 . 6.3. Rule 36, Sec. 5 of the Rules became effective only on
3. The contents of the 1984 Statement of Australia 15 Nov 1988 – 7 days after the publication for the
was affirmed in a letter from the Department of Rules in the Official Gazette. (This publication rule is
Foreign Affairs to Luis Lardizabal (LARDIZABAL), provided under Rule 44, Sec. 4 of the Rules.)
dated 1 Feb 1988 (1988 LETTER OF THE DFA). 6.3.1. These Rules CANNOT retroact to 26 Jan 1988.
7. Labo filed a Petition for Review of the Decision of the
The Case COMELEC before the SC to restrain the COMELEC from
looking into the question of his citizenship as a
4. 26 Jan 1988 (within 6 days after proclamation): qualification for his office as Mayor of Baguio City.
Lardizabal filed a petition for quo warranto before the 7.1. NOTE: Estelito Mendoza served as counsel of Labo.
COMELEC – he, however, did not pay the filing fee
on that date. ISSUE:
4.1. The filing fee was paid 21 days after Labo’s
proclamation – on 10 Feb 1988. 1. Was the petition for quo warranto filed on time? (YES.)
5. According to Labo:
5.1. Since the petition by itself without the filing 2. Was Labo qualified to run for and serve as mayor? (NO.)
fee was ineffectual – under Rule 36, Sec. 5 of the *** Note the discussion regarding Citizenship***
Procedural Rules of the COMELEC (the RULES), no
petition for quo warranto shall be given due 3. Could Lardizabal, as the 2nd placer, replace Labo as the
course without the payment of a P300 filing mayor of Baguio? (NO.)
fee and the legal research fee as required by law –
the institution of the case for quo warranto RATIO:
was done beyond the reglementary period
provided for under the Omnibus Election 1. The petition was filed on time.
Code (the CODE) 12 .
5.1.1. Under the Code, the petition should be Procedure: extension of the 10-day period
filed within 10 days after the
proclamation. The 10-day period was extended by the pendency of the
5.1.2. Labo cited jurisprudence holding that the petition, when it was treated by the COMELEC as a pre-
payment of the filing fee was essential to the proclamation proceeding, which did NOT require a filing fee.
timeliness of the filing of the petition –
foremost among the cases cited was On Resolutions Nos. 1450, 1996
Manchester v. CA13 .
6. According to Lardizabal: As to the first, there is no record that it was even published,
6.1. The petition was filed AHEAD OF TIME. and as to the second, it only took effect on 3 March 1988 (7
6.1.1. As of 26 Jan 1988, the COMELEC treated days after its publication, and after the petition had been filed)
the petition as a pre-proclamation – in accordance with Tanada v. Tuvera, the resolutions could
controversy – and although a docket fee was NOT have become effective immediately upon their approval,
offered, none was collected. rather the publication requirement must be complied with first.
6.1.2. It was only on 8 Feb 1988 that the COMELEC
decided to treat his petition as solely for quo Delay not imputable to Lardizabal’s fault or neglect –
warranto, and accordingly redocketing it – he considerations in view of Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. V. Asuncion
was only given notice of the
redocketing on 10 Feb 1988, and within In the Sun Insurance case, the SC took into consideration the
the same day he paid the appropriate filing special circumstances involved and said that the court may
fees. allow the payment of filing fees within a reasonable time – and
6.2. During the time when the COMELEC regarded the in the event of non-compliance therewith, the case should be
dismissed.
11
12
Sec. 253. Petition for quo warranto.—Any voter contesting the election of a
Member of the Batasang Pambansa, regional, provincial, or city officer on the
ground of ineligibility or of disloyalty to the Republic of the Philippines shall file a
sworn petition for quo warranto with the Commission within the ten days after 14
Sec. 248. Effect of filing petition to annul or suspend the proclamation.—The
the proclamation of the result of the election. filing with the Commission of a petition to annul or to suspend the proclamation
13
Not in the case: subsequent developments have relaxed the Manchester of any candidate shall suspend the running of the period within which to file an
doctrine. election protest or quo warranto proceedings.

• The same idea is expressed in Rule 42, Sec. 18 of the
Rules15 , adopted on 20 Jun 1988. SC:
• Labo does NOT question the authenticity of
2. Labo was disqualified from running as mayor; the evidence of his Australian Citizenship;
although elected, he is not qualified to serve as • Labo does NOT deny that he obtained an
mayor. Australian Passport – which passport was used by
him when he came back to the Philippines in 1980.
Procedure: as in other exceptional cases, the SC may directly o Upon his return, he declared before the
address the issue of citizenship immigration authorities that he was
an alien.
Note that the sole issue originally raised by Labo is o He registered as an alien under an
the timeliness of the quo warranto proceedings. Alien Certificate of Registration.
§ He later asked for a change of
However, the SC has in the past directly addressed status from immigrant to returning
issues not raised when they involved important former Philippine Citizen – which
questions clearly and urgently affecting the public request was granted through an
interest. Immigrant Certificate of Residence.
• When there is enough basis for the SC to end • Labo categorically declared that he was a
the basic controversy, thereby dispensing citizen of Australia in a number of sworn
with procedural steps which would not statements.
substantially affect the merits of each party’s o He even sought to avoid the
claims. (Velasco v. CA; Ortigas v. Ruiz; First Asian jurisdiction of the barangay court on
Transport and Shipping Agency, Inc. v. Ople; the ground that he was a foreigner.
Quisumbing v. CA; Del Castillo v. Jaymalin; Francisco
v. City of Davao) On how the COMELEC treated the acts enumerated above
• Chersihed rule of procedure for SC: always strive
to settle the entire controversy in a single SC: the 1982 COMELEC Decision quaintly dismissed these acts
proceeding leaving no root or branch to bear as “mistakes” that did NOT divest Labo of his Filipino
the seeds of future litigation.) Citizenship.
o No useful purpose if case will be remanded • This is a totally baseless ruling.
only to have the trial court’s decision raised o Labo is NOT an unlettered person who is
again eventually to the SC. (Alger Electric, unaware of the consequences of his acts.
Inc. v. CA) o Labo was assisted by counsel when he
• When all of the relevant facts are before the performed these acts.
SC, and those facts dictate the rendition of a • Note that Lardizabal questioned the motives of
verdict – there is no point in referring the case back, COMELEC at the time, considering that Labo was
especially if considerable time has elapsed, and in affiliated with the ruling party – but the SC stated that
order to serve the ends of justice, the controversy it need not go into that allegation.
must be laid to rest. (Beautifont, Inc., et al. v. CA)
o Where the dictates of justice so demand, the *** The doctrine of res judicata does NOT apply to
SC should act, and act with finality. (quoting questions of citizenship ***
LI Siu Liat v. Republic)
• Remand of the case to the lower court for In any event –
further reception of evidence is NOT • This allegation does not appear to have been
necessary where the SC is in a position to properly and seasonably pleaded in a MtD or Answer.
resolve the dispute based on the records o It had only been invoked when Labo filed his
before it. reply to Lardizabal’s comment.
• One of the requisites of res judicata – identity of
SC: “This course of action becomes all the more justified in the parties – is NOT present.
present case where, to repeat for stress, it is claimed that a
foreigner is holding a public office.” *** The Law on reacquisition of Philippine
Citizenship ***
*** Facts regarding Labo’s acts vis-à-vis the evidence
on his citizenship *** Three modes of reacquiring Philippine citizenship16 :
• Direct act of Congress;
15
Sec. 18. Non-payment of prescribed fees.—If the fees above prescribed are
not paid, the Commission may refuse to take action thereon until they are paid
and may dismiss the action or proceeding. 16
CA No. 63, as amended by PD No. 725

• Naturalization;
• Repatriation. 3. Given the factual circumstances, the 2 n d placer
cannot be proclaimed elect after his winning rival
SC: does not appear on record (nor does Labo claim) was disqualified.
that he had reacquired Philippine citizenship by any
of these methods. – this is why the CID rejected Santos v. Commission on Elections, decided in 1985,
Labo’s application for the cancellation of his alien must be reversed in favor of Geronimo v. Ramos –
certificate of registration, AND, this is why the SC the more logical and democratic rule.
MUST DENY his present claim for recognition as a • Santos v. Commission on Elections: 2nd placer won by
Filipino Citizen. default – the candidate who placed 2nd was
• No statute directly conferring Philippine proclaimed elected after the votes for his winning rival
citizenship upon him; (disqualified as a turncoat and considered a non-
• No judicial decree of naturalization; candidate) were all disregarded as stray.
• No compliance with PD No. 725 17 . • Geronimo v. Ramos: reiterated the doctrine first
announced in 1912 in Topacio v. Paredes.
On Labo’s disqualification as mayor o “Sound policy dictates that public elective
offices are filled by those who have received
According to Labo, his alleged lack of citizenship is a “futile the highest number of votes cast in the
technicality” that should NOT frustrate the will of the election for that office, and it is a
electorate of Baguio City. fundamental idea in all republican forms of
• The will of the electorate was not as “resonand and government that no one can be declared
thunderous” as stated by Labo – his lead over the 2nd elected and no measure can be declared
placer was only around 2,100 votes. carried unless he or it receives a majority or
• In any event, the people could not change the plurality of the legal votes cast in the
requirements of the LGC 18 and the election.”
Constitution. o “The votes cast for a dead, disqualified, or
o “The electorate had no power to permit a non-eligible person may not be valid to vote
foreigner owing his total allegiance to the the winner into office or maintain him there.”
Queen of Australia, or at least a stateless § “However, in the absence of a
individual owing no allegiance to the statute which clearly asserts a
Republic of the Philippines, to preside over contrary political and legislative
them as mayor of their city.” policy on the matter, if the votes
were cast in the sincere belief that
The qualifications are CONTINUING REQUIREMENTS the candidate was alive, qualified,
– if any of them is lost during incumbency, title to or eligible, they should not be
the office itself is DEEMED FORFEITED. treated as stray, void or
• Case at bar: the citizenship and voting requirements meaningless.
were NOT POSSESSED AT ALL on the day of the
election. DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, petitioner Ramon J. Labo, Jr. is
hereby declared NOT a citizen of the Philippines and therefore
*Note palabok on Citizenship.*19 DISQUALIFIED from continuing to serve as Mayor of Baguio
City. He is ordered to VACATE his office and surrender the
same to the Vice-Mayor of Baguio City once this decision
17
(2) natural-born Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship may
reacquire Philippine citizenship through repatriation by applying with the Special
becomes final and executory. The temporary restraining order
Committee on Naturalization created by Letter of Instruction No. 270, and, if dated January 31, 1989, is LIFTED.
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. Aznar vs. Comelec (1990) – Paras J
18
Sec. 42. Qualifications. - (1) An elective local official must be a Citizen of the
Philippines, at least twenty-three years of age on election day, a qualified voter
registered as such in the barangay, municipality, city or province where he transfer his allegiance to a state with more allurements for him. But having done
proposes to be elected, a resident therein for at least one year at the time of the so, he cannot expect to be welcomed back with open arms once his taste for his
filing of his certificate of candidacy, and able to read and write English, Pilipino, adopted country turns sour or he is himself disowned by it as an undesirable
or any other local language or dialect. alien.
19
It remains to stress that the citizen of the Philippines must take pride in his
status as such and cherish this priceless gift that, out of more than a hundred Philippine citizenship is not a cheap commodity that can be easily recovered
other nationalities, God has seen fit to grant him. Having been so endowed, he after its renunciation. It may be restored only after the returning renegade makes
must not lightly yield this precious advantage, rejecting it for another land that a formal act of re-dedication to the country he has abjured and he solemnly
may offer him material and other attractions that he may not find in his own affirms once again his total and exclusive loyalty to the Republic of the
country. To be sure, he has the right to renounce the Philippines if he sees fit and Philippines. This may not be accomplished by election to public office.

Brief Facts: Jose Aznar, as the representative of PDP-Laban • Private respondent, on the other hand, maintained
Provincial Council filed with the Comelec a petition for that he is a Filipino citizen, alleging: that he is the
disqualification of Lito Osmena on the ground that he is legitimate child of Dr. Emilio D. Osmeña, a Filipino
and son of the late President Sergio Osmeña, Sr.; that
allegedly not a Filipino citizen, being a citizen of the US. Aznar
he is a holder of a valid and subsisting Philippine
submitted, as evidence, a Certificate issued by the Immigration
Passport No. 0855103 issued on March 25, 1987; that
and Deportation Commission stating that Osmena is an he has been continuously residing in the Philippines
American and is a holder of an Alien Certiciate of Registration since birth and has not gone out of the country for
and Immigrant Certificate of Residence. On the other hand, more than six months; and that he has been a
Osmena maintained that he is a Filipino citizen, alleging that registered voter in the Philippines since 1965.
his father, Emilio Osmena, is a Filipino. The SC held that Lito • March 3, 1988: the Comelec directed the Board of
Canvassers to proclaim the winners of the election.
Osmena is a Filipino, and is not disqualified from holding the
Osmena was proclaimed as provincial governor.
elective office.
• June 11, 1988: the Comelec also dismissed the
petition to disqualify Osmena because of lack of
sufficient proof that Osmena is not a Filipino citizen.
Doctrine: the petitioner failed to present direct proof that

private respondent had lost his Filipino citizenship by any of ISSUE: WON Osmena is a Filipino citizen? Yes!
the modes provided for under C.A. No. 63. Among others,
these are: (1) by naturalization in a foreign country; (2) by
express renunciation of citizenship; and (3) by subscribing to an
RATIO:
oath of allegiance to support the Constitution or laws of a
foreign country. From the evidence, it is clear that private
• Petitioner's contention that private respondent is not
respondent Osmeña did not lose his Philippine citizenship by a Filipino citizen and, therefore, disqualified from
any of the three mentioned hereinabove or by any other mode running for and being elected to the office of
of losing Philippine citizenship. Provincial Governor of Cebu, is not supported by
substantial and convincing evidence.
FACTS: • In the proceedings before the COMELEC, the
petitioner failed to present direct proof that private
• November 19, 1987: Emilio “Lito” Osmena filed his respondent had lost his Filipino citizenship by any of
certificate of candidacy for the position of provincial the modes provided for under C.A. No. 63. Among
governor of Cebu. others, these are: (1) by naturalization in a foreign
• January 22, 1988: PDP-Laban Provincial Council, country; (2) by express renunciation of citizenship; and
through its representative Aznar, filed a petition with (3) by subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support
the Comelec to disqualify Lito Osmena on the ground the Constitution or laws of a foreign country. From the
that he is not a Filipino citizen. It is alleged that evidence, it is clear that private respondent Osmeña
Osmena is a citizen of the US. did not lose his Philippine citizenship by any of the
• Petitioner submitted a Certificate issued by the then three mentioned hereinabove or by any other mode
Immigration and Deportation Commissioner Miriam of losing Philippine citizenship.
Defensor Santiago certifying that private respondent • Philippine courts are only allowed to determine who
is an American and is a holder of Alien Certificate of are Filipino citizens and who are not. Whether or not a
Registration (ACR) No. B-21448 and Immigrant person is considered an American under the laws of
Certificate of Residence (ICR) No. 133911, issued at the United States does not concern Us here.
Manila on March 27 and 28, 1958, respectively. • By virtue of his being the son of a Filipino father, the
• Petitioner also presented the following exhibits presumption that private respondent is a Filipino
tending to show that private respondent is an remains. It was incumbent upon the petitioner to
American citizen: Application for Alien Registration prove that private respondent had lost his Philippine
Form No. 1 of the Bureau of Immigration signed by citizenship.
private respondent dated November 21, 1979 (Exh. • Frivaldo v. COMELEC et al, and Ramon L. Labo v.
"B"); Alien Certificate of Registration No. 015356 in COMELEC et al (G.R. No. 86564, August 1, 1989) are
the name of private respondent dated November 21, not applicable to the case at bar. In both cases, the
1979 (Exh. "C"); Permit to Re-enter the Philippines petitioners admitted that they were naturalized
dated November 21, 1979 (Exh. "D"); Immigration citizens of foreign countries.
Certificate of Clearance dated January 3, 1980 (Exh. • The fact that because Osmeña obtained Certificates
"E"). of Alien Registration as an American citizen, the first

in 1958 when he was 24 years old and the second in oath of allegiance and directed the Clerk of Court to
1979, he, Osmeña should be regarded as having issue him a Certificate of Naturalization.
expressly renounced Philippine citizenship. To Our • 15 years later, the Republic of the Philippines, through
mind, this is a case of non sequitur (It does not follow).
the Solicitor General, filed a motion to cancel William
Considering the fact that admittedly Osmeña was
Li Yao's certificate of naturalization on the ground that
both a Filipino and an American, the mere fact that he
has a Certificate stating he is an American does not it was fraudulently and illegally obtained.
mean that he is not still a Filipino. • William Li Yao opposed the motion.
• The statement in the 1987 Constitution that "dual • CFI granted the motion and cancelled Li Yao’s
allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national certificate based solely on ground (iii) that Li Yao
interest and shall be dealt with by law” has no evaded the payment of lawful taxes due the
retroactive effect. Be it noted further that under the
government by underdeclaration of income as
aforecited proviso, the effect of such dual citizenship
reflected in his income tax returns for the years 1946-
or allegiance shall be dealt with by a future law. Said
law has not yet been enacted. 1951.
• Li Yao filed a motion for reconsideration, which was
denied. He then filed a notice of appeal to SC.
Republic v. Li Yao • After the parties had filed their respective briefs, Li
Petitioners: Republic of the Philippines Yao died. The case has not, however, become moot
Respondent: William Li Yao and academic since its disposition, either way, will
Topic: Loss of Philippine citizenship have grave implications for the late petitioner-
appellant's wife and children.
Brief Facts: Li Yao, a Chinese national filed a petition for
naturalization, which was granted. 15 years after he was ISSUE: W/N the cancellation of the certificate of
allowed to take his oath of allegiance and was issued a naturalization of Li Yao made by the government through the
certificate of naturalization, OSG filed a motion to cancel his OSG is valid - YES
certificate on the ground that it was fraudulently and illegally
obtained. CFI cancelled the certificate on the sole ground that
Li Yao evaded the payment of taxes. SC affirmed the RATIO
cancellation. • OSG’s motion for the cancellation of the
naturalization certificate of Li Yao was based on the
Doctrine: The cancellation of citizenship on the finding of ground that it was "fraudulently and illegally
evasion of payment of lawful taxes is a sufficient ground, under obtained." This is based on Sec. 18(a) of CA 473,
Sec. 2 of CA 473, which requires, among others, that applicant known as the Revised Naturalization Act, which
conduct himself "in a proper and irreproachable manner provides that a naturalization certificate may be
during the entire period of his residence in the Philippines in cancelled "[i]f it is shown that said naturalization
his relation with constituted government as well as with the certificate was obtained fraudulently and illegally."
community in which he is living." • A certificate of naturalization may be cancelled if it is
subsequently discovered that the applicant obtained
FACTS it by misleading the court upon any material fact. Law
• Li Yao, a Chinese national, filed a petition for and jurisprudence even authorize the cancellation of a
naturalization with CFI Manila, which was granted. certificate of naturalization upon grounds and
• Li Yao prayed for the execution of the decision and conditions arising subsequent to the granting of the
that he be allowed to take his oath of allegiance as a certificate. Moreover, a naturalization proceeding is
Filipino citizen. It appearing that he has complied, not a judicial adversary proceeding, the decision
within the two-year probation period, with the rendered therein, not constituting res judicata as to
provisions of RA 530 , CFI allowed him to take his 20
any matter that would support a judgment cancelling
a certificate of naturalization on the ground of illegal

20
As stated in the CFI dispositive: During the intervening time the applicant or fraudulent procurement thereof.
herein has (1) not left the Philippines, (2) has dedicated himself continuously to a • The cancellation is based on the sole finding that Li
lawful calling or profession, (3) has not been convicted of any offense and
violation of the government promulgated rules, (4) or committed any act Yao had committed underdeclaration of income and
prejudicial to the interest of the nation or contrary to any Government announce underpayment of income tax. In Lim Eng Yu
policies.

vs. Republic, it was held that the concealment of Section 1. Section 1 of Republic Act No. 9189 is hereby
applicant's income to evade payment of lawful taxes amended to read as follows:
shows that his moral character is not irreproachable,
thus disqualifying him for naturalization. "SECTION 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as 'The
Overseas Voting Act of 2013′."
• Assuming arguendo, that Li Yao, as alleged, has fully
paid or settled his tax liability under PD 68 (tax
Section 2. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9189 is hereby
amnesty), such payment is not a sufficient ground for
amended to read as follows:
lifting the cancellation of his certificate of
naturalization. The legal effect of payment under the "SEC. 3. Definition of Terms. - For purposes of this Act:
decree is merely the removal of any civil, criminal or
administrative liability on the part of the taxpayer, "(a) Certified List of Overseas Voters (CLOV) refers to the list of
only insofar as his tax case is concerned. The tax registered overseas voters whose applications to vote overseas
amnesty does not have the effect of obliterating his have been approved by the Commission, said list to be
prepared by the Office for Overseas Voting of the Commission,
lack of good moral character and irreproachable
on a country-by-country and post-by-post basis. The list shall
conduct which are grounds for denaturalization.
be approved by the Commission in an en banc resolution.
• CFI based its order of cancellation of citizenship on
the finding of evasion of payment of lawful taxes "(b) Commission refers to the Commission on Elections.
which is a sufficient ground, under Sec. 2 of CA 473
requiring, among others, that applicant conduct "(c) Day of Election refers to the actual date of elections in the
himself "in a proper and irreproachable manner Philippines.
during the entire period of his residence in the
Philippines in his relation with constituted "(d) Department of Foreign Affairs Overseas Voting Secretariat
government as well as with the community in which he (DFA-OVS) refers to the secretariat based at the Department of
Foreign Affairs (DFA) home office tasked to assist the Office for
is living," to strip him of his citizenship without going
Overseas Voting (OFOV) under the Commission, and to direct,
into the other grounds for cancellation presented by
coordinate and oversee the participation of the DFA in the
the OSG. implementation of the Overseas Voting Act.
• Naturalization laws should be rigidly enforced in favor
of the Government and against the applicant. Where "(e) Field Registration refers to the conduct of registration of
the applicant failed to meet the qualifications overseas voters at predetermined locations, either in the
required for naturalization, the latter is not entitled to Philippines, as may be determined by the Commission, or
outside the posts, upon the favorable recommendation of the
Filipino citizenship. Admission to citizenship is one of
DFA-OVS, both being of limited duration and based on the
the highest privileges that the Republic of the
guidelines prescribed by the Commission for that exclusive
Philippines can confer upon an alien. It is a privilege purpose; the government shall not collect fees for the same.
that should not be conferred except upon persons
fully qualified for it, and upon strict compliance with "(f) Mobile Registration refers to the conduct of registration of
the law. Philippine citizenship is a pearl of great price overseas voters at various locations outside the posts, other
which should be cherished and not taken for granted. than at field registrations, undertaken as part of the posts'
Once acquired, its sheen must be burnished and not mobile consular and outreach activities to Filipinos within their
jurisdictions.
stained by any wrongdoing which could constitute
ample ground for divesting one of said citizenship.
"(g) Municipal/City/District Registry of Overseas Voters
Hence, compliance with all the requirements of the
(ROV) refers to the consolidated list prepared, approved and
law must be proved to the satisfaction of the Court. maintained by the Commission for every
municipality/city/district of overseas voters whose applications
5. Problems in applying the nationality principle for registration as such, including those registered voters under
Republic Act No. 8189, 'Voter's Registration Act of 1996′, who
a. Dual or multiple citizenship applied for certification as overseas voters, have been
approved by the Election Registration Board and/or resident
i. RA. 9225, supra. Election Registration Board.
ii. RA 10590

"(h) National Registry of Overseas Voters (NROV) refers to the established holidays in the Philippines and of such other
consolidated list prepared, approved and maintained by the holidays in the host countries."
Commission of overseas voters whose applications for
registration as overseas voters, including those registered Section 3. Section 4 of the same Act is hereby amended to
voters under Republic Act No. 8189 who have applied to be read as follows:
certified as overseas voters, have been approved by the
resident Election Registration Board, indicating the post where "SEC. 4. Coverage. - All citizens of the Philippines abroad, who
the overseas voter is registered. are not otherwise disqualified by law, at least eighteen (18)
years of age on the day of elections, may vote for President,
"(i) Office for Overseas Voting (OFOV) refers to the Office of Vice-President, Senators and Party-List Representatives, as well
the Commission tasked to oversee and supervise the effective as in all national referenda and plebiscites."
implementation of the Overseas Voting Act.
Section 4. Section 5 of the same Act is hereby amended to
"(j) Overseas Voter refers to a citizen of the Philippines who is read as follows:
qualified to register and vote under this Act, not otherwise
disqualified by law, who is abroad on the day of elections. "SEC. 5. Disqualifications. - The following shall be disqualified
from registering and voting under this Act:
"(k) Overseas Voting refers to the process by which qualified
citizens of the Philippines abroad exercise their right to vote. "(a) Those who have lost their Filipino citizenship in accordance
with Philippine laws;
"(l) Posts refer to the Philippine embassies, consulates, foreign
service establishments and other Philippine government "(b) Those who have expressly renounced their Philippine
agencies maintaining offices abroad and having jurisdiction citizenship and who have pledged allegiance to a foreign
over the places where the overseas voters reside. country, except those who have reacquired or retained their
Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225, otherwise
"(m) Resident Election Registration Board (RERB) refers to the known as the 'Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of
in-house Election Registration Board in every post and in the 2003′;
OFOV, which processes, approves or disapproves all
applications for registration and/or certification as overseas "(c) Those who have committed and are convicted in a final
voters, including the deactivation, reactivation and cancellation judgment by a Philippine court or tribunal of an offense
of registration records. punishable by imprisonment of not less than one (1) year, such
disability not having been removed by plenary pardon or
"(n) Seafarers refer to ship officers and ratings manning ships, amnesty: Provided, however, That any person disqualified to
including offshore workers, service providers and fishermen, as vote under this subsection shall automatically acquire the right
denned in the revised rules on the issuance of seafarer's to vote upon the expiration of five (5) years after service of
identification and record book of the Maritime Industry sentence; and
Authority.
"(d) Any citizen of the Philippines abroad previously declared
"(o) Special Ballot Reception and Custody Group insane or incompetent by competent authority in the
(SBRCG) refers to the group constituted by the Commission to Philippines or abroad, as verified by the Philippine embassies,
receive and take custody of all accountable and other election consulates or foreign service establishments concerned, unless
forms, supplies and paraphernalia from the OFOV for such competent authority subsequently certifies that such
transmittal to the Special Board of Election Inspectors and person is no longer insane or incompetent."
Special Board of Canvassers.
Section 5. Section 6 of the same Act is hereby amended to
"(p) Special Board of Canvassers (SBOC) refers to the body read as follows:
deputized by the Commission to canvass the overseas voting
election returns submitted to it by the Special Board of "SEC. 6. Personal Overseas Registration and/or Certification. -
Election Inspectors. Registration and/or certification as an overseas voter shall be
done in person at any post abroad or at designated
"(q) Special Board of Election Inspectors (SBEI) refers to the registration centers outside the post or in the Philippines
body deputized by the Commission to conduct the voting and approved by the Commission.
counting of votes.
"Field and mobile registration centers shall be set up by the
"(r) Voting Period refers to a continuous thirty (30)-day period, posts concerned to ensure accessibility by the overseas voters.
the last day of which is the day of election, inclusive of

"All applicants shall submit themselves for live capture of their websites, the names of the applicants and the dates when their
biometrics. applications shall be heard, as well as the place where the
RERB will hold its hearing;
"The Commission shall issue an overseas voter identification
card to those whose applications to vote have been "(b) Notify, through the OFOV, all political parties and other
approved." parties concerned of the pending applications through a
weekly updated publication in the website of the Commission;
Section 6. A new Section 7 of the same Act is hereby inserted
to read as follows: "(c) Act on all applications received;
"SEC. 7. Resident Election Registration Board (RERB); "(d) Notify all applicants, whose applications have been
Composition, Appointment, Disqualification and disapproved, stating the reasons for such disapproval;
Compensation. - The RERB shall be composed of the
following: "(e) Prepare a list of all approved applications during each
hearing and post the same at the bulletin boards of the
"(a) A career official of the DFA, as Chairperson; embassy or consulates or at the OFOV, as the case may be,
and in their respective websites;
"(b) The most senior officer from the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) or any government agency of the "(f) Deactivate the registration records of overseas voters; and
Philippines maintaining offices abroad, as
member: Provided, That in case of disqualification or "(g) Perform such other duties as may be consistent with its
nonavailability of the most senior officer from the DOLE or any functions as provided under this Act."
government agency of the Philippines maintaining offices
abroad, the Commission shall designate a career official from Section 8. A new Section 9 of the same Act is hereby inserted
the embassy or consulate concerned; and to read as follows:
"(c) A registered overseas voter of known probity, as member. "SEC. 9. Petition for Exclusion, Motion for
Reconsideration, Petition for Inclusion. -
"The Commission shall appoint the members of the RERB
upon the recommendation of the DFA-OVS. "9.1. Petition for Exclusion. - If the application has
been approved, any interested party may file a
"The RERB in the OFOV shall be based in the main office of petition for exclusion not later than one hundred
the Commission and shall be composed of a senior official of eighty (180) days before the start of the overseas
the Commission as the Chairperson and one (1) member each voting period with the proper Municipal/Metropolitan
from the DFA and the DOLE, whose rank shall not be lower Trial Court in the City of Manila or where the overseas
than a division chief or its equivalent. voter resides in the Philippines, at the option of the
petitioner.
"No member of the RERB shall be related to each other or to
an incumbent President, Vice-President, Senator or Member of "The petition shall be decided on the basis of the
the House of Representatives representing the party-list documents submitted within fifteen (15) days from its
system of representation, within the fourth civil degree of filing, but not later than one hundred twenty (120)
consanguinity or affinity. days before the start of the overseas voting period.
Should the Court fail to render a decision within the
"Each member of the RERB shall be entitled to an honorarium prescribed period, the ruling of the RERB shall be
at the rates approved by the Department of Budget and considered affirmed.
Management (DBM)."
"9.2. Motion for Reconsideration. - If the application
Section 7. A new Section 8 of the same Act is hereby inserted has been disapproved, the applicant or the
to read as follows: authorized representative shall have the right to file a
motion for reconsideration before the RERB within a
"SEC. 8. Duties and Functions of the RERB. - The RERB shall period of five (5) days from receipt of the notice of
have the following duties and functions:" disapproval. The motion shall be decided within five
(5) days after its filing on the basis of documents
(a) Post in the bulletin boards of the embassy or consulates or submitted but not later than one hundred twenty
at the OFOV, as the case may be, and in their respective (120) days before the start of the overseas voting

period. The resolution of the RERB shall be Section 10. Section 7 of the same Act is hereby renumbered
immediately executory, unless reversed or set aside as Section 11 and is amended to read as follows:
by the Court.
"SEC. 11. System of Continuing Registration. - The
"9.3. Petition for Inclusion. - Within ten (10) days from Commission shall ensure that the benefits of the
receipt of notice denying the motion for system of continuing registration are extended to
reconsideration, the applicant may file a petition for qualified overseas voters. Registration shall
inclusion with the proper Municipal/Metropolitan Trial commence not later than six (6) months after the
Court in the City of Manila or where the overseas conduct of the last national elections. Towards this
voter resides in the Philippines, at the option of the end, the Commission shall be authorized to utilize
petitioner. and optimize the use of existing facilities, personnel
and mechanisms of the various government agencies
"The petition shall be decided on the basis of the for purposes of data gathering and validation,
documents submitted within fifteen (15) days from information dissemination and facilitation of the
filing, but not later than one hundred twenty (120) registration process.
days before the start of the overseas voting period.
Should the Court fail to render a decision within the, "Pre-departure Orientation Seminars (PDOS), services
prescribed period, the RERB ruling shall be and mechanisms offered and administered by the
considered affirmed. DFA, the DOLE, the Philippine Overseas Employment
Administration (POEA), the Overseas Workers'
"Qualified Philippine citizens abroad who have Welfare Administration (OWWA), the Commission on
previously registered as voters pursuant to Republic Filipinos Overseas and by other appropriate agencies
Act No. 8189, otherwise known as the 'Voter's of the government and private agencies providing the
Registration Act of 1996′, shall apply for certification same services shall include the salient features of this
as overseas voters and for inclusion in the NROV. In Act and shall be utilized for purposes of supporting
case of approval, the Election Officer concerned shall the overseas registration and voting processes.
annotate the fact of registration/certification as
overseas voter before the voter's name as appearing "All employment contracts processed and approved
in the certified voters' list and in the voter's by the POEA shall state the right of migrant workers
registration records." to exercise their constitutional right of suffrage within
the limits provided for by this Act."
Section 9. A new Section 10 of the same Act is hereby
inserted to read as follows: Section 11. Section 8 of the same Act is hereby renumbered
as Section 12 and is amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 10. Transfer of Registration Record. - In the
event of change of voting venue, an application for "SEC. 12. Requirements for Registration. - Every
transfer of registration record must be filed by the Filipino registrant shall be required to furnish the
overseas voter with the OFOV, through its following documents:
Chairperson, at least one hundred eighty (180) days
prior to the start of the overseas voting "(a) A valid Philippine passport. In the
period: Provided, That those who would eventually absence of a valid passport, a certification of
vote in the Philippines should register within the time the DFA that it has reviewed the appropriate
frame provided for local registration in the documents submitted by the applicant and
municipality, city or district where they intend to has found them sufficient to warrant the
vote: Provided, further, That those who have issuance of a passport, or that the applicant
registered in the municipality, city or district where is a holder of a valid passport but is unable
they resided prior to their departure abroad need not to produce the same for a valid reason;
register anew: Provided, finally, That transferees shall
notify the OFOV, through its Chairperson, of their "(b) Accomplished registration form
transfer back to the Philippines at least one hundred prescribed by the Commission; and
eighty (180) days prior to the next national elections
for purposes of cancelling their names from the CLOV
"(c) Applicants who availed themselves of
and of removing their overseas voter's registration
the 'Citizen Retention and Reacquisition Act'
from the book of voters."
(Republic Act No. 9225) shall present the
original or certified true copy of the order of
approval of their application to retain or

reacquire their Filipino citizenship issued by "(b) Any person declared by competent
the post or their identification certificate authority to be insane or incompetent,
issued by the Bureau of Immigration. unless such disqualification has been
subsequently removed by a declaration of a
"The Commission may also require, additional data to proper authority that such person is no
facilitate registration and recording.1âwphi1 No longer insane or incompetent;
information other than those necessary to establish
the identity and qualification of the applicant shall be "(c) Any person who did not vote in two (2)
required. consecutive national elections as shown by
voting records; and
"All applications for registration and/or certification
as an overseas voter shall be considered as "(d) Any person whose registration has been
applications to vote overseas. An overseas voter is ordered excluded by the courts.
presumed to be abroad until she/he applies for
transfer of her/his registration records or requests that "The fact of deactivation shall be annotated in the
her/his name be cancelled from the NROV." NROV and the corresponding ROV."
Section 12. Section 9 of the same Act is hereby renumbered Section 14. Section 10 of the same Act is hereby renumbered
as Section 13 and is amended to read as follows: as Section 15.
"SEC. 13. National Registry of Overseas Voters "SEC. 15. Notice of Registration and Election. - The
(NROV). - The Commission shall maintain a National Commission shall, through the posts cause the
Registry of Overseas Voters or NROV containing the publication in a newspaper of general circulation of
names of registered overseas voters and the posts the place, date and time of the holding of a regular or
where they are registered. special national election and the requirements for the
participation of qualified citizens of the Philippines
"Likewise, the Commission shall maintain a registry of abroad, at least six (6) months before the date set for
voters (ROV) per municipality, city or district the filing of applications for registration.
containing the names of registered overseas voters
domiciled therein. The Commission shall provide "The Commission shall determine the countries
each and every municipality, city or district with a where publication shall be made, and the frequency
copy of their respective ROVS for their reference." thereof, taking into consideration the number of
overseas Filipinos present in such countries. Likewise,
Section 13. A new Section 14 of the same Act is hereby the Commission and the DFA shall post the same in
inserted to read as follows: their respective websites."
"SEC. 14. Deactivation of Registration. - The RERB Section 15. Sections 11 and 12 of the same Act are hereby
shall deactivate and remove the registration records deleted.
of the following persons from the corresponding book
of voters and place the same, properly marked and Section 16. A new Section 16 of the same Act is hereby
dated, in the inactive file after entering any of the inserted to read as follows:
following causes of deactivation:
"SEC. 16. Reactivation of Registration. - Any overseas
"(a) Any person who has been sentenced by voter whose registration has been deactivated
final judgment by a Philippine court or pursuant to the preceding section may file with the
tribunal to suffer imprisonment for not less RERB at any time, but not later than one hundred
than one (1) year, such disability not having twenty (120) days before the start of the overseas
been removed by plenary pardon or voting period, a sworn application for reactivation of
amnesty: Provided, however, That any registration stating that the grounds for the
person disqualified to vote under this deactivation no longer exist."
paragraph shall automatically reacquire the
right to vote upon the expiration of five (5) Section 17. A new Section 17 of the same Act is hereby
years after service of sentence, as certified inserted to read as follows:
by the Clerks of Courts of the Municipal,
Municipal Circuit, Metropolitan, Regional
Trial Courts or the Sandiganbayan;

"SEC 17. Cancellation of Registration. - The RERB "Subject to reasonable regulation and the payment of
shall cancel the registration records of those who fees in such amounts as may be fixed by the
have died, as certified by either the posts or by the Commission, the candidates, political parties,
local civil registrar, and those who have been proven accredited citizens' arms, and all other interested
to have lost their Filipino citizenship." persons shall be furnished copies
thereof: Provided, That nongovernmental
Section 18. A new Section 18 of the same Act is hereby organizations and other civil society organizations
inserted to read as follows: accredited by and working with the Commission as
partners on overseas voters' education and
"SEC. 18. Voters Excluded from the NROV Through participation shall be exempt from the payment of
Inadvertence. - Any registered overseas voter whose fees."
name has been inadvertently omitted from the NROV
may, personally or through an authorized Section 21. Section 14 of the same Act is hereby renumbered
representative, file with the RERB through the OFOV as Section 21 and is amended to read as follows:
or the post exercising jurisdiction over the voter's
residence, an application under oath for "SEC. 21. Printing and Transmittal of Ballots, Voting
reinstatement not later than one hundred twenty (120) Instructions, Election Forms and Paraphernalia. -
days before the start of the voting period.
"21.1. The Commission shall cause the printing of
"The RERB shall resolve the application within one (1) ballots for overseas voters, and all other accountable
month from receipt thereof, otherwise the application election forms in such number as may be necessary,
shall be deemed approved." but in no case shall these exceed the total number of
approved applications. Security markings shall be
Section 19. A new Section 19 of the same Act is hereby used in the printing of ballots for overseas voters.
inserted to read as follows:
"21.2. The Commission shall present to the
"SEC. 19. Application for Correction of Entries and authorized representatives of the DFA and of the
Change of Name. - Any registered overseas voter accredited major political parties the ballots for
who intends to change her/his name by reason of overseas voters, voting instructions, election forms
marriage, death of husband, or final court judgment; and other election paraphernalia for scrutiny and
or to correct a mispelled name or any erroneous entry inspection prior to their transmittal to the posts.
in the NROV, CLOV and voter's identification card
may, personally or through an authorized "21.3. The Commission shall transmit, as far as
representative, file an application under oath for practicable, but not later than forty-five (45) days
change of name or correction of entries with the RERB before the day of elections, by special pouch to all
through the OFOV or the post exercising jurisdiction posts the exact number of ballots for overseas voters
over the voter's residence not later than ninety (90) corresponding to the number of approved
days before the start of the voting period. applications, along with such accountable forms
necessary to ensure the secrecy and integrity of the
"The RERB shall resolve the application within one (1) election.
month from receipt thereof, otherwise the application
shall be deemed approved." "21.4. The authorized representatives of accredited
major political parties shall have the right to be
Section 20. Section 13 of the same Act is hereby renumbered present in all phases of printing, transmittal, and
as Section 20 and is amended to read as follows: casting of mailed ballots abroad. Unclaimed ballots
properly marked as such, shall be cancelled and
"SEC. 20. Preparation and Posting of Certified List of shipped to the Commission by the least costly
Overseas Voters. - The Commission shall prepare the method."
Certified List of Overseas Voters or CLOV not later
than ninety (90) days before the start of the overseas Section 22. Section 15 of the same Act is hereby renumbered
voting period, and furnish within the same period as Section 22 and is amended to read as follows:
electronic and hard copies thereof to the appropriate
posts, which shall post the same in their bulletin "SEC. 22. Regulation on Campaigning Abroad. -
boards and/or websites within ten (10) days from Personal campaigning, the use of campaign materials,
receipt thereof. as well as the limits on campaign spending shall be
governed by the laws and regulations applicable in

the Philippines: Provided, That all forms of "24.5. The posts concerned shall keep a complete
campaigning abroad within the thirty (30)-day record of the ballots for overseas voters, specifically
overseas voting period shall be prohibited." indicating the number of ballots they actually
received, and in cases where voting by mail is allowed
Section 23. A new Section 23 of the same Act is hereby under Section 25 hereof, the names and addresses of
inserted to read as follows: the voters to whom these ballots were sent, including
proof of receipt thereof. In addition, the posts shall
"SEC. 23. Voting. - Voting may be done either submit a formal report to the Commission and the
personally, by mail or by any other means as may be Joint Congressional Oversight Committee created
determined by the Commission. For this purpose, the under this Act within thirty (30) days from the day of
Commission shall issue the necessary guidelines on elections. Such report shall contain data on the
the manner and procedures of voting. number of ballots cast and received by the offices, the
number of invalid and unclaimed ballots and other
pertinent data.
"The OFOV, in consultation with the DFA-OVS, shall
determine the countries where voting shall be done
by any specific mode, taking into consideration the "24.6. Ballots not claimed by the overseas voters at
minimum criteria enumerated under this Act which the posts, in case of personal voting, and ballots
shall include the number of registered voters, returned to the posts concerned, in the case of voting
accessibility of the posts, efficiency of the host by mail, shall be cancelled and shipped to the
country's applied system and such other Commission by the least costly method within six (6)
circumstances that may affect the conduct of voting. months from the day of elections.
"The Commission shall announce the specific mode "24.7. Only ballots cast, and mailed ballots received
of voting per country/post at least one hundred by the posts concerned in accordance with Section 25
twenty (120) days before the start of the voting hereof before the close of voting on the day of
period." elections shall be counted in accordance with Section
27 hereof. All envelopes containing the ballots
received by the posts after the prescribed period shall
Section 24. Section 16 of the same Act is hereby renumbered
not be opened, and shall be cancelled and shipped to
the Commission by the least costly method within six
(6) months from the day of elections.
"SEC. 24. Casting and Submission of Ballots. -
"24.8. A special ballot Reception and Custody Group

"24.1. Upon receipt by the SBEI of the ballots for
composed of three (3) members shall be constituted
overseas voters, voting instructions, election forms
by the Commission from among the staff of the posts
and other paraphernalia, they shall make these
concerned, including their attached agencies, and
available on the premises to the qualified overseas
citizens of the Philippines abroad, who will be
voters in their respective jurisdictions during the thirty
deputized to receive ballots and take custody of the
(30) days before the day of elections when overseas
same preparatory to their transmittal to the SBEI.
voters may cast their vote. Immediately upon
receiving it, the overseas voter must fill-out her/his
"24.9. x x x
ballot personally, in secret, without leaving the
premises of the posts concerned.
"24.10. x x x."
"24.2. The overseas voter shall personally accomplish
her/his ballot at the post that has jurisdiction over the Section 25. Section 17 of the same Act is hereby renumbered
country where she/he temporarily resides or at any as Section 25 and is amended to read as follows:
polling place designated and accredited by the
Commission. "SEC. 25. Voting by Mail. -
"24.3. The overseas voter shall cast her/his ballot, "25.1. x x x

upon presentation of the voter identification card
issued by the Commission or such other documents "(a) x x x;
deemed by the SBEI at the post as sufficient to
establish the voter's identity. "(b) x x x; and
"24.4. x x x

"(c) x x x. it during the conduct of its proceedings shall be valid
only when they carry the approval of the Chairman.
"25.2. The overseas voter shall send her/his
accomplished ballot to the corresponding post that "Immediately upon the completion of the counting,
has jurisdiction over the country where she/he the SBEIs shall transmit via facsimile and/or electronic
temporarily resides. She/He shall be entitled to cast mail the results to the Commission in Manila and the
her/his ballot at any time upon her/his receipt accredited major political parties.
thereof: Provided, That the same is received before
the close of voting on the day of elections. The "x x x
overseas absentee voter shall be instructed that
her/his ballot shall not be counted if not transmitted "27.3. x x x
in the special envelope furnished her/him.
"27.4. The SBOC composed of the highest ranking
"25.3. Only mailed ballots received by the post before officer of the post as Chairperson, a senior career
the close of voting on the day of elections shall be officer from any of the government agencies
counted in accordance with Section 27 hereof. All maintaining a post abroad and, in the absence of
envelopes containing the ballots received by the another government officer, a citizen of the
posts after the prescribed period shall not be opened, Philippines qualified to vote under this Act and
and shall be cancelled and disposed of appropriately, deputized by the Commission, as vice chairperson
with a corresponding report thereon submitted to the and member-secretary, respectively, shall be
Commission not later than thirty (30) days from the constituted to canvass the election returns submitted
day of elections." to it by the SBEIs. Immediately upon the completion
of the canvass, the chairperson of the SBOC shall
Section 26. A new Section 26 of the same Act is hereby transmit via facsimile, electronic mail, or any other
inserted to read as follows: means of transmission equally safe and reliable the
Certificates of Canvass and the Statements of Votes
"SEC. 26. Voting Privilege of Members of the SBEI, to the Commission, and shall cause to preserve the
SBRCG and SBOC. - Government employees posted same immediately after the conclusion of the canvass,
abroad who will perform election duties as members and make it available upon instructions of the
of the SBEI, SBCRG and SBOC shall be allowed to Commission. The SBOC shall also furnish the
vote in their respective posts: Provided, That they are accredited major political parties and accredited
registered either in the Philippines or as overseas citizens' arms with copies thereof via facsimile,
voters." electronic mail and any other means of transmission
equally safe, secure and reliable.
Section 27. Section 18 of the same Act is hereby renumbered
as Section 27 and is amended to read as follows: "x x x
"SEC. 27. On-Site Counting and Canvassing. - "27.5. x x x
"27.1. x x x "27.6. x x x. For purposes of this Act, the returns of

every election for President and Vice-President
"27.2. For these purposes, the Commission shall prepared by the SBOCs shall be deemed a certificate
constitute as many SBEIs as may be necessary to of canvass of a city or a province.
conduct and supervise the counting of votes as
provided in Section 27.2 hereof. The SBEIs to be "27.7. x x x."
constituted herein shall be composed of a Chairman
and two (2) members, one (1) of whom shall be Section 28. A new Section 28 of the same Act is hereby
designated as poll clerk. The ambassador or consul- inserted to read as follows:
general, or any career public officer posted abroad
designated by the Commission, as the case may be, "SEC. 28. Authority to Explore Other Modes or
shall act as the Chairman; in the absence of other Systems Using Automated Election System. -
government officers, the two (2) other members shall Notwithstanding current procedures and systems
be citizens of the Philippines who are qualified to vote herein provided, for the proper implementation of
under this Act and deputized by the Commission not this Act and in view of the peculiarities attendant to
later than sixty (60) days before the day of elections. the overseas voting process, the Commission may
All resolutions of the SBEIs on issues brought before explore other more efficient, reliable and secure

modes or systems, ensuring the secrecy and sanctity the Department of Transportation and
of the entire process, whether paper-based, Communications (DOTC), the Philippine Postal
electronic-based or internet-based technology or Corporation (PPC), the POEA, the OWWA and the
such other latest technology available, for onsite and Commission on Filipinos Overseas.
remote registration and elections and submit reports
and/or recommendations to the Joint Congressional Such information campaign shall educate the Filipino
Oversight Committee." public, within and outside the Philippines, on the
Philippine Electoral System, the rights of overseas
Section 29. A new Section 29 of the same Act is hereby voters, overseas voting processes and other related
inserted to read as follows: concerns. Information materials shall be developed by
the Commission for distribution, through the said
"SEC. 29. Procurement of Facilities, Equipment, government agencies and private organizations. No
Materials, Supplies or Services. - To achieve the government agency shall prepare, print, distribute or
purpose of this Act, the Commission may, likewise, post any information material without the prior
procure from local or foreign sources, through approval of the Commission."
purchase, lease, rent or other forms of acquisition,
hardware or software, facilities, equipment, materials, Section 34. Section 21 of the same Act is hereby renumbered
supplies or services in accordance with existing laws, as Section 33.
free from taxes and import duties, subject to
government procurement rules and regulations." Section 35. Section 22 of the same Act is hereby renumbered
Section 30. A new Section 30 of the same Act is hereby
inserted to read as follows: "SEC. 34. Assistance from Government Agencies. - All
government officers, particularly from the DFA, the
"SEC. 30. Establishment of an Office for Overseas DOLE, the DOTC, the PPC, the POEA, the OWWA,
Voting (OFOV) Under the Commission. - The the Commission on Filipinos Overseas and other
Commission is hereby authorized to establish an government offices concerned with the welfare of the
OFOV tasked specifically to oversee and supervise Filipinos overseas shall, to the extent compatible with
the effective implementation of the Overseas Voting their primary responsibilities, assist the Commission in
Act: Provided, That its secretariat shall come from the carrying out the provisions of this Act. All such
existing secretariat personnel of the Commission on agencies or officers thereof shall take reasonable
Elections." measures to expedite all election activities, which the
Commission shall require of them. When necessary,
Section 31. A new Section 31 of the same Act is hereby the Commission may send supervisory teams headed
inserted to read as follows: by career officers to assist the posts.
"SEC. 31. Creation of the Department of Foreign "Likewise, consular and diplomatic services rendered
Affairs Overseas Voting Secretariat (DFA-OVS). - A in connection with the overseas voting processes shall
secretariat based in the DFA home office is hereby be made available at no cost to the overseas voters."
created to assist the OFOV, and to direct, coordinate
and oversee the participation of the DFA in the Section 36. Section 23 of the same Act is hereby renumbered
implementation of the Overseas Voting as Section 35 and is amended to read as follows:
Act: Provided, That its secretariat shall come from the
existing secretariat personnel of the DFA." "SEC. 35. Security Measures to Safeguard the Secrecy
and Sanctity of Ballots. - At all stages of the electoral
Section 32. Section 19 of the same Act is hereby deleted. process, the Commission shall ensure that the secrecy
and integrity of the ballots are preserved. The OFOV
Section 33. Section 20 of the same Act is hereby renumbered of the Commission shall be responsible for ensuring
as Section 32 and is amended to read as follows: the secrecy and sanctity of the overseas voting
process. In the interest of transparency, all necessary
"SEC. 32. Information Campaign. - The Commission, and practicable measures shall be adopted to allow
in coordination with agencies concerned, shall representation of the candidates, accredited major
undertake an information campaign to educate the political parties, accredited citizens' arms and
public on the manner of overseas voting for qualified nongovernment organizations to assist, and intervene
overseas voters. It may require the support and in appropriate cases, in all stages of the electoral
assistance of the DFA, through the posts, the DOLE,

exercise and to prevent any and all forms of fraud and printing, distribution or posting of
coercion. information or material, without the prior
approval of the Commission;
"No officer or member of the foreign service corps,
including those belonging to attached agencies shall "36.6. For any public officer or employee to
be transferred, promoted, extended, recalled or cause the transfer, promotion, extension,
otherwise moved from his current post or position recall of any member of the foreign service
one (1) year before and three (3) months after the day corps, including members of the attached
of elections, except upon the approval of the agencies, or otherwise cause the movement
Commission." of any such member from the current post or
position one (1) year before and three (3)
Section 37. Section 24 of the same Act is hereby renumbered months after the day of elections, without
as Section 36 and is amended to read as follows: securing the prior approval of the
Commission;
"SEC. 36. Prohibited Acts. - In addition to the
prohibited acts provided by law, it shall be unlawful: "36.7. For any person who, after being
deputized by the Commission to undertake
"36.1. For any officer or employee of the activities in connection with the
Philippine government to influence or implementation of this Act, shall campaign
attempt to influence any person covered by for or assist, in whatever manner, candidates
this Act to vote, or not to vote, for a in the elections;
particular candidate. Nothing in this Act shall
be deemed to prohibit free discussion "36.8. For any person to engage in partisan
regarding politics or candidates for public political activity abroad during the thirty (30)-
office; day overseas voting period;
"36.2. For any person to deprive another of "36.9. For any person who is not a citizen of
any right secured in this Act, or to give false the Philippines to participate, by word or
information as to one's name, address, or deed, directly or indirectly through qualified
period of residence for the purposes of organizations/associations, in any manner
establishing the eligibility or ineligibility to and at any stage of the Philippine political
register or vote under this Act; or to conspire process abroad, including participation in
with another person for the purpose of the campaign and elections.
encouraging the giving of false information
in order to establish the eligibility or "The provision of existing laws to the
ineligibility of any individual to register or contrary notwithstanding, and with due
vote under this Act; or, to pay, or offer to regard to the Principle of Double Criminality,
pay, or to accept payment either for the prohibited acts described in this section
application for registration, or for voting; are electoral offenses and shall be
punishable in the Philippines.
"36.3. For any person to steal, conceal, alter,
destroy, mutilate, manipulate, or in any way "The penalties imposed under Section 264
tamper with the mail containing the ballots of the Omnibus Election Code, as amended,
for overseas voters, the ballot, the election shall be imposed on any person found guilty
returns, or any record, document or paper of committing any of the prohibited acts as
required for purposes of this Act; defined in this section:Provided, That the
penalty of prision mayor in its minimum
"36.4. For any deputized agent to refuse period shall be imposed upon any person
without justifiable ground, to serve or found guilty under Section 36.3 hereof
continue serving, or to comply with one's without the benefit of the operation of the
sworn duties after acceptance of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. If the offender
deputization; is a public officer or a candidate, the penalty
shall be prision mayor in its maximum
"36.5. For any public officer or employee or period. In addition, the offender shall be
accredited or deputized organization or sentenced to suffer perpetual
association to cause the preparation,

disqualification to hold public office and of the ballot. Towards this end, the State ensures
deprivation of the right to vote." equal opportunity to all qualified citizens of the
Philippines abroad in the exercise of this fundamental
Section 38. Section 25 of the same Act is hereby renumbered right."
Section 43. Separability Clause. - If any part or provision of
"SEC. 37. Joint Congressional Oversight Committee. - this Act shall be declared unconstitutional or invalid, the other
A Joint Congressional Oversight Committee is provisions hereof which are not affected thereby shall continue
hereby created, composed of the Chairperson of the to be in full force and effect.
Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments,
Revision of Codes and Laws, and seven (7) other Section 44. Repealing Clause. - All laws, presidential decrees,
Senators designated by the Senate President, and the executive orders, rules and regulations, other issuances and
Chairperson of the House Committee on Suffrage and parts thereof which are inconsistent with the provisions of this
Electoral Reforms, and seven (7) other Members of Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
the House of Representatives designated by the
Speaker of the House of Section 45. Effectivity Clause. - This Act shall take effect
Representatives: Provided, That, of the seven (7) fifteen (15) days after its publication in the Official Gazette or in
members to be designated by each House of at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.
Congress, four (4) should come from the majority to
include the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
and the remaining three (3) from the minority.
Memorandum Circular No. AFF-04-01
"The Joint Congressional Oversight Committee shall
have the power to monitor and evaluate the Section 1. Coverage. – These rules shall apply to naturalborn
implementation of this Act." citizens of the Philippines as defined by Philippine law and
jurisprudence, who have lost their Philippine citizenship by
Section 39. Sections 26, 27 and 28 of the same Act are reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country.
hereby renumbered as Sections 38, 39 and 40, respectively.
Section 2. Former natural born Philippine citizen in the country.
Section 40. Section 29 of the same Act is hereby renumbered A former natural born citizen of the Philippines who is in the
as Section 41 and is amended to read as follows: country shall file a verified petition for
retention/reacquisition of Philippine
"SEC. 41. Appropriations. - The amount necessary to citizenship with the Bureau of Immigration. In the former
carry out the provisions of this Act shall be included in Philippine citizen is registered as an alien with the
the budgets of the Commission on Elections and the Bureau, he/she shall include in his petition a request for the
DFA in the annual General Appropriations Act." cancellation of his/her Alien Certificate of Registration (ACR)
and Immigrant Certificate of Residence (ICR) or Certificate of
Residence for Temporary Visitors (CRTV), as the case may be.
Section 41. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - The
He shall likewise be issued an Identification
Commission shall promulgate rules and regulations for the
Certificate subject to existing rules and regulations in the
implementation and enforcement of the provisions of this Act
issuance of the same. Thereafter, he/she may opt to apply for
within sixty (60) days from the effectivity thereof.
a Philippine passport with the Department of
Foreign Affairs (DFA) as he/she may deem necessary.
In the formulation of the rules and regulations, the Commission
shall coordinate with the DFA, the DOLE, the POEA, the
Section 3. Former natural born Philippine citizen abroad. A
OWWA and the Commission on Filipinos Overseas.
former natural born citizen of the Philippines who is abroad
Nongovernment organizations and accredited Filipino
shall file a verified petition with the nearest Philippine
organizations or associations abroad shall be consulted.
Foreign Post, for retention/reacquisition of Philippine
citizenship.
Section 42. Amending Clause. - Consistent with the
amendments introduced by this Act, Section 2 of Republic Act If the former Philippine citizen who is abroad is registered as
No. 9189, on the declaration of policy, is, hereby amended to an alien with the Bureau, he/she shall include in his petition a
read as follows: request for the cancellation of his/her Alien Certificate of
Registration (ACR) and Immigrant Certificate of Residence
"SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. - It is the prime duty of (ICR) or Certificate of Residence for Temporary
the State to provide a system of honest and orderly Visitors (CRTV) as the case may be.
overseas voting that upholds the secrecy and sanctity

The concerned Philippine Foreign Posts are hereby applicant shall execute an affidavit explaining such difference
authorized to issue an Identification Certificate (IC), subject to and attach as supporting documents, at least two (2) public
existing BI rules and regulations in the issuance of the same. or private documents showing the correct name of the
Thus, applicant may likewise apply for the issuance of an applicant, the original of which shall be presented and
identification Certificate or opt to apply for a Philippine appropriately marked by the evaluating officer “original seen
passport as he/she may deem necessary. Section 4. Petition and verified”.
and Photographs. An applicant for retention/reacquisition of
Philippine citizenship, must indicate in his Petition the In such a case, the Order granting the application shall state
following: a) His/her full name as shown in the foreign the name as appearing in the birth
naturalization certificate or foreign passport. In case certificate, followed, as an alias, by the name
of change of name, the applicant should also state the name as appearing in the foreign passport. If the applicant secured a
appearing in the birth certificate or the old Philippine passport; correction of entry of his/her birth certificate with the
b) His/her latest forwarding address; c) appropriate Local Civil Registrar or the Court, the Order and
His/her date and place of birth and civil status; d) the Identification Certificate, if any, shall state the name
Name and citizenship of the parents at the time of applicant’s of the applicant as reflected in the annotated birth certificate.
birth. e) Name, date and place of birth of child beneficiary, if For documents issued abroad, the applicant shall submit copie
any; f) Two (2) recent 2” x 2” s that have been duly authenticated by the
photographs of the applicant shall be attached to the petition Philippine Consulate in the place
where the documents was issued.
Section 5. Fees. Each applicant under these Rules shall pay a
onetime fee for the processing of the application and Section 8. The Oath of Allegiance. Applicants under these
issuance of the corresponding IC. Applicants in the Rules shall take and be given their Oath of Allegiance to the
Philippines shall attach the official receipt for the amount of Republic of the Philippines as follows: I (name of the
P2,500.00, as proof of payment of processing fee. applicant) solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
Applicants abroad shall attach the official receipt for the defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
amount of US$50 or its equivalent in foreign currency and obey the laws and legal orders promulgated by the duly
acceptable to the Philippine Foreign Post concerned. Each constituted authorities of the Philippines and I hereby declare
beneficiary shall be assessed a separate processing fee of that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of the
P1,250 or US$ 25.00 or its equivalent in foreign Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto,
currency acceptable to the Philippine Foreign Post concerned. and that I impose this obligation upon myself voluntarily
without mental reservation or purpose of evasion.
Section 6. Proof as naturalborn citizen of the Philippines. A
former naturalborn citizen of the Philippines shall enjoy the Section 9. Certificate of Naturalization. Applicants shall be
presumption that he/she was a natural born Filipino required to submit a photocopy of their Certificate of
provided, that proof of Philippine citizenship is submitted. Naturalization. In the absence of the same, the applicant
In determining Philippine citizenship, a copy of at least one may submit an affidavit explaining the circumstances by
of the following shall be submitted, the original of which shall which the foreign citizenship was acquired.
be presented and appropriately
marked by the evaluating officer ‘original seen and verified”. Section 10. Compliance and approval procedures. All
1. Philippine Birth Certificate; petitions must strictly comply with the preceding requirements
2. Old Philippine Passport prior to filing at the Office of the Commissioner or at nearest
3. Voter’s affidavit or voter’s identification card; Philippine Foreign Post, as the case may be. After filing of the
4. Marriage contract indicating the Philippine citizenship petition, it shall be assigned to an evaluating
of the applicant; and officer who shall evaluate the same
5. Such other documents that would show that the without further proceedings. If the petition is found to be
applicant is a former natural born citizen of the sufficient in form and in substance, the evaluating officer shall
Philippines as maybe acceptable to the evaluating submit the findings and recommendation to the
officer. Inall cases, the evaluating officer may require Commissioner of Immigration or Consul General, as the
the submission of additional documents if there is case may be, within five (5) days from date of assignment. For
reasonable ground applications of former Philippine citizens who are not
to believe that the applicant is not a former natural- registered as aliens with the BI, the
born Filipino. Commissioner or Immigration, in cases of applications filed
under Section 2, or the Consul General, in cases of
Section 7. Discrepancy in the name of the applicant. Where applications filed under Section 3, shall issue, within five
the name of the applicant in his/her birth certificate or other (5) days from receipt thereof, an Order of Approval indicating
documents submitted for consideration, is different from that the petition complies with the provisions of R.A. 9225 and
that in his/her foreign passport and other documents the its IRR, and the corresponding IC, as the case may be.

For applications of BI registered aliens filed under Section person or entity without the express written consent of the
2, the Commissioner shall further direct the Chief of the person to whom such application, record or information
alien Registration Division (ARD) to cancel the subject ACR and belongs.
ICR/CRTV. Each cancelled ACR and ICR/CRTV shall be
attached to the duplicate copy of the Order of approval and Section 15. Other beneficiaries of R.A. 9225. A
the Oath of Allegiance, to form part of the records of the child, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted, who
applicant. For applications of BI registered aliens filed under is below eighteen (18) years of age, shall be considered to have
Section 3, the Consul General shall require the applicant to reacquired the Philippine citizenship at the same time the
surrender his/her original ACR and ICR/CRTV, or in its father or mother reacquires Philippine citizenship provided
absence, an affidavit of loss of said documents for transmittal the applicant includes the child as a beneficiary and pays the
to the BI, before issuing the Order of Approval. The BI upon appropriate fees prescribed under Section 5. Each beneficiary
receipt of the applicant’s shall be required to submit (i) photocopy of birth certificate
records shall immediately cancel the subject’s ACR and ICR/CR and (ii) photocopy of foreign passport. A child who is 18 years
TV. In case of petitions that do not comply with the of age or above at the time of the parent’s reacquisition of
requirements, the applicant shall be notified to submit the Philippine citizenship but was born when either parent was
required documents within thirty (30) days from receipt still a Filipino citizen, shall be considered to have been
thereof. Otherwise, the petition shall not be favorably a natural born Filipino and may apply for a reacquisition of
acted upon by the BI or by the Philippine Foreign Post. Philippine citizenship on his/her own behalf. In addition, the
applicant must show proof that either or both parents were
If after evaluation, the documents submitted fail to establish Filipino citizens at the time of his/her birth.
that the applicant was a former citizen of the Philippines, the
applicant shall be notified of such fact in writing by the Section 16. Beneficiary is adopted. If the beneficiary
Commissioner of Immigration or by the Philippine under Section 4 of R.A. 9225 is a child who was adopted
Foreign Post. abroad, the applicant shall submit the adoption decree duly
authenticated by the appropriate Philippine Consulate. If the
Section 11. Retention/Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship, beneficiary was adopted in the Philippines, the applicant shall
Subject to full compliance with these Rules, the Oath of submit a certified true copy of the adoption decree.
Allegiance shall be the final act to
retain/reacquire Philippine citizenship. In case Section 17. Philippine citizens who became
the applicant is in the Philippines, he may take his Oath aliens after the effectivity of R.A. 9225. These
of Allegiance before the Commissioner of Immigration or any rules shall likewise apply to Philippine citizens who have
officer authorized under existing laws to administer oaths. become a citizen of another country after the effectivity date
In the latter case, the applicant shall submit the Oath of of R.A. 9225.
Allegiance to the BI to form part of his records. In case the
applicant is abroad, only the Consul General or a duly Section 18. Exemption from administrative review.
commissioned foreign service officer of the Philippine Foreign Retention/reacquisition of Philippine citizenship under these
Post concerned shall administer the Oath of Allegiance. Rules shall not be subject to the affirmation by the Secretary
of Justice pursuant to DOJ Policy Directive of 7
Section 12. Repository of records. The BI records shall September 1970 and DOJ Opinion No. 108 (series of 1996).
maintain the integrity of all the documents filed under these However, the Order of Approval issued under these Rules
Rules. It shall send official copies of the Order of Approval and may be revoked by the Department of Justice upon a
Oath of Allegiance to the NSO. substantive finding of fraud, misrepresentation or concealment
on the part of the applicant and after an
Section 13. Copies for the applicant. Correction of errors. The administrative hearing initiated by an aggrieved party or by the
applicant shall be provided with official copies of the Order Bureau of Immigration.
of Approval and the Oath of allegiance. Further, all IC’s
which may be issued under these Section 19. Repealing Clause. Provisions of other
Rules shall indicate Philippine citizenship under memorandum circulars inconsistent herewith are hereby
R.A. No. 9225 and A.O. No. 91,s. of 2004. Any clerical error repealed or modified accordingly.
or errors in the Order of the entries in the IC may be
corrected, upon written request to and approval by the Section 20. Effectivity. This memorandum circular takes
Commissioner of Immigration. The NSO shall be promptly effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in two
provided with a copy of the corrected IC. (2) newspapers of general circulation.
Section 14. Confidentiality of Records. Any application,

document or information given before the BI or any Philippine
Foreign Post shall not be divulged in any manner to any

iii. DENR Administrative Order No. 2010-12 as the residence of such person, situated on the
parcel of residential land and subject of the free
SUBJECT: RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE patent application. This is subject to the requirements
ISSUANCE OF FREE PATENTS TO RESIDENTIAL under subsections 2.11, 2.12 and 2.13 below.
LANDS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10023
2.2.1 For purposes of this IRR, persons
Pursuant to Section 7 of Republic Act No. 10023, otherwise employed in distant locations, either foreign
known as An Act Authorizing the Issuance of Free Patents to or domestic, in public or private service, such
Residential Lands ("RA 10023"), mandating the Director of the that they are not able to stay at their place of
Land Management Bureau of the Department of Environment residence for long periods of time, are
and Natural Resources to issue the implementing rules and deemed actual occupants.
regulations of this Act, the following rules and regulations
specifically pertaining to residential lands are hereby 2.3 Residential lands - all lands that have been
promulgated: identified and zoned as residential through the
appropriate ordinance by the Local Government Unit
Section 1. Scope of the Implementing Rules and (LGU) having jurisdiction over the area. These include
Regulations. - This implementing rules and regulations, residential lands within areas zoned as mixed
hereinafter referred to as the IRR, shall only cover applications residential and commercial or mixed residential and
for free patents pertaining to untitled public alienable and industrial.
disposable lands which have been zoned as residential. It shall
also cover zoned residential areas in proclaimed townsite 2.4 Alienable and Disposable lands - Lands of the
reservations. public domain classified as agricultural that may be
acquired through grant or confirmation of title.
Section 2. Definition of terms. - For purposes of RA 10023,
the following terms and phrases as used in this IRR are defined 2.5 Townsite reservations - proclaimed areas
and understood as follows: specifically reserved for the establishment of a new
town as provided for in Chapter XI Title V of C.A. 141
2.1 Filipino Citizen - as enumerated in Article IV or the Public Land Act as Amended.
Section I of the 1987 Constitution, the following are
citizens of the Philippines: 2.6 Highly urbanized cities (HUC) - as defined in
Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the Local
2.1.1 Those who are citizens of the Government Code (LGC), cities with a minimum
Philippines at the time of the adoption of the population of two hundred thousand (200,000)
1987 Constitution; inhabitants, as certified by the National Statistics
Office, and with the latest annual income of at least
2.1.2 Those whose fathers or mothers are Fifty Million Pesos (P50, 000,000.00) based on 1991
citizens of the Philippines; constant prices, as certified by the city treasurer.
Provided that, any future changes in qualifications for
classification as HUC by the concerned government
2.1.3 Those born before January 17, 1973, of
agency at the time of filing of the application will
Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine
prevail.
citizenship upon reaching he age of majority;
and
2.7 First class municipalities - municipalities with an
average annual income of Fifty Five Million Pesos
2.1.4 Those who are naturalized in
(P55, 000,000.00), as provided for in Department
accordance with law.
Order No. 23-08 of the Department of Finance, dated
July 29, 2008 (DO 20-08). Provided that, any future
In addition, a person with dual citizenship as provided
changes in qualifications for classification as first class
for in Republic Act No. 9225 and its implementing
municipality by the concerned government agency at
rules and regulations shall be considered a Filipino
the time of filing of the application will prevail.
citizen.
2.8 Second class municipalities - municipalities with an

2.2 Actual occupant - any person who, either by
average annual income equal to or more than Forty
herself or himself or through her or his predecessor-
Five Million Pesos (P45, 000,000.00), but not
in-interest, is occupying, living in, inhabiting or staying
exceeding Fifty Five Million Pesos (P55,000,000.00), as
in a structure, the primary purpose of which is to serve
provided for in DO 23-08. Provided that, any future

changes in qualifications for classification as second whether actual or constructive, must be without
class municipality by the concerned government interruption, except when prevented by force majeure
agency at the time of filing of the application will or circumstances beyond human control, or not of
prevail. intermittent character while it continues. A person
who lawfully recovers possession unjustly lost, shall be
2.9 Use for Public service - utilization of parcels of land deemed, for all purposes which may redound to her
exclusively by the government or any of its or his benefit, to have enjoyed it without interruption.
instrumentalities in providing basic services to the
general public, such as, but not limited to, market 2.15 Bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership -
places; town, city, provincial, or barangay halls; claim for the parcel subject of the application that is
hospitals, clinics, and health centers; police stations; legally adequate as proof of possession and as
outposts; jails; and the like. acceptable to the community to separate that
particular parcel as being owned by the applicant to
2.10 Public use - utilization of parcels of land for the exclusion of others. It means that the applicant
structures which are open to the general public, holds the property by virtue of or through any of the
including, but not limited, to public plazas, parks, modes of acquisition recognized by the Civil Code. It
resort, playgrounds, public parking lots, and the like. also refers to a state of mind which is manifested by
the acts of the applicant, done with honest intention
2.11 Disinterested person - any person who has no to abstain from taking an unconscionable or
claim over the parcel of land subject of the free unscrupulous advantage of another. It is the opposite
patent application and who does not stand to benefit of fraud and its absence should be established by
from titling and registration or any other transaction convincing evidence.
over such parcel of land. A person is also
disinterested when her or his relation to the cause or 2.16 Accomplished application - a proper application
to the parties is such that she or he has no incentive form completely and duly filled in with the requisite
for exaggerating or giving false color to her or his information and that which does not require any
statements, or for suppressing or perverting the truth additional inputs other than those already provided in
or for stating what is false. the form, together with all other requirements
enumerated under Section 5 of the IRR.
2.12 Predecessor-in-interest - a person who, before
having lawfully transferred the parcel subject of the 2.17 CENRO - the Community Environment and
application to the applicant, has held and possessed Natural Resources Office of the Department of
the same in her or his own right and under a color of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) having
title acquired through any of the modes of acquisition jurisdiction over the parcel subject of the application,
recognized by the Civil Code. She or he has formerly which shall accept the accomplished application
occupied this parcel of land in the concept of an submitted by the applicant. In the National Capital
owner under a bona fide claim of ownership, but Region, the Regional Office shall perform the
relinquishes her or his right over the same in favor of functions of the CENRO. Where portions of the parcel
the applicant. subject of the application are spread over two (2) or
more areas under the jurisdiction of more than one (1)
2.13 Actual residence - utilization of and presence in a CENRO, the parcel shall be divided such that the
residential structure on the parcel subject of the portions shall be the subject of separate free patents
application with the intention to reside, coupled with applied for in the corresponding CENRO where they
conduct indicative of such intention, either continuous are located.
or interrupted or intermittent, as long as the applicant
possesses such structure and the parcel on which it 2.18 PENRO - the Provincial Environment and Natural
stands in the concept of an owner. Resources Office of the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR) having jurisdiction over
2.14 Continuous possession and occupation - used the parcel subject of the application, which has the
either by the applicant herself or himself, or through power to approve or disapprove such application. In
her or his predecessor-in-interest, of the parcel the National Capital Region, the Regional Executive
subject of the application in the concept of an owner. Director shall perform the functions of the PENRO.
This may be actual possession or occupation, or Upon approval of the application, the PENRO shall
constructive possession that provides for non- issue the patent over such parcel of land.
residence, but with the desire to come back as soon
as practicable. The possession and occupation,

Section 3. Qualifications. - Applicants for the issuance of a All CENROs shall secure a copy of approval zoning ordinances
residential free patent shall possess the following of cities and municipalities within their jurisdiction for
qualifications, namely: identification of zoned residential areas. They shall secure area
certifications from the LGU planning offices that the areas
31. Filipino citizenship, as defined in subsection 2.1. In identified and zoned as residential lands are not needed for
case of doubt, the CENRO or the land investigator public use or public service. The LGU zoning at the time of
concerned may ask for proof of citizenship such as, filing of the application shall be considered for purposes of
but not limited to, a copy of the birth certificate, complying with the zoning requirement.
passport, decree or order of naturalization, or
certificate of dual citizenship. Section 5. Requirements for applications. - The application
form accompanied application by the requirements
3.2 Actual occupation , actual residence and enumerated below shall constitute an accomplished
continuous possession and occupation of the parcel application for the issuance of free patents for residential
subject of the application, either by herself or himself lands.
or through her or his predecessor-in-interest, under a
bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership, for at 5.1 Copy of approval plan based on an actual survey
least ten (10) years prior to the filing of the conducted by a licensed geodetic engineer or copy of
application. cadastral map showing the parcel of land applied for.
For purpose of securing the approval of a survey, the
There shall be no age requirement for applicants as long as application number is not necessary.
minor applicants, aged below eighteen (18) years old, are duly
represented by their legal guardians. The heirs of a deceased 5.2 Copy of technical description of the parcel of land
applicant may substitute the applicant provided that they subject of the application. LMB form 700-2A or LMB
themselves possess the required qualifications. There shall form 700-2B may be used.
likewise be no limit as to the number of applicants which may
be filed under RA 10023, provided that the limitations as to the 5.3 Simplified sketch of the land parcel showing the
size of the parcel as stated in Section 4 shall not be exceeded. adjacent lots, corners and natural or manmade
features that defined the boundaries of the land
No application shall be approved for any individual whose total
landholding would exceed a total of an accumulated twelve 5.4 Affidavit of two (2) disinterested persons residing
(12) hectares, including agricultural lands, should the in the barangay of the city or municipality where the
application be granted. land is located, attesting to the truth of the facts
contained in the application to the effect that the
Section 4. Coverage. - The IRR covers all residential lands applicant thereof has, either by himself or through his
that have been identified and zoned through the appropriate predecessor-in-interest, actually resided on and
ordinance of the LGU concerned, provided that the land continuously possessed and occupied, under a bona
applied for its not needed for public service and/or public use. fide claim of acquisition of ownership, the subject
land for at least ten (10) years
4.1 For highly urbanized cities, the area shall not
exceed two hundred (200) square meters. 5.5 For isolated applications, a certification from the
Regional Trial Court that there is no pending land
4.2 For other cities, the area shall not exceed five registration case involving the land parcel being
hundred (500) square meters. applied for.
4.3 For first class and second class municipalities, the Section 6. Procedure in the CENRO for processing
area shall not exceed seven hundred fifty (750) square applications. - Applications for residential free patent shall be
meters. filed in the CENRO whose jurisdiction covers the area where
the parcel of land subject of the application is situated. This
4.4 For all other municipalities, the area shall not may also include on-site acceptance of accomplished
exceed one thousand (1000) square meters. applications by the CENRO or any of his authorized
representatives. The CENRO may also authorize any public
office to accept applications and to prepare applications and
In the determination of the size limitation of the parcel subject
documents for processing.
of the application, the above classifications of LGUs at the time
of filing of the accomplished application shall be considered.
6.1 No application shall be accepted/processed
without submitting the complete requirements

including the approved plan and technical 6.8 The CENRO shall fast track the resolution of all
description. A preliminary assessment of compliance claims and conflicts arising from residential free
with the qualifications and documentary requirements patent applications within 120 days and shall notify
based on the checklist may be made before the conflicting parties within 15 days from the date of
acceptance of the application and the resolution. The CENRO shall apply alternative dispute
commencement of the 120-days period. resolution (ADR) mechanisms in the resolution of
claims and conflicts.
6.2 Posting of Notice. - Upon receipt of an
accomplished application, the CENRO concerned 6.9 The CENRO shall establish a computerized data
shall cause the posting of notices for 15 days in two (2) base and system of record keeping with respect to all
conspicuous places within the municipality or city, public land applications and patents arising from the
preferably in the location of its office, or any other implementation of this Act.
place that can be readily seen, such as, but not
limited to, public bill boards, public plazas, Section 7. Procedure in the PENRO. - Upon the
municipal/city/barangay halls and market places. The recommendation of the CENRO concerned, the corresponding
CENRO shall issue the certificate of posting of notice PENRO shall have a non-extendible period of five (5) days from
after the 15 day period has elapsed. receipt of such recommendation to either approve and sign
the patent or disapprove the application.
6.3 The CENRO is required to process the application,
including the publication thereof, within a non- In case of approval, the PENRO shall notify the applicant within
extendible period of one hundred twenty (120) days 15 days and forward the patent to the Registry of Deeds.
from the date of filing of the accomplished
application. The 120-days period starts the moment In case of disapproval, the PENRO shall notify the applicant
that an accomplished application leaves the hands of within 15 days and remand the entire records to the CENRO
the applicant and is turned over the CENRO or any for appropriate action.
authorized representatives thereof. The period for
verification with the records (e.g. determining whether
The PENRO may disapprove the application without prejudice
or not a patent had already been issued for the parcel
to re-filing on the grounds of non-compliance with
in question) is included in the 120-days period. The
documentary requirements. He/she may disapprove an
CENRO may provide for acceptance and processing
application with prejudice to refilling on grounds of non-
of applications by batch (by date or by geography) to
qualification of the applicant and when the land applied for
comply with the 120-day processing period.
should undergo claims and conflict resolution procedures.
6.4 Upon approval of the CENRO, the application and

The disapproval of the application by the PENRO may be
the complete records of the application shall be
appealed to the Secretary of the DENR though appropriate
forwarded to the PENRO for her or his approval and
channels.
signature.
Section 8. Other Pending Applications. - Pending

6.5 Should the CENRO determine that the application
miscellaneous sales applications falling within the purview of
is incomplete in requirements, she or he shall reject
RA 10023 prior to the order of award may be converted to
the application without prejudice to re filing.
applications for residential free patent. Provided, that the
applicant is informed and his/her consent is obtained.
6.6 The investigator shall conduct an ocular inspection
on the parcel of land applied for and shall determine
All pending miscellaneous sales application after the order of
the qualifications of the applicant as well as verify the
award and those applicants thereof who have commenced
claims of the applicant on the land. The land
payment on any of the required equal annual installments shall
investigator is authorized to subscribe proofs,
be given the option to continue with the miscellaneous sales
affidavits and oaths of any kind required or necessary
application or to convert their application into an application
in connection with the application for residential free
under RA 10023, provided that an affidavit of relinquishment of
patent.
rights to the MSA and of forfeiture of previously paid
installments shall be executed.
6.7 In case an opposition is filed, the 120-day period
for processing shall be deemed interrupted. The
The conversation of pending Miscellaneous Sales Applications
CENRO shall notify the applicant on the opposition
shall comply with the area limits specified in Section 4.
and shall subject the application to the regular claims
and conflict procedures of the DENR.

The CENRO shall issue an order cancelling the miscellaneous acquisition is approved by the Secretary of Natural Resources
sales application and converting the MSA to a residential free within six (6) months from the effectivity of this Decree."
patent application.
"Section 122. No land originally acquired in any manner under
Townsite sales applications falling within the qualifications of the provisions of this Act, nor any permanent on such land,
R.A. 10023 and before the bidding has been conducted, may shall encumbered, alienated, or transferred, except to persons,
also be converted to residential free patent applications. corporations, associations, or partnerships who may acquire
Provided, that the applicant consents to the conversation and lands of the public domain under this Act or to corporations
provided further, that the applicant relinquishes any other type organized in the Philippines authorized therefor by their
of claim through an affidavit. And provided further, that the charters.
conversation shall comply with the area limits specified in
Section 4. Except in cases of hereditary succession, no land or any
portion thereof originally acquired under the free patent,
Section 9. Removal of Restrictions. - The following restrictions homestead, or individual sale provisions of this Act, or any
under Chapter XIII, Title VI of Commonwealth Act No. 141 shall permanent improvement on such land, shall be transferred or
not be applicable to patents issued under RA 10023, to wit: assigned to any individual, nor shall such land or any
permanent improvement thereon be leased to such individual,
"Section 118. Except in favor of the Government or any of its when the area of said land, added to that of his own, shall
branches, units, or institutions, lands acquired under free exceed one hundred and forty-four hectares. Any transfer,
patent or homestead provisions shall not be subject to assignment, or lease made in violation hereof, shall be null and
encumbrance or alienation from the date of the approval of void."
the application and for a term of five years from and after the
date of issuance of the patent or grant, nor shall they become "Section 123. No land originally acquired in any manner under
liable to the satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to the the provisions of any previous Act, ordinance, royal order, royal
expiration of said period, but the improvements or crops on decree, or any other provision of law formerly in force in the
the land may be mortgaged or pledged to qualified persons, Philippines with regard to public lands, terrenos baldios y
associations, or corporations. realengos, or lands of any other denomination that were
actually or presumptively of the public domain, or by royal
No alienation, transfer, or conveyance of any homestead after grant or in any other form, nor any permanent improvement on
five years and before twenty-five years after issuance of title such land, shall be encumbered, alienated, or conveyed,
shall be valid without the approval of the Secretary of except o persons, corporations or associations who may
Agriculture and Commerce, which approval shall not be acquire land of the public domain under this Act or to
denied except on constitutional and legal grounds." corporate bodies organized in the Philippines whose charters
authorize them to do so: Provided, however, That this
"Section 119. Every conveyance of land acquired under the prohibition shall not be applicable to the conveyance or
free patent or homestead provisions, when proper, shall be acquisition by reason of hereditary succession duly
subject to repurchase by the applicant, his widow, or legal acknowledged and legalized by competent courts; Provided,
heirs, within a period of five years from the date of the further, That in the event of the ownership of the lands and
conveyance." improvements mentioned in this section and in the last
preceding section being transferred by judicial decree to
persons, corporations or associations not legally capacitated to
"Section 121. Except with the consent of the grantee and the
acquire the same under the provisions of this Act, such
approval of the Secretary of Natural Resources, and solely for
persons, corporations, or associations shall be obliged to
commercial, industrial, educational, religious or charitable
alienate said lands or improvements to others so capacitated
purposes or for a right of way, no corporation, association, or
within the period of five years; otherwise, such property shall
partnership may acquire or have any right, title, interest, or
revert to the Government."
property right whatsoever to any land granted under the free
patent, homestead, or individual sale provisions of this Act or
to any permanent improvement on such land. Section 10. Separability Clause. - If, for any reason, any
section or provision of this Implementing Rules and
Regulations is declared null and avoid, no other section,
The provisions of Section 124 of this Act to the contrary
provision, or part thereof shall be affected and the same shall
notwithstanding, any acquisition of such land, rights thereto or
remain in full force and effect.
improvements thereon by a corporation, association, or
partnership prior to the promulgation of this Decrees for the
purposes herein stated is deemed valid and binding; Provided, Section 11. Repealing Clause. - All orders, circulars,
That no final decision of reversion of such land to the State has memoranda and other issuances inconsistent herewith are
been rendered by a court; And Provided, further, That such hereby repealed and/or amended accordingly.

Section 12. Effectivity. - This order shall take effect fifteen (15) 3. Having been an employee in the firm of Nottebohm
days after the publication thereof in a newspaper of general Hermanos, which had been founded by his brothers Juan and
circulation and acknowledgement of receipt of a copy from the Arturo, he became their partner in 1912 and became head in
Office of the National Administrative Register.
1937.
4. After 1905, he sometimes went to Germany on business and

Liechtenstein v. Guatemala – President Hackworth (1955)
to other countries for holidays. He still had business
connections in Germany. He had a brother in Liechtenstein
Petitioner: Liechtenstein
whom he visited. Some of his other brothers, relatives and
Respondent: Guatemala friends were in Germany, others in Guatemala.
Concept: Dual/multiple citizenship 5. Nottebohm himself continued to have his fixed abode in
Guatemala.
Digest by Kat
6. In 1939, after having provided for the safeguarding of his
interests in Guatemala by a power of attorney given to the firm,
he left for Hamburg and later paid a few brief visits to Vaduz.
Brief Facts: Nottebohm was born in Germany, took up
residence and did business in Guatemala, and applied for 7. It was on Oct. 9, or a little more than a month after the
naturalization in Liechtenstein. Guatemala claimed that opening of WWII that his attorney, Dr. Marxer, submitted an
Liechtenstein failed to prove that Nottebohm is its national. application for naturalization on behalf of Nottebohm.
8. The Liechtenstein Law specifies certain mandatory

requirements for naturalization. The applicant must prove:
Doctrine: It is for every sovereign State, to settle by its own
legislation the rules relating to the acquisition of its nationality, a. That the acceptance into the Home Corporation of
and to confer that nationality by naturalization granted by its a Liechtenstein commune has been promised to him
own organs in accordance with that legislation. In cases of dual in case of acquisition of the nationality
nationality, preference is given to the real and effective
nationality – that which is in accord with the facts and based on b. That he will lose his former nationality as a result of
stronger factual ties between the person concerned and one of naturalization, although this may be waived under
the States whose nationality is concerned. In order to appraise stated conditions.
the international effect of naturalization, it is impossible to
9. The applicant must also have resided for at least 3 years in
disregard the circumstances in which it was conferred, the
the territory of the principality of Liechtenstein, although this
serious character which attaches to it, the real and effective,
can be dispensed with in circumstances deserving special
and not merely the verbal preference of the individual seeking
consideration and by way of exception.
it for the country which grants it to him. In this case,
Nottebohm’s only ties to Liechtenstein were his transient visits
10. Documents also have to be submitted, such as evidence of
and his promise to pay taxes.
his residence in the territory, certificate of good conduct issued
by the competent authority of the place of residence,
documents relating to his property and income, and, if he is
FACTS: not a resident, proof that he has concluded an agreement with
the Revenue authorities subsequent to the revenue
1. Friedrich Nottebohm was born in Hamburg in 1881. He was commission of the presumptive home commune having been
German by birth and applied for naturalization in Liechtenstein heard.
in 1939.
11. A naturalization fee has to be paid, which is fixed by the
2. In 1905, he went to Guatemala. He took up residence there Princely Government and amounts to at least ½ of the sum
and made it the HQ of his business – commerce, banking and payable by the applicant for reception into the Home
plantations. Corporation of a Liechtenstein commune, the promise of such
reception constituting a condition under the Law for the grant
of naturalization.

12. Naturalization should only be granted with knowledge of all 24. On Oct. 20, Nottebohm took the oath of allegiance and a
the pertinent facts. There should be an enquiry into the final arrangement concerning liability to taxation was
relations of the applicant with the country of his former concluded on Oct. 23.
nationality, as well as into all other personal and family
circumstances. The grant is barred when these cause 25. A certificate of nationality has also been produced, signed
apprehension that prejudice of any kind may inure to the State on behalf of the Government and dated Oct. 20, to the effect
by reason of the admission to nationality. that he was naturalized by Supreme Resolution of the Reigning
Prince dated Oct. 13, 1939.
13. The Government, after examining the application, and after
having obtained satisfactory info about the applicant, shall 26. He had his Liechtenstein passport visa-ed by the Consul
submit the application to the Diet. General of Guatemala in Zurich on Dec. 1, 1939, and returned
to Guatemala at the beginning of 1949, where he resumed his
14. If the Diet approves, the Government shall submit the former business activities.
requisite request to the Prince, who alone is entitled to confer
nationality of the Principality. 27. Liechtenstein wants the Court to find and declare that the
naturalization was not contrary to international law and its claim
15. The Princely Government can withdraw Liechtenstein on behalf of Nottebohm as a national of Liechtenstein is
nationality from any person who may have acquired it within 5 admissible.
years from naturalization, if it appears that the requirements
were not satisfied. The Government may withdraw it at any 28. Guatemala requests the Court to declare such claim
time if the naturalization was fraudulently obtained. inadmissible, and claims that Liechtenstein failed to prove that
Nottebohm was a Liechtenstein national.
16. Besides his application, Nottebohm also applied for the
previous conferment of citizenship in the Commune of Mauren.
17. He sought dispensation from the 3-year condition without ISSUES:
indicating the special circumstances.

1. Is the claim of Liechtenstein WRT Nottebohm admissible?
18. He also requested that naturalization proceedings be (NO)
initiated and concluded without delay.

2. Is Nottebohm’s acquisition of Liechtenstein nationality one
19. On the original typewritten application, the name of the which must be recognized by other States? (NO)
Commune of Mauren and the amounts to be paid were added

by hand.
RATIO:
20. There is also a reference to the "Vorausverstandnis” of the
prince obtained on Oct. 13, 1939 which was interpreted by - Liechtenstein has argued that Guatemala formerly
Liechtenstein as showing the decision to grant naturalization, recognized the naturalization which it now challenges
although this has been questioned. and cannot question it anymore.
- The Consul General of Guatemala in Zurich entered a
21. There is annexed to the application a sheet that has the visa in Nottebohm’s Liechtenstein passport.
signature of the Prince “Franz Josef” but without any date or - Nottebohm also informed the Ministry of External
Affairs in Guatemala that he had adopted the
explanation.
nationality of Liechtenstein and requested that his
22. A document dated Oct. 15, 1939 certifies that on that date, entry in the Register of Aliens be altered accordingly.
Such request was granted. His identity document was
the Commune of Mauren conferred the privilege of its
likewise amended.
citizenship upon Nottebohm and requested the Government - The acts of these Guatemalan authorities proceeded
to transmit it to the Diet for approval. on the basis of the statements made to them by the
person concerned. The visa was to make possible or
23. A certificate of Oct. 17 evidences the payment of the taxes facilitate entry into Guatemala. The entry in the
required. Register “constitutes a legal presumption that the
alien possesses the nationality there attributed to him,
but evidence to the contrary is admissible”. These

acts have reference to the control of aliens in Liechtenstein’s title to exercise protection in favor of
Guatemala and not to the exercise of diplomatic Nottebohm and that it is precluded from denying
protection. such a title.
- When Nottebohm presented himself before these - In a communication signed by the Minister of External
authorities, the latter had before them a private Affairs of Guatemala, addressed to the President of
individual; no relationship between governments the Court, reference is made to measures taken
came into being. against Nottebohm claiming to be a national of the
- In short, there was nothing to show that claimant State. It is stated that the Guatemalan
Guatemala then recognized that the Government is willing to begin negotiations with the
naturalization of Nottebohm gave Liechtenstein Government with a view to arriving at an
Liechtenstein any title to the exercise of amicable solution. It would constitute an
protection. obstacle to negotiations or settlements and
- The request by Nottebohm Hermanos to the Minister would hamper the use of the means of
of Finance and Public Credit with reference to the settlement recommended by the UN Charter
inclusion of the firm in the British Statutory List, to interpret an offer as implying the
referred to the fact that one of the partners was a abandonment of any defense or acceptance
national of Liechtenstein/Switzerland. This was only of any claim by the other party. There is no
made incidentally and the request was based on the admission by Guatemala of Nottebohm’s
consideration that the firm “is a wholly Guatemalan disputed nationality.
business” and on the interests of the “national - It is for Liechtenstein, as it is for every sovereign State,
economy”. to settle by its own legislation the rules relating to the
- The Note addressed by the Minister of External acquisition of its nationality, and to confer that
Affairs to the Swiss Consul who, having understood nationality by naturalization granted by its own organs
that the registration documents indicated that in accordance with that legislation.
Nottebohm was a Swiss citizen of Liechtenstein, - Nationality has its most immediate, its most
requested that this might be clarified. He received a far-reaching and, for most people, its only
reply that there was no such indication of Swiss effects within the legal system of the State
nationality in the documents and with no allusion to conferring it.
the exercise, by or on behalf of Liechtenstein, of - Nationality serves above all to determine that
protection in favor of Nottebohm. the person upon whom it is conferred enjoys
- When the Swiss Consul asked that Nottebohm, who the rights and is bound by the obligations
had been transferred to the US Military Base for which the law of the State in question grants
deportation, should be returned home as a citizen of to or imposes on its nationals.
a neutral country, the Minister of External Affairs of - Nationality is within the domestic jurisdiction of the
Guatemala replied that the action was attributable to State.
the authorities of the US, not the nationality of - But the issue which the Court must decide does not
Nottebohm. depend on the law or on the decision of Liechtenstein
- Guatemala expressly stated that it could not whether that State is entitled to exercise its
“recognize that Mr. Nottebohm, a German subject protection.
habitually resident in Guatemala, has acquired the - To exercise protection is to place oneself on the
nationality of Liechtenstein without changing his plane of international law. It is international law which
habitual residence”. This is an express denial by determines whether a State is entitled to exercise
Guatemala of Nottebohm’s Liechtenstein protection.
nationality. - The naturalization of Nottebohm was an act
- Nottebohm’s name having been removed from the performed by Liechtenstein in the exercise of
Register of Resident Aliens, his relative Karl Heinz its domestic jurisdiction. The question is
Nottebohm Stoltz requested the cancellation of the whether that act has the international effect
decision and the restoration of Nottebohm’s name to here under consideration.
the Register as a citizen of Liechtenstein, on the basis - When one State has conferred its nationality upon an
of Liechtenstein’s exclusive right to decide as to the individual and another State has conferred its own
nationality in question and the duty of Guatemala to nationality upon the same person, it may occur that
conform to such decision. The Minister of External each of these States, considering itself to have acted
Affairs rejected the request, stating that it was in the exercise of its domestic jurisdiction, adheres to
pointless since he was no longer a resident of its own view and bases itself thereon insofar as its own
Guatemala. actions are concerned. Each State remains within the
- There is nothing to show that before the institution of limits of its domestic jurisdiction.
proceedings, Guatemala had recognized - In most cases, arbitrators have not had to decide a

conflict of nationality as between States, but rather to the case of one of its subjects and by resorting to
determine whether the nationality invoked by the diplomatic action or international judicial proceedings
applicant State was one which could be relied upon on his behalf, a State is in reality asserting its own
as against the respondent State – whether it entitled rights – its right to ensure, in the person of its
the applicant State to exercise protection. subjects, respect for the rules of international law.
- International arbitrators, in deciding cases of dual (Permanent Court of Int’l Justice)
nationality, give their preference to the real and - Naturalization is not a matter to be taken
effective nationality – that which is in accord with lightly. To seek and to obtain it is not something that
the facts and based on stronger factual ties happens frequently in the life of a human being. It
between the person concerned and one of involves his breaking of a bond of allegiance and his
the States whose nationality is concerned. establishment of a new bond of allegiance. It may
Different factors are taken into consideration: habitual have far-reaching consequences and involve profound
residence, center of his interests, family ties, changes in the destiny of the individual who obtains
participation in public life, attachment shown for a it.
given country and inculcated in his children, etc. - It concerns him personally, and to consider it only
- Courts of third States seek to resolve such a conflict from the point of view of its repercussions with regard
by having recourse to international criteria and the to his property would be to misunderstand its
“real and effective nationality”. profound significance. In order to appraise its
- In order to be capable of being invoked against international effect, it is impossible to disregard the
another State, nationality must correspond with the circumstances in which it was conferred, the serious
factual situation. character which attaches to it, the real and effective,
- International law leaves it to each State to lay down and not merely the verbal preference of the individual
the rules governing the grant of its own nationality. seeking it for the country which grants it to him.
The diversity of demographic conditions has made it - At the date when he applied for naturalization,
impossible for any general agreement to be reached Nottebohm had been a German national from the
on the rules relating to nationality, although the latter time of his birth. He had always retained his
by its very nature affects international relations. connections with members of his family who had
- The best way of making such rules accord remained in Germany and he always had business
with the varying demographic conditions in connections with that country. His country had been
different countries is to leave the fixing of at war for more than a month and there was nothing
such rules to the competence of each State. to indicate that the application for naturalization was
- On the other hand, a State cannot claim that the rules motivated by any desire to disassociate himself from
it has laid down are entitled to recognition by another the Government of his country.
State unless it has acted in conformity with this - He had been settled in Guatemala for 34 years and
general aim of making the legal bond of nationality carried on his activities there. It was the main seat of
accord with the individual’s genuine connection with his interests. He returned there shortly after
the State which assumes the defense of its citizens by naturalization and it remained the center of his
means of protection as against other States. interests and business activities. He stayed there until
- According to state practice, arbitral and judicial his removal as a result of war measures in 1943. He
decisions and the opinions of writers, nationality is a subsequently attempted to return there and he
legal bond having as its basis a social fact of complained of Guatemala’s refusal to admit him.
attachment, a genuine connection of existence, There too were several members of his family who
interests and sentiments, together with the existence sought to safeguard his interests.
of reciprocal rights and duties. It may be said to - In contrast, he had no settled abode, no prolonged
constitute the juridical expression of the fact that the residence at the time of his application for
individual upon whom it is conferred, either directly naturalization in Liechtenstein. He was only paying a
by the law or as a result of an act of the authorities, is visit and such visit was transient because of his
in fact more closely connected with the population of request for initiating and concluding the
the State conferring nationality than with that of any naturalization proceedings without delay. He had no
other State. It only entitles that State to exercise intention of settling there, and returned to Guatemala
protection vis-à-vis another State, if it constitutes a after naturalization.
translation into juridical terms of the individual’s - If Nottebohm returned to Liechtenstein in 1946, this
connection with the State which has made him its was because Guatemala refused to admit him.
national. - No indication is given of the grounds warranting the
- Diplomatic protection and protection by means of waiver of the condition of residence, required by the
international judicial proceedings constitute measures Nationality law, which waiver was implicitly granted to
for the defense of the rights of the State. By taking up him. There is no allegation of economic interests or

activities exercised or to be exercised in 5. The Court issued an order granting the motion, but at the
Liechteinstein, and no intention to transfer all or some same time, authorized the taking of a new oath and the
of his interests and his business activities to issuance of another certificate. Thereafter, the Court
Liechtenstein. approved the record on appeal and, once more,
- The only link between Liechtenstein and Nottebohm authorized P to take a new oath the validate the first one.
are the short sojourns and the presence in Vaduz of
one of his brothers, who was mentioned only as a
reference to his good conduct in his application. ISSUE: WON the 2nd oath of allegiance and certificate of
Other members of Nottebohm’s family have asserted naturalization are valid (NO)
his desire to spend his old age in Guatemala.
- The naturalization was not based on any real prior RATIO:
connection with Liechtenstein, nor did it in any way
alter the manner of life of the person upon whom it 1. At the outset, the 2nd oath of allegiance, certificate of
was conferred in exceptional circumstances of speed naturalization, as well as the authority given therefor
and accommodation. It was lacking in the by the LC are null and void.
genuineness requisite to an act of such importance, if a. The CFI’s order had not, and up to the
it is to be entitled to be respected by Guatemala. It present has not, become final and executory
was granted without regard to the concept of in view of the appeal duly taken by the
nationality adopted in international relations. Government.
- Naturalization was asked for to enable him to b. Also, P’s 2nd oath was taken, not only after
substitute for his status as a national of a belligerent the filing of the notice of appeal and the
State that of a national of a neutral State, with the sole submission of the record on appeal, but also
aim of being protected but not being wedded to its after the approval thereof. Thus, the LC had
traditions, interests, way of life or obligations. already lost its jurisdiction over the case.
- Guatemala is under no obligation to recognize a 2. P’s net income in 1960 and 1961 was P3,945.65 and
nationality granted in such circumstances. P5,105.79, respectively. His income tax return showed
Liechtenstein is not entitled to extend its protection a net income of P6,485.50 for 1962. Considering that P
to Nottebohm vis-à-vis Guatemala. has a wife and 3 children at the time of the filing of his
application for naturalization, his income is not a
lucrative one from the viewpoint of our naturalization
DISPOSITIVE: The claim submitted by the Government of laws, namely:
the Principality of Liechtenstein is inadmissible. a. P4,200 or P5,000 a year for one married with
5 children;
b. P6,000 a year for one married with 2 minor
children; and
Oh Hek How v Republic (1969) SUPRA– Concepcion, CJ c. P6,000 or P6,300 a year for one married with
only one child
Topic: Citizenship by naturalization 3. It is conceded that P has not required from the
Minister of the Interior of Nationalist China the
FACTS: permission required by the laws thereof for a valid
renunciation of his Chinese citizenship.
1. A decision was rendered in 1964, granting Oh Hek How’s a. Sec. 12 of CA No. 473 provides that before
(P’s) petition for naturalization as citizen of the Philippines. the naturalization certificate is issued, the
2. In 1966, P filed a motion alleging that he had complied petitioner shall “solemnly swear,” inter alia,
with the requirements of RA No. 530 and praying that he that he renounces “absolutely and forever all
be allowed to take his oath of allegiance and issued the allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince,
corresponding certificate of naturalization. potentate” and particularly to the state “of
3. The CFI of Zamboanga del Norte issued an order which” he is “a subject or citizen.”
authorizing the taking of said oath. Thereafter, P took it, b. The obvious purpose of this requirement is
and the certificate of naturalization was issued to him. to divest him of his former nationality,
4. The Government seasonably gave notice of its intention to otherwise, he would have two nationalities
appeal from the order of the CFI, and filed its record on and owe allegiance to two distinct
appeal. It also moved to cancel P’s certificate of sovereignties, which our laws do not permit.
naturalization upon the ground, among others, that it was c. Exception: Pursuant to RA No. 2639, "the
issued and the oath taken before the CFI’s order had acquisition of citizenship by a natural-born
become final and executory. Filipino citizen from one of the Iberian and
any friendly democratic Ibero-American

countries shall not produce loss or forfeiture but, the same time, claimed that he is a Filipino
of his Philippine citizenship, if the law of that citizen because he was born in 1955 of a Filipino
country grants the same privilege to its father and a Filipino mother. He was born in the
citizens and such had been agreed upon by United States, San Francisco, California, making
treaty between the Philippines and the him an American citizen under US Laws. In other
foreign country from which citizenship is words, Manzano holds dual citizenship.
acquired." 5. On May 7, 1998, the Second Division of the
The question of how a Chinese citizen may strip himself of that COMELEC granted the petition of Mamaril and
status is necessarily governed, pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of ordered the cancellation of the certificate of
our Civil Code, by the laws of China, and not by those of the candidacy of Manzano. Under Section 40(d) of the
Philippines. Local Government Code, those holding dual
citizenship are disqualified from running for any
Mercado v, Manzano elective local position.
Plaintiff: Ernesto Mercado 6. Manzano filed an MR. MR remained pending even
Defendant: Eduardo Barrios Manzano until after the election. Mercado sought to intervene
Topic: Dual or multiple citizenship in the case for disqualification but this remained
Foreign Elements: unresolved.
(1) Manzano was born in San Francisco, California making 7. COMELEC en banc rendered its resolution, declaring
him a citizen of the United States under the principle private respondent qualified to run for vice mayor and
of jus soli. finding:
a. Manzano acquired US citizenship
Brief Facts: by operation of the United States
Manzano was sought to be disqualified from running as Vice Constitution and laws under the principle of
Mayor in Makati on the ground that he is not a Filipino citizen. jus soli. He was also a natural born Filipino
Manzano he was born in San Francisco, California of a Filipino citizen by operation of the 1935 Philippine
father and a Filipino mother. Manzano acquired US citizenship Constitution, as his father and mother were
by operation of the principle of jus soli. He was also a natural Filipinos.
born Filipino citizen by operation of the 1935 Constitution, b. His parents brought him to the Philippines
following the principle of jus sanguini. As such he holds dual using an American passport as travel
citizenship. Under Section 40(d) of the Local Government document. His parents also registered him as
Code, those holding dual citizenship are disqualified from an alien with the Philippine Bureau of
running for any elective local position. Immigration. He was issued an alien
certificate of registration. This, however, did
Doctrine: Manzano is qualified to run. Dual citizenship is not result in the loss of his Philippine
different from dual allegiance. The phrase dual citizenship in citizenship, as he did not renounce
R.A. No. 7160, Section 40(d) must be understood as referring Philippine citizenship and did not take an
to dual allegiance. Consequently, persons with mere dual oath of allegiance to the United States.
citizenship do not fall under this disqualification. Manzano 8. Pursuant to the resolution, the board of canvassers
elected Phiilippine citizenship through his certificate of proclaimed Manzano as vice mayor of the City of
candidacy. The certificate of candidacy sufficed to renounce Makati.
his American citizenship, effectively removing any 9. Mercado filed petition for certiorari to set aside the
disqualification he might have as a dual citizen. resolution of the COMELEC en banc.
FACTS: ISSUE:
1. Petitioner Ernesto S. Mercado and private respondent 1. WON Mercado has the personality to bring this suit? Yes,
Eduardo B. Manzano were candidates for vice mayor Mercado has standing to file this suit.
of the City of Makati in the May 11, 1998 elections. 2. WON Manzano is qualified to run? Yes, Manzano is
2. The results of the election showed that Manzano won. qualified.
The proclamation of the winner was suspended in
view of a pending petition for disqualification filed by RATIO:
a certain Ernesto Mamaril. 1. Mercado had a right to intervene at that stage of the
3. Mamaril filed a petition for disqualification alleging proceedings for the disqualification against private respondent
that he was not a citizen of the Philippines but of the is clear from Section 621 of R.A. No. 6646, otherwise known as
United States.

4. In his answer to the petition, Manzano admitted that 21
“Any candidate who has been declared by final judgment to be disqualified
he is registered as a foreigner with the Bureau of shall not be voted for, and the votes cast for him shall not be counted. If for any
Immigration under an Alien Certificate of Registration reason a candidate is not declared by final judgment before an election to be
disqualified and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such

the Electoral Reforms Law of 1987. Under said provision, termination of their status, for candidates with dual citizenship,
intervention may be allowed in proceedings for disqualification it should suffice if, upon the filing of their certificates of
even after election if there has yet been no final judgment candidacy, they elect Philippine citizenship to terminate their
rendered. status as persons with dual citizenship considering that their
condition is the unavoidable consequence of conflicting laws
2. Yes. Dual citizenship is different from dual allegiance. of different states.
Dual citizenship arises when, as a result of the concurrent
application of the different laws of two or more states, a By electing Philippine citizenship, such candidates at the same
person is simultaneously considered a national by the said time forswear allegiance to the other country of which they are
states. For instance, such a situation may arise when a person also citizens and thereby terminate their status as dual
whose parents are citizens of a state which adheres to the citizens. It is of no moment that, from the point of view of the
principle of jus sanguinis is born in a state which follows the foreign state and of its laws, such an individual has not
doctrine of jus soli. effectively renounced his foreign citizenship. When a person
Considering the citizenship clause (Art. IV) of our Constitution, applying for citizenship by naturalization takes an oath that he
it is possible for the following classes of citizens of the renounces his loyalty to any other country or government and
Philippines to possess dual citizenship: solemnly declares that he owes his allegiance to the Republic
(1) Those born of Filipino fathers and/or mothers in foreign of the Philippines, the condition imposed by law is satisfied
countries which follow the principle of jus soli; and complied with. The determination whether such
(2) Those born in the Philippines of Filipino mothers and alien renunciation is valid or fully complies with the provisions of our
fathers if by the laws of their fathers country such children are Naturalization Law lies within the province and is an exclusive
citizens of that country; prerogative of our courts applying Philippine Law. No foreign
(3) Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the latters country law may or should interfere with its operation and application.
the former are considered citizens, unless by their act or
omission they are deemed to have renounced Philippine Manzano elected Philippine Citizenship.
citizenship. COMELEC en banc: By participating in Philippine elections in
1992, 1995, and 1998, private respondent effectively renounced
Dual allegiance, on the other hand, refers to the situation in his U.S. citizenship under American law, so that now he is solely
which a person simultaneously owes, by some positive act, a Philippine national.
loyalty to two or more states. While dual citizenship is
involuntary, dual allegiance is the result of an individuals Mercado: Merely taking part in Philippine elections is not
volition. Article IV, 5 of the Constitution provides: Dual sufficient evidence of renunciation and that, in any event, as
allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and the alleged renunciation was made when private respondent
shall be dealt with by law. Commissioner Blas Ople explained was already 37 years old, it was ineffective as it should have
the necessity of this provision, saying that dual allegiance are been made when he reached the age of majority.
citizens who are already Filipinos but who, by their acts, may
be said to be bound by a second allegiance. Ople notes that SC: Manzano’s certificate of candidacy23 sufficed to renounce
double allegiance is repugnant to our sovereignty and national his American citizenship, effectively removing any
security.22 disqualification he might have as a dual citizen. By declaring in
his certificate of candidacy that he is a Filipino citizen; that he is
The concern of the Constitutional Commission was not with not a permanent resident or immigrant of another country; that
dual citizens per se but with naturalized citizens who maintain he will defend and support the Constitution of the Philippines
their allegiance to their countries of origin even after their and bear true faith and allegiance thereto and that he does so
naturalization. The phrase dual citizenship in R.A. No.

7160, 40(d) and in R.A. No. 7854, 20 must be 23
COC contained the following statements made under oath:
understood as referring to dual 6. I AM A FILIPINO CITIZEN (STATE IF NATURAL-BORN OR
allegiance. Consequently, persons with mere dual NATURALIZED) NATURAL-BORN
....
citizenship do not fall under this
10. I AM A REGISTERED VOTER OF PRECINCT NO. 747-A, BARANGAY SAN
disqualification. Unlike those with dual allegiance, who LORENZO, CITY/MUNICIPALITY OF MAKATI, PROVINCE OF NCR .
must, therefore, be subject to strict process with respect to the 11. I AM NOT A PERMANENT RESIDENT OF, OR IMMIGRANT TO, A FOREIGN
COUNTRY.
12. I AM ELIGIBLE FOR THE OFFICE I SEEK TO BE ELECTED. I WILL SUPPORT
election, the Court or Commission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES AND WILL
action, inquiry, or protest and, upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, MAINTAIN TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE THERETO; THAT I WILL OBEY THE
may during the pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of LAWS, LEGAL ORDERS AND DECREES PROMULGATED BY THE DULY
such candidate whenever the evidence of guilt is strong.” CONSTITUTED AUTHORITIES OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES; AND
22
Commissioner Ople observed a good number of naturalized Filipinos who THAT I IMPOSE THIS OBLIGATION UPON MYSELF VOLUNTARILY, WITHOUT
were formerly Chinesecitizens still routinely go to Taipei every October 10; and it MENTAL RESERVATION OR PURPOSE OF EVASION. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT
is asserted that some of them do renew their oath of allegiance to a foreign THE FACTS STATED HEREIN ARE TRUE AND CORRECT OF MY OWN
government maybe just to enter into the spirit of the occasion when the PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE.
anniversary of the Sun Yat-Sen Republic is commemorated.

without mental reservation, Manzano has, as far as the laws of • On the other hand, Congress was given a mandate to
this country are concerned, effectively repudiated his American draft a law that would set specific parameters of what
citizenship and anything which he may have said before as a really constitutes dual allegiance. Until this is done, it
dual citizen. would be premature for the judicial department,
including this Court, to rule on issues pertaining to
Manzano’s oath of allegiance to the Philippines, when dual allegiance
considered with the fact that he has spent his youth and
adulthood, received his education, practiced his profession as
an artist, and taken part in past elections in this country, leaves FACTS:
no doubt of his election of Philippine citizenship. His
declarations will be taken upon the faith that he will fulfill his 1. Petitioner filed an action for prohibition against Sec. of
undertaking made under oath. Should he betray that trust, Justice Datumanong, the offical tasked to implement laws
there are enough sanctions for declaring the loss of his governing citizenship.
Philippine citizenship through expatriation in appropriate
proceedings. 2. Petitioner asssails the constitutionality of RA 9225 or the
Digest by: Kiko del Valle Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003.
3. Petitioner raises the following contentions:

AASJS v. Datumanong (2007) – Quisumbing, J.
• The law cheapens Philippine citizenship
Petitioner: AASJS (Advocates and Adherents of Social
• Law allows dual allegiance and not dual citizenship
Justice for School Teachers and Allied Workers) Member – • Sec. 2 allows all Filipinos, either natural-born or
Hector Calilung naturalized, who became foreign citizens, to retain
their Philippine citizenship without losing their foreign
Respondent: Datumanong, in his capacity as the Secretary of citizenship
Justice • Sec. 3 permits dual allegiance because said law allows
natural-born citizens of the Philippines to regain their
Concept: Dual oor mutual citizenship Philippine citizenship by simply taking an oath of
allegaince without forteiting their foreign allegiance
• It is unconstitutional because the Constitution is
categorical that dual allegiance is inimical to the
Brief Facts: Petitioner filed a petition to prevent Sec. of national interest
Justice Datumanong from implementing RA 9225 as it is • that although Congress has not yet passed any law on
unconstitutional for violating Sec. 5, Art. VI, Constitution which the matter of dual allegiance, such absence of a law
should not be justification why this Court could not
states that dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to national
rule on the issue. He further contends that while it is
interest and shall be dealt with by law. The SC upheld the
true that there is no enabling law yet on dual
validity of RA 9225 and held that it has no jurisdiction yet to allegiance, the Supreme Court, through Mercado v.
pass upon the issue of dual allegiance. Manzano, already had drawn up the guidelines on
how to distinguish dual allegiance from dual
Doctrine: citizenship (petitioner means that a law is not needed
since the case of Mercado had already set the
• Section 5, Article IV of the Constitution is a guidelines for determining dual allegiance)
declaration of a policy and it is not a self-executing 4. On the other hand, the OSG argues the following:
provision. What Rep. Act No. 9225 does is allow dual
citizenship to natural-born Filipino citizens who have • Sec. 2 merely declares as a state policy that
lost Philippine citizenship by reason of their “Philippine citizens who became citizens of another
naturalization as citizens of a foreign country. On its country shall be deemed not to have lost their
face, it does not recognize dual allegiance. By Philippine citizenship”
swearing to the supreme authority of the Republic, • Sec. 3 does not allow dual allegiance since the oath
the person implicitly renounces his foreign citizenship. taken by the former Filipino citizen is an effective
Plainly, from Section 3, Rep. Act No. 9225 stayed clear renunciation and repudiation of his foreign citizenship
out of the problem of dual allegiance and shifted the • The fact that the applicant taking the oath recognizes
burden of confronting the issue of whether or not and accepts the supreme authority of the Philippines
there is dual allegiance to the concerned foreign is an unmistakable and categorical affirmation of his
country. What happens to the other citizenship was undivided loyalty to the Republic
not made a concern of Rep. Act No. 9225.

• that pursuant to Section 5, Article IV of the 1987 2. On the issue of enabling law: Art. IV, Sec. 5 is not self-
Constitution, dual allegiance shall be dealt with by executing but a declaration of policy and a congressional
law. Thus, until a law on dual allegiance is enacted by mandate to enact the law on dual allegiance; Mercado case
Congress, the Supreme Court is without any
did not define dual allegiance.
jurisdiction to entertain issues regarding dual
allegiance.
• 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
ISSUE: WON RA 9225 is unconstitutional – No
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
RATIO: What RA 9225 does is allow dual citizenship
countries of origin even after their naturalization.
to natural-born Filipino citizens who have lost
Congress was given a mandate to draft a law that
Philippine citizenship by reason of their would set specific parameters of what really
naturalization as citizens of a foreign country. It does constitutes dual allegiance. Until this is done, it would
not recognize dual allegiance by shifting the burden be premature for the judicial department, including
of confronting the issue of whether or not there is this Court, to rule on issues pertaining to dual
dual allegiance to the concerned foreign country. allegiance.
• SC said that petitioner misreads Mercado case. That
1. The SC resorted to the deliberations of Congress to case did not set the parameters of what constitutes
dual allegiance but merely made a distinction
determine the intent of the legislative branch and found that
between dual allegiance and dual citizenship.
RA 9225 shifts the issue of dual allegiance of dual citizens away 3. Presumption of validity of law and doctrine of separation of
from the Philippines.
powers
• According to Rep. Dilangalen, two situations exist –

• SC said that in Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, it was held
the retention of foreign citizenship, and the
that the courts must assume that the legislature is
reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. ever conscious of the borders and edges of its plenary
o This conention was answered by Rep. Locsin.
powers, and passed laws with full knowledge of the
He said that the proposed law aims to
facts and for the purpose of promoting what is right
facilitate the reacquisition of Philippine
and advancing the welfare of the majority. Hence, in
citizenship by speedy means. However, he determining whether the acts of the legislature are in
said that in one sense, it addresses the tune with the fundamental law, we must proceed with
problem of dual citizenship by requiring the
judicial restraint and act with caution and forbearance.
taking of an oath. He explained that the
• Hence, the SC cannot arrogate the duty of setting the
problem of dual citizenship is transferred
parameters of what constitutes dual allegiance when
from the Philippines to the foreign country
the Constitution itself has clearly delegated the duty
because the latest oath that will be taken by
of determining what acts constitute dual allegiance
the former Filipino is one of allegiance to the
for study and legislation by Congress.
Philippines.
• Rep. Locsin clarified that by swearing to the supreme
authority of the Republic, the person implicitly Disposition: Petition dismissed.
renounces his foreign citizenship.
• What Rep. Act No. 9225 does is allow dual citizenship Jacot v. Dal - Chico-Nazario (2008)
to natural-born Filipino citizens who have lost
Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization Petitioner: Nestor Jacot
as citizens of a foreign country. On its face, it does not
recognize dual allegiance. By swearing to the Respondents: Rogen Dal
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 Brief facts: Nestor Jacot assails the Resolution of COMELEC
of confronting the issue of whether or not there is disqualifying him from running for the position of Vice-Mayor
dual allegiance to the concerned foreign country.
of Catarman, Camiguin, in the 14 May 2007 National and Local
What happens to the other citizenship was not made
Elections, on the ground that he failed to make a personal
a concern of Rep. Act No. 9225.

renouncement of US citizenship. He was a natural born citizen 9. COMELEC Second Division finally issued its Resolution
of the Philippines, who became a naturalized citizen of the US disqualifying the petitioner from running for the position of
on 13 December 1989. He sought to reacquire his Philippine Vice-Mayor for failure to make the requisite renunciation of his
citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225. US citizenship.
- explained that the reacquisition of Philippine

citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 does not automatically
Doctrine: It bears to emphasize that the oath of allegiance is bestow upon any person the privilege to run for any elective
a general requirement for all those who wish to run as public office.
candidates in Philippine elections; while the renunciation of
foreign citizenship is an additional requisite only for those who - that the filing of a Certificate of Candidacy cannot
have retained or reacquired Philippine citizenship under be considered as a renunciation of foreign citizenship.
Republic Act No. 9225 and who seek elective public posts,
considering their special circumstance of having more than one 10. Jacot filed an MR and attached was an "Oath of
citizenship. Renunciation of Allegiance to the United States and

Renunciation of Any and All Foreign Citizenship" dated 27
June 2007, wherein petitioner explicitly renounced his US
citizenship. This was dismissed
FACTS:
11. Jacot went up to the SC via Rule 65 where he presented for
1. Jacot was a natural born citizen of the Philippines, who the first time an "Affidavit of Renunciation of Allegiance to the
became a naturalized citizen of the US on 13 December 1989. United States and Any and All Foreign Citizenship" dated 7
February 2007.
2. He sought to reacquire his Philippine citizenship under
Republic Act No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re- - avers that he executed an act of renunciation of his
Acquisition Act) US citizenship, separate from the Oath of Allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines he took before the Los Angeles
3. He filed a request for the administration of his Oath of
PCG and his filing of his Certificate of Candidacy, thereby
Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines with the
changing his theory of the case during the appeal.
Philippine Consulate General (PCG) of Los Angeles, California
which issued an Order of Approval and on the same day, Jacot - his former counsel allegedly advised him that said
took his Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines piece of evidence was unnecessary
4. The Bureau of Immigration issued Identification Certificate

No. 06-12019 recognizing Jacot as a citizen of the Philippines.
ISSUE: WON Jacot is disqualified from running as a candidate
5. Six months after, Jacot filed his Certificate of Candidacy for in the 14 May 2007 local elections for his failure to make a
the Position of Vice-Mayor of the Municipality of Catarman, personal and sworn renunciation of his US citizenship
Camiguin.
6. Rogen T. Dal filed a Petition for Disqualification before the

COMELEC Provincial Office against Jacot, arguing that the RATIO: YES. His oath of allegiance to the Republic of
latter failed to renounce his US citizenship, as required under the Philippines made before the Los Angeles PCG
Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225 and his Certificate of Candidacy do not substantially
comply with the requirement of a personal and sworn
7. Jacot countered that his Oath of Allegiance to the Republic renunciation of foreign citizenship because these are
of the Philippines made before the Los Angeles PCG and the distinct requirements to be complied with for
oath contained in his Certificate of Candidacy operated as an different purposes.
effective renunciation of his foreign citizenship.
8. In the May 2007 elections, Jacot garnered the highest

number of votes for the position of Vice Mayor.

- Section 3 of Republic Act No. 922524 requires that natural- - The law categorically requires persons seeking elective public
born citizens of the Philippines, who are already naturalized office, who either retained their Philippine citizenship or those
citizens of a foreign country, must take the oath of allegiance who reacquired it, to make a personal and sworn renunciation
to the Republic of the Philippines to reacquire or retain their of any and all foreign citizenship before a public officer
Philippine citizenship. authorized to administer an oath simultaneous with or before
the filing of the certificate of candidacy.
- Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the
effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a foreign country shall - Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 9225 compels natural-born
retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the aforesaid Filipinos, who have been naturalized as citizens of a foreign
oath. country, but who reacquired or retained their Philippine
citizenship
- The Filipino swears allegiance to the Philippines, but there is
nothing therein on his renunciation of foreign citizenship. (1) to take the oath of allegiance under Section 3 of
Republic Act No. 9225, and
- A situation might arise under Republic Act No. 9225 wherein
said Filipino has dual citizenship by also reacquiring or (2) for those seeking elective public offices in the
retaining his Philippine citizenship, despite his foreign Philippines, to additionally execute a personal and sworn
citizenship. renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before an
authorized public officer prior or simultaneous to the filing of
- The afore-quoted oath of allegiance is substantially similar to their certificates of candidacy, to qualify as candidates in
the one contained in the Certificate of Candidacy25 which must Philippine elections.
be executed by any person who wishes to run for public office
in Philippine elections. - Clearly Filipinos availing themselves of the benefits under the
said Act are required to accomplish an undertaking other than
- See Section 5(2) of Republic Act No. 922526 that which they have presumably complied with under Section
3 (oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines).
- Also, the intent of the legislators (see case for transcript of

24
SEC. 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship.–Any provision of law to the contrary
bicameral hearing) was not only for Filipinos reacquiring or
notwithstanding, natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost their Philippine
citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are hereby retaining their Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No.
deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship upon taking the following oath of 9225 to take their oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
allegiance to the Republic:
Philippines, but also to explicitly renounce their foreign
citizenship if they wish to run for elective posts in the
Philippines.
"I __________ solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution
of the Republic of the Philippines and obey the laws and legal orders promulgated by
the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines; and I hereby declare that I recognize - To qualify as a candidate in Philippine elections, Filipinos
and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and must only have one citizenship, namely, Philippine citizenship.
allegiance thereto; and that I impose this obligation upon myself voluntarily, without
mental reservation or purpose of evasion."
- The oath of allegiance contained in the Certificate of
25
I am eligible for the office I seek to be elected. I will support and defend the
Candidacy does not constitute the personal and sworn
Constitution of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; that I renunciation sought under Section 5(2) of Republic Act No.
will obey the laws, legal orders and decrees promulgated by the duly constituted 9225.
authorities of the Republic of the Philippines; and that I impose this obligation upon
myself voluntarily, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion. I hereby certify
that the facts stated herein are true and correct of my own personal knowledge. - The renunciation of foreign citizenship is an additional
requisite only for those who have retained or reacquired
26
Section 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities.–Those who retain or reacquire Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 and who
Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be
seek elective public posts, considering their special
subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the
Philippines and the following conditions: circumstance of having more than one citizenship.
xxxx

(2) Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall meet the qualifications renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer authorized to
for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws and, at administer an oath.
the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn

- For the first time an "Affidavit of Renunciation of Allegiance (Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of
to the United States and Any and All Foreign Citizenship," was 2003).
presented by Jacot to the SC executed even before he filed his a. The application was approved and she took her
oath of allegiance to the Republic of the
Certificate of Candidacy hence putting a new theory–that he
Philippines on Dec. 5, 2005
complied with the requirement of making a personal and
3. Sept. 18, 2006: She filed an UNSWORN
sworn renunciation of his foreign citizenship before filing his DECLARATION OF RENUNCIATION OF
Certificate of Candidacy. AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP before the Dept of
Immigration and Indigenous Affairs, Canberra,
- This new theory constitutes a radical change from the earlier Australia, which in turn issued the Order dated Sept.
position he took before the COMELEC–that he complied with 27, 2006 certifying that she has ceased to be an
the requirement of renunciation by his oaths of allegiance to Australian citizen.
the Republic of the Philippines made before the Los Angeles 4. She ran for Mayor in her hometown of Caba, La Union
in the 2007 elections and lost.
PCG and in his Certificate of Candidacy, and that there was no
5. She ran again during the 2010 elections for the
more need for a separate act of renunciation.
position of Vice Mayor and won.
a. She took her oath of office on May 13, 2010.
- As a rule, no question will be entertained on appeal unless it
6. Private respondents (registered voters of Caba, La
has been raised in the proceedings below. Union), filed separate petitions for quo warranto
questioning the petitioner’s eligibility before the RTC.
- Likewise, this Court does not countenance the late a. They also sought to disqualify her on the ground
submission of evidence. that she is a dual citizen and that she FAILED to
execute a “personal and SWORN renunciation of
any and all foreign citizenship before any public
officer authorized to administer an oath” as
DISPOSITIVE: Appeal is dismissed. imposed by Sec 5 (2) of RA No. 9225”
7. Petitioner claimed that the DECLARATION OF
RENUNCIATION OF AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP she
Sobejana-Condon v. COMELEC (2012) – Reyes, J executed in Australia sufficiently complied with Sec. 5
and that her act of running for public office is a clear
Petitioner: Teodora Sobejana-Condon abandonment of her Australian citizenship
8. RTC DECISION: PETITIONER IS DISQUALIFIED. Her
Respondents: Robelito Picar, Wima Pagaduan and Luis
proclamation is nullified and the position of Vice
Bautista (private respondents) Mayor is vacant
a. The law clearly mandates that the renunciation
Concept: Dual or Multiple Citizenship must be SWORN before any public officer
authorized to administer oath
Digest by: Joyce Gamonnac 9. COMELEC 2nd Div: dismissed the appeal for failure to
pay docket fees within the prescribed period
10. COMELEC en banc during MR concurred with the
RTC DECISION
Doctrine: Failure to renounce foreign citizenship in
accordance with the exact tenor of Section 5 (2) of R.A. No.
9225 renders a dual citizen ineligible to run for and thus hold ISSUE: WON petitioner was disqualified for failure to comply
any elective public office. with Sec. 5 (2) of RA No. 9225 – YES
FACTS: RATIO:
1. Petitioner is a natural-born Filipino citizen with Filipino RA No. 9225 categorically demands natural-born
parents born on Aug. 8, 1944. She became a Filipinos who re-acquire their citizenship and seek
naturalized Australian citizen on Dec. 13, 1984 owing elective office, to execute a personal and sworn
to her marriage to a certain Kevin Condon.
renunciation of any and all foreign citizenships
2. Dec. 2, 2005: She filed an application to re-acquire
before an authorized pubic officer prior to or
Philippine citizenship before the Philippine embassy
in Canberra, Australia pursuant to Sec. 3 of RA 9225 simultaneous to the filing of their COC, to qualify as

candidates in the Philippine elections. The rule 3. Sec 5 (2) is an additional qualification for elective
applies to all those who have re-acquired their office specific only to Filipino citizens who re-acquire
Filipino citizenships without regard as to whether their citizenship under Sec 3 of RA No. 9225.
a) This is the operative act that restores their right to run
they are still dual citizens or not. It is a pre-requisite
for public office
imposed for the exercise of their right to run for
b) Petitioner’s failure to comply with Sec 5 (2) rendered
public office. ineffectual the DECLARATION OF RENUNCIATION
OF AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP she executed.
1. ARGUMENTS OF PETITIONER: 4. Jacot v. Dal: [T]he intent of the legislators was not only for
a) She ceased to be an Australian citizen and was no Filipinos reacquiring or retaining their Philippine
longer a dual citizen after the Order was issued by citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 to take their oath
the Dept. of Immigration in Australia (Sept. 27, 2006) of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, but also to
hence Sec 5 (2) doesn’t apply to her. explicitly renounce their foreign citizenship if they wish to
b) The sworn renunciation is a mere formal and not a run for elective posts in the Philippines. To qualify as a
mandatory requirement as seen in the Journal of the candidate in Philippine elections, Filipinos must only have
House of Representatives one citizenship, namely, Philippine citizenship.
2. RA 9225 allows the retention and re-acquisition of Filipino 5. SC finds no reason to depart from the mandatory nature
citizenship for natural-born citizens who have lost their of the phrase “sworn renunciation”. The language of the
Philippine citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to provision is plain and unambiguous. It expresses a single,
the Republic of the Philippines definite, and sensible meaning and must thus be read
a) Sec 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship. – literally. The foreign citizenship must be formally rejected
Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, through an affidavit duly sworn before an officer
natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost authorized to administer oath.
their Philippine citizenship by reason of their 6. LEGISLATIVE RECORDS SHOW:
naturalization as citizens of a foreign country are a) Former natural-born citizens who re-acquire their
hereby deemed to have re-acquired Philippine Filipino citizenship under the law will revert to their
citizenship upon taking the following oath of original status as natural-born citizens and thus be
allegiance to the Republic: qualified to run for government positions reserved
*** only to natural-born Filipinos (Pres, VP, Members of
Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the the Congress)
effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a foreign b) There was a debate between Representative Javier
country shall retain their Philippine citizenship and representative Libanan as to whether the Filipinos
upon taking the aforesaid oath. will be considered REPATRIATED or NATURAL-BORN
CITIZENS since they will have to execute a personal
b) The oath is an abbreviated repatriation that restores
and sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship.
one’s Filipino citizenship and all civil and political
c) Representative Libanan maintained that they will
rights and obligations concomitant therewith, subject
revert to their original status as natural-born citizens.
to certain conditions imposed in Sec. 5
d) To reconcile the renunciation imposed by Sec. 5 (2)
c) Sec. 5. Civil and Political Rights and
with the principle that natural-born citizens are those
Liabilities. – Those who retain or re-acquire
who need not perform any act to perfect their
Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full
citizenship, Representative Javier suggested that the
civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant
sworn renunciation of foreign citizenship be
liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of
considered as a mere PRO FORMA requirement
the Philippines and the following conditions:
§ This means that the renunciation in Sec. 5 (2) is
***
PRO FORMA only with respect to the re-
(2) Those seeking elective public office in the
acquisition of one’s status as a natural-born
Philippines shall meet the qualification for Filipino so as to override the effect of the
holding such public office as required by the principle that natural-born citizens need not
Constitution and existing laws and, at the perform any act to perfect their citizenship
time of the filing of the certificate of § However with respect to those who re-acquire
candidacy, make a personal and sworn their Filipino citizenship AND thereafter RUN
FOR PUBLIC OFFICE, the requirement is
renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship
MANDATORY and not an OPTION. (This is the
before any public officer authorized to answer to her ARGUMENT saying that it’s a mere
administer an oath; formal requirement)
§ This was also intended to complement Art XI, Sec
18 of the Constitution

7. IN THE CAB:
a) Based on Sec. 3, the petitioner has validly re-acquired
her Filipino citizenship when she took the Oath of FACTS:
Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines in Dec.
5, 2005. At that point, she held DUAL citizenship - Respondent Arnado is a natural born Filipino citizen.
(Australian and Flipino) hence Sec. 5 (2) applies to her. However, as a consequence of his subsequent
b) Her DECLARATION OF RENUNCIATION was not naturalization as a citizen of the United States of America,
under oath contrary to Sec 5 (2). This requirement is he lost his Filipino citizenship. Arnado applied for
MANDATORY for those who are seeking to RUN FOR repatriation under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9225 before the
PUBLIC OFFICE Consulate General of the Philippines in San Franciso, USA
c) When the law is clear and free from any doubt, there and took the Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the
is no occasion for construction or interpretation; there Philippines on 10 July 2008. On the same day an Order of
is only room for application. Approval of his Citizenship Retention and Re-acquisition
d) Her argument that the Australian Citizenship Act of was issued in his favor.
1948, under which she is already deemed to have lost - April 3, 2009: Arnado again took his Oath of Allegiance to
her citizenship is NOT entitled to judicial notice. Like the Republic and executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of
any fact, they must be alleged and proven in his foreign citizenship, which states:
accordance with Rule 132, Sections 24 and 25 of the - November 30, 2009: Arnado filed his Certificate of
ROC. Candidacy for Mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte, On
e) However, even if she was able to prove that such 28 April 2010, respondent Linog C. Balua (Balua), another
foreign law is valid, she still needs to comply with the mayoralty candidate, filed a petition to disqualify Arnado
additional condition required by RA No. 9225 which and/or to cancel his certificate of candidacy for municipal
was promulgated on August 29, 2003 mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte in connection with
f) The fact that she won the elections cannot cure the the 10 May 2010 local and national elections.
defect of her candidacy. Garnering the most number - Respondent Balua contended that Arnado is not a resident
of votes does not validate the election of a of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte and that he is a foreigner,
disqualified candidate because the application of the attaching thereto a certification issued by the Bureau of
constitutional and statutory provisions on Immigration dated 23 April 2010 indicating the nationality
disqualification is not a matter of popularity. of Arnado as "USA-American." To further bolster his claim
g) IN SHORT: There is an additional qualification for of Arnado’s US citizenship, Balua presented in his
elective office specific only to Filipino citizens who re- Memorandum a computer-generated travel record dated
acquire their citizenship under Sec. 3 or RA No. 9225. 03 December 2009 indicating that Arnado has been using
§ The requirement in Sec 5 (2) is the operative act his US Passport No. 057782700 in entering and departing
that restores their right to run for public office the Philippines.
§ Petitioner’s failure to comply in accordance with - April 10, 2010: The COMELEC (First Division) issued an
the EXACT tenor of the law, rendered ineffectual Order requiring the respondent to personally file his
the DECLARATION OF RENUNCIATION OF answer and memorandum within three (3) days from receipt
AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP she executed on thereof.
Sept. 18, 2006. - After Arnado failed to answer the petition, Balua moved to
§ As such, she is yet to regain her political right to declare him in default and to present evidence ex- parte.
seek elective office. She needs to comply with - Neither motion was acted upon, having been overtaken by
the SWORN renunciation requirement before she the 2010 elections where Arnado garnered the highest
can run or hold any elective office in the number of votes and was subsequently proclaimed as the
Philippines. winning candidate for Mayor of Kauswagan, Lanao del
Norte.
- It was only after his proclamation that Arnado filed his
DISPOSITIVE: Petition is DISMISSED. Resolution of verified answer,
COMELEC en banc is AFFIRMED in toto - COMELEC (1 s t Division): Arnado disqualified.
o Instead of treating the Petition as an action for the
Maquiling v. COMELEC cancellation of a certificate of candidacy based on
misrepresentation, the COMELEC First Division
Petitioner: Casan Maquiling considered it as one for disqualification. The First
Division disagreed with Arnado’s claim that he is a
Respondent: COMELEC, Rommel Arnado, and Linog Balua Filipino citizen.18The Court ruled that Arnado’s act of
consistently using his US passport after renouncing his
Topic: Personal Laws US citizenship on 03 April 2009 effectively negated his
Affidavit of Renunciation.

o Petitioner Casan Macode Maquiling (Maquiling), required by law to take the oath of renunciation as the
another candidate for mayor of Kauswagan, and who mere filing of the certificate of candidacy already carries
garnered the second highest number of votes in the with it an implied renunciation of foreign citizenship. Dual
2010 elections, intervened in the case and filed before citizens by naturalization, on the other hand, are required
the COMELEC En Banc a Motion for Reconsideration to take not only the Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of
together with an Opposition to Arnado’s Amended the Philippines but also to personally renounce foreign
Motion for Reconsideration. Maquiling argued that citizenship in order to qualify as a candidate for public
while the First Division correctly disqualified Arnado, office.
the order of succession under Section 44 of the Local - By the time he filed his certificate of candidacy on 30
Government Code is not applicable in this case. November 2009, Arnado was a dual citizen enjoying the
Consequently, he claimed that the cancellation of rights and privileges of Filipino and American citizenship.
Arnado’s candidacy and the nullification of his He was qualified to vote, but by the express disqualification
proclamation, Maquiling, as the legitimate candidate under Section 40(d) of the Local Government Code, he was
who obtained the highest number of lawful votes, not qualified to run for a local elective position.
should be proclaimed as the winner.
- COMELEC (En Banc): 1st Division reversed; Arnado’s MR 3. NO. Maquiling is not the second-placer but is
granted. actually the first placer.
- We have ruled in the recent cases of Aratea v. COMELEC
and Jalosjos v. COMELEC that a void COC cannot produce
any legal effect.  
- Thus, the votes cast in favor of the ineligible candidate are
ISSUE(S): not considered at all in determining the winner of an
election.  
1. WON intervention is allowed in a disqualification - Even when the votes for the ineligible candidate are
case. disregarded, the will of the electorate is still respected, and
2. WON the use of a foreign passport after even more so. The votes cast in favor of an ineligible
renouncing foreign citizenship amounts to candidate do not constitute the sole and total expression
undoing a renunciation earlier made. of the sovereign voice. The votes cast in favor of eligible
3. WON the rule on succession in the Local and legitimate candidates form part of that voice and must
Government Code is applicable to this case. also be respected.  
- There is no need to apply the rule cited in Labo v.
COMELEC that when the voters are well aware within the
realm of notoriety of a candidate’s disqualification and still
cast their votes in favor said candidate, then the eligible
RATIO:
candidate obtaining the next higher number of votes may
be deemed elected. That rule is also a mere obiter that
1. YES. Intervention is allowed.
further complicated the rules affecting qualified candidates
- Arnado’s claim that the main case has attained finality as
who placed second to ineligible ones.
the original petitioner and respondents therein have not
- The electorate’s awareness of the candidate’s
appealed the decision of the COMELEC En Banc, cannot
disqualification is not a prerequisite for the disqualification
be sustained. The elevation of the case by the intervenor
to attach to the candidate. The very existence of a
prevents it from attaining finality. It is only after this Court
disqualifying circumstance makes the candidate ineligible.
has ruled upon the issues raised in this instant petition that
Knowledge by the electorate of a candidate’s
the disqualification case originally filed by Balua against
disqualification is not necessary before a qualified
Arnado will attain finality.
candidate who placed second to a disqualified one can be
proclaimed as the winner. The second-placer in the vote
2. YES. Arnado effectively renounced his repatriation count is actually the first-placer among the qualified
- Between 03 April 2009, the date he renounced his foreign candidates.
citizenship, and 30 November 2009, the date he filed his - That the disqualified candidate has already been
COC, he used his US passport four times, actions that run proclaimed and has assumed office is of no moment. The
counter to the affidavit of renunciation he had earlier subsequent disqualification based on a substantive ground
executed. By using his foreign passport, Arnado positively that existed prior to the filing of the certificate of candidacy
and voluntarily represented himself as an American, voids not only the COC but also the proclamation.
- Arnado’s category of dual citizenship is that by which - The disqualifying circumstance surrounding Arnado’s
foreign citizenship is acquired through a positive act of candidacy involves his citizenship. It does not involve the
applying for naturalization. This is distinct from those commission of election offenses as provided for in the first
considered dual citizens by virtue of birth, who are not sentence of Section 68 of the Omnibus Election Code, the

effect of which is to disqualify the individual from Doctrine: Sec. 3 of RA 9225 provides for two categories of
continuing as a candidate, or if he has already been natural-born Filipinos - those who became foreign citizens
elected, from holding the office. before and after the effectivity of R.A. 9225. Under the first
- The disqualifying circumstance affecting Arnado is his
paragraph are those natural-born Filipinos who have lost their
citizenship. With Arnado being barred from even becoming
citizenship by naturalization in a foreign country who shall re-
a candidate, his certificate of candidacy is thus rendered
void from the beginning. It could not have produced any acquire their Philippine citizenship upon taking the oath of
other legal effect except that Arnado rendered it allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. The second
impossible to effect his disqualification prior to the paragraph covers those natural-born Filipinos who became
elections because he filed his answer to the petition when foreign citizens after RA 9225 took effect, who shall retain their
the elections were conducted already and he was already Philippine citizenship despite having acquired foreign
proclaimed the winner.
citizenship provided they took the oath of allegiance under the
- Arnado's disqualification, although made long after the
new law.
elections, reaches back to the filing of the certificate of
candidacy. Arnado is declared to be not a candidate at all
in the May 201 0 elections.
- Arnado being a non-candidate, the votes cast in his favor
Foreign Element: Petitioner David was a natural born-
should not have been counted. This leaves Maquiling as
the qualified candidate who obtained the highest number Filipino who subsequently became a Canadian citizen by
of votes. Therefore, the rule on succession under the Local naturalization.
Government Code will not apply.
FACTS:
HELD: Petition granted. -‐ David was a natural-born Filipino who migrated to Canada
where he became a Canadian citizen by naturalization.
David v. Agbay (2015) – Villarama, Jr., J. Upon their retirement, he and his wife returned to the
Philippines.
Petitioner: Renato David -‐ They later purchased a lot along a beach in Oriental
Mindoro from Agbay. They constructed a residential
Respondents: Editha Agbay and the People of the house on the lot. However, they came to know that the
Philippines portion where they built their house is public land and part
of the salvage zone.
Concept: Problems in applying the nationality principle >
Dual or multiple citizenship
Miscellaneous Lease Application (MLA)
-‐ David filed a MLA over the lot with the DENR at the
Summary: David was a natural-born Filipino who became a Community Environment and Natural Resources Office
(CENRO). In the said application, David indicated that
Canadian citizen by naturalization. When he returned to the
he is a Filipino citizen.
Philippines, he purchased a lot and filed a Miscellaneous Lease
-‐ Agbay opposed the application on the ground that David,
Application over it before the CENRO of the DENR. In the a Canadian citizen, is disqualified to own land.
MLA, David stated that he was a Filipino citizen. However, -‐ Meanwhile, David re-acquired his Filipino citizenship
David re-acquired his Filipino citizenship under RA 9225 only under RA 9225 which was certified by the Consulate
after he filed the MLA. An Information for Falsification of General of the Philippines (Toronto).
Public Document was filed against David. The SC held that -‐ CENRO – Rejected David’s MLA. David’s subsequent re-
acquisition of Philippine citizenship did not cure the defect
David may be indicted for falsification for representing himself
in his MLA which was void ab initio.
as a Filipino in his MLA. David belongs to the first category of
natural-born Filipinos which re-acquired their Filipino
citizenship. As such, since David was still a Canadian citizen Falsification of Public Documents
when he filed the MLA, despite his subsequent re-acquisition
of Philippine Citizenship. -‐ Agbay filed a criminal complaint for falsification of public
documents under Article 172 of the RPC against David.

-‐ David's Defense before the Prosecutor: David o David’s argument regarding the retroactivity of
alleged that he had intended to re-acquire Philippine R.A. 9225 is without merit. The SC’s rulings in
citizenship at the time he filed his application (1); that he Frivaldo v. COMELEC and Altarejos v. COMELEC
had been assured by a CENRO officer that he could on the retroactivity of one’s re-acquisition of
declare himself as a Filipino (2); and that he bought the Philippine citizenship to the date of filing his
property from the Agbays who misrepresented to him that application therefor cannot be applied to David’s
the subject property was titled land and they have the case.
right and authority to convey the same (3). o Assuming arguendo that such doctrine applies, it
-‐ Office of the Provincial Prosecutor - Found will still not work for David’s because he did not
probable cause and recommending the filing of an allege or prove that he had already applied for
Information. reacquisition of Philippine citizenship before he
-‐ David challenged the said resolution in a petition for made the declaration in the Public Land
review he filed before the DOJ. Application that he is a Filipino.
-‐ DOJ - Denied the petition for review. The presence of the o In falsification of public document, it is not
elements of the suffices to warrant indictment of David necessary that the idea of gain or intent to injure
notwithstanding the absence of any proof that he gained a third person be present.
or intended to injure a third person in committing the act
of falsification.
-‐ An Information for Falsification of Public Document was ISSUE: WON petitioner may be indicted for falsification for
filed before the MTC and a warrant of arrest was issued representing himself as a Filipino in his Public Land Application
against the petitioner. despite his subsequent re-acquisition of Philippine citizenship
-‐ David filed an Urgent Motion for Re-Determination of
under the provisions of RA 9225 (YES)
Probable Cause in the MTC.
-‐ MTC - Denied the motion. RA 9225 makes a distinction
between those who became foreign citizens during its
effectivity, and those who lost their Philippine citizenship RATIO: YES. David stated in the MLA he is a Filipino citizen
before its enactment when the governing law was CA 63.
at the time of the filing of said application, when he was then
Since the crime for which David was charged was alleged
still a Canadian citizen.
and admitted to have been committed before he had re-
acquired his Philippine citizenship, David was at that time
still a Canadian citizen. David’s MR also denied.
-‐ David filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before
R.A. 9225 (“Citizenship Retention and Re -acquisition
the RTC, alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of
the MTC. He argued that the MTC disregarded the legal Act of 2003”)
fiction that once a natural-born Filipino citizen who had
been naturalized in another country re-acquires his -‐ Section 2 declares the general policy that Filipinos who
citizenship under RA 9225, his Filipino citizenship is thus have become citizens of another country shall be deemed
deemed not to have been lost on account of said “not to have lost their Philippine citizenship.” This is
naturalization. qualified by the phrase “under the conditions of this Act.”
-‐ RTC - No GAD on the part of the MTC. Section 3 lays down such conditions for two categories of
-‐ David's Arguments: natural-born Filipinos referred to in the first and second
o David is a natural-born Filipino citizen, and that paragraphs.
by re-acquiring the same status under RA 9225 he -‐ The law makes a distinction between those natural-born
was by legal fiction “deemed not to have lost” it Filipinos who became foreign citizens before and after the
at the time of his naturalization in Canada and effectivity of R.A. 9225. The taking of oath of allegiance is
through the time when he was said to have falsely required for both categories of natural-born Filipino
claimed Philippine citizenship. citizens who became citizens of a foreign country, but the
o In criminal cases, that interpretation of the law terminology used is different, “re-acquired” for the first
which favors the accused is preferred because it group, and “retain” for the second group.
is consistent with the constitutional presumption -‐ Although the heading of Section 3 is “Retention of
of innocence. In this case it becomes more Philippine Citizenship”, the authors of the law intentionally
relevant when a seemingly difficult question of employed the terms “re-acquire” and “retain” to describe
law is expected to have been understood by the the legal effect of taking the oath of allegiance to the
accused, who is a non-lawyer, at the time of the Republic of the Philippines. This is also evident from the
commission of the alleged offense. title of the law using both re-acquisition and retention.
-‐ Solicitor General's Arguments:

Two categories of natural-born Filipinos: -‐ Courts adopt an interpretation more favorable to the
accused following the principle that penal statutes are
First Paragraph: RE-ACQUIRED Philippine Citizenship construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of
the accused. RA 9225, however, is not a penal law.
-‐ Under the first paragraph are those natural-born Filipinos -‐ Falsification of documents under paragraph 1, Article 172
who have lost their citizenship by naturalization in a in relation to Article 17of the RPC refers to falsification by
foreign country who shall re-acquire their Philippine a private individual, or a public officer or employee who
citizenship upon taking the oath of allegiance to the did not take advantage of his official position, of public,
Republic of the Philippines. private, or commercial documents.27
-‐ They shall be deemed to have re-acquired their Philippine -‐ David made the untruthful statement in the MLA, a public
citizenship which was lost pursuant to CA 63, under which document, that he is a Filipino citizen at the time of the
naturalization in a foreign country is one of the ways by filing of said application, when in fact he was then still a
which Philippine citizenship may be lost. Canadian citizen.
o As its title declares, RA 9225 amends CA 63 by o Under CA 63, the governing law at the time
doing away with the provision in the old law he was naturalized as Canadian citizen,
which takes away Philippine citizenship from naturalization in a foreign country was
natural-born Filipinos who become naturalized among those ways by which a natural-born
citizens of other countries and allowing dual citizen loses his Philippine citizenship.
citizenship, and also provides for the procedure o While he re-acquired Philippine citizenship
for re-acquiring and retaining Philippine under RA 9225 six months later, the
citizenship. falsification was already a consummated act,
the said law having no retroactive effect
insofar as his dual citizenship status is
Second Paragraph: RETAINED Philippine Citizenship concerned.
o The MTC therefore did not err in finding
-‐ The second paragraph covers those natural-born Filipinos probable cause for falsification of public
who became foreign citizens after RA 9225 took effect, documents.
who shall retain their Philippine citizenship despite
having acquired foreign citizenship provided they took the
oath of allegiance under the new law. DISPOSITIVE: Petition Denied. RTC Affirmed.
b. Statelessness
-‐ In the case at bar, considering that David was naturalized
as a Canadian citizen prior to the effectivity of RA 9225, Kookooritchkin v Solicitor General (1948) – Perfecto, J.
he belongs to the first category of natural-born Petitioner: Eremes Kookooritchkin
Filipinos under the first paragraph of Section 3 who lost
Oppositor: The Solicitor General
Philippine citizenship by naturalization in a foreign country.
Topic: Statelessness
As the new law allows dual citizenship, he was able to re-
acquire his Philippine citizenship by taking the required
oath of allegiance. Brief Facts: Kookooritchkin, a Russian by birth who fled to
-‐ For the purpose of determining the citizenship of David at the Philippines from Russia after the establishment of the
the time of filing his MLA, it is not necessary to discuss the Bolshevik regime, filed with the lower court a petition for
rulings in Frivaldo and Altarejos on the retroactivity of such Philippine citizenship naturalization. The lower court granted
reacquisition because RA 9225 itself treats those of his
the petition. The Solicitor General appealed the grant,
category as having already lost Philippine
contending, among others, that Kookooritchkin failed to show
citizenship, in contradistinction to those natural-born
Filipinos who became foreign citizens after RA 9225 came that under the laws of Russia, he has lost his Russian
into force. citizenship. The SC affirmed the lower court’s resolution, giving
-‐ In other words, Section 2 declaring the policy that credence to Kookooritchkin’s testimony that he is a stateless
considers Filipinos who became foreign citizens as not to refugee.
have lost their Philippine citizenship, should be read
together with Section 3, the second paragraph of which
clarifies that such policy governs all cases after the new
law’s effectivity.
27
Elements: (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 enumerated in Article 171 of the RPC;
Re: Criminal Liability of David and (3) that the falsification was committed in a public, official or commercial
document.

Doctrine: The tyrannical intolerance of modern dictatorships − He refused to join the Bolshevik regime and fled by sea
toward all opposition induced them to resort to beastly from Vladivostok to Shanghai. From this Chinese port, he
oppression, concentration camps and blood purges, and it is found his way to Manila, arriving at this port as a member of
only natural that the not-so-fortunate ones who were able to a group of White Russians under Admiral Stark in March
escape to foreign countries should feel the loss of all bonds of 1923.
attachment to the hells which were formerly their fatherland's. − He stayed in Manila for about 7 months, moved to
Olongapo, Zambales where he resided for about a year,
FACTS: and thereafter went to Iriga, Camarines Sur where he
− Aug 1941 – Kookooritchkin filed with the lower court a established his permanent residence since May 1925.
petition for Philippine citizenship naturalization under • He has remained a resident of this municipality, except
Commonwealth Act 473, as amended by Act 535, for a brief period from 1942 to July 1945, when by
accompanied with supporting affidavits of two citizens28, reason of his underground activities he roamed
copy of a declaration of intention sworn in July 1940, and mountains of Caramoan as a guerrilla officer. After
proper notice of the hearing. liberation, he returned to Iriga.
• The petition was set for hearing on Dec 18, 1941, but it − Kookooritchkin is married to Concepcion Segovia (Filipino),
was not held on that date because the province was with whom he has one son named Ronald Kookooritchkin.
invaded by the Japanese forces on Dec 14. Ronald is at present studying in Saint Agnes Academy in
• The case remained pending until the records were Legaspi, Albay.
destroyed during the military operations for liberation in
− Kookooritchkin is the shop superintendent of A. L. Ammen
March 1945. Transportation Company, with about 80 Filipino employees
• The case was declared reconstituted on May 10, 1947, working under him. He receives an annual salary of P13,200
and the evidence was presented on Aug 28 and Sept 30, with free quarters and house allowance. He also owns
1947. On the same day, resolution was issued granting stocks and bonds of this and other companies.
the petition. − Kookooritchkin speaks and writes English and the Bicol
− The SolGen assigns four errors in the appealed resolution.29 dialect. He intermingles with the Filipinos, attending
• Note that although the SolGen was represented at the parties, dances and other social functions with his wife. He
hearing and cross-examined the witnesses for has a good moral character and believes in the principles
Kookooritchkin, he did not file an opposition or underlying the Philippine Constitution. He has never been
presented any evidence. accused of any crime.
− Although he could have lived in ease by maintaining good
FINDINGS OF FACTS BY THE LOWER COURT:
relations with the enemy by reason of his being Russian-
− Kookooritchkin is a native-born Russian, born on Nov 4,
born during the years preceding the declaration of war by
1897 in St. Petersburg, Russia. He grew up as a citizen of
Russia against Japan, Kookooritchkin of his own volition
the defunct Imperial Russian Government under the Czars.
joined the guerrilla movement and fought the enemy in
− He joined the military service during WWI. In 1915, he
several encounters in Camarines Sur. He belonged to the
volunteered for the Imperial Russian navy and was sent to
guerrilla outfit of Colonel Padua with rank of major. Upon
the Navy Aviation School. He fought with the Allies in the
the arrival of the forces of liberation he was attached to the
Baltic Sea, was later transferred to the eastern front in
American Army from April to June 1945.
Poland, and much later was sent as a navy flier to Asia
− Although a Russian by birth, he is not a citizen of Soviet
Minor. In the latter part of the war, before the Russian
Russia. He disclaims allegiance to the present Communist
capitulation, he was transferred to the British Air Force
Government of Russia. He is, therefore, a stateless refugee
under which he served for 14 months. When the revolution
in this country. He is not against organized government or
broke out in Russia in 1917, he joined the White Russian
affiliated with any association which upholds and teaches
Army at Vladivostok and fought against the Bolsheviks until
doctrine opposing all organized governments. He does not
1922 when the White Russian Army was overwhelmed by
believe in the necessity or propriety of violence, personal
the Bolsheviks.
assault or assassination for the success or predominance of
his ideas. Neither is he a polygamist or a believer in the

28
Ex-Judge Jaime M. Reyes and Dr. Salvador Mariano, both residents of practice of polygamy. He is not suffering from any mental
Camarines Sur. alienation or incurable contagious disease.
29
The Court only discussed three assignments of errors. No mention of what the
fourth one is.

ISSUES: − That a certificate of arrival has been issued is a fact that
1. WON Kookooritchkin’s declaration is valid and sufficient as should be accepted upon the Kookooritchkin's
a basis for the petition of naturalization. YES undisputed statement in his declaration of July 1940.
2. WON Kookooritchkin has established residence in PH, and 2. YES. There is evidence that Kookooritchkin has
can speak and write any of the principal Philippine established legal residence in the Philippines, and
languages. YES that he can speak and write in English and
3. [MAIN] WON Kookooritchkin is a stateless refugee. YES Bicolano.
− The second assignment of error touches upon two
RATIO: questions: that the lower court erred (1) in not finding
1. YES, Kookooritchkin’s declaration is valid and that Kookooritchkin has not established a legal
sufficient as a basis for the petition of residence in the Philippines, and (2) in not finding that
naturalization, failure to reconstitute the he cannot speak and write any of the principal
certificate of arrival notwithstanding. What an Philippine languages.
unreconstituted document intended to prove may
− Perusal of the testimonies on record leads to the
be shown by other competent evidence. conclusion that Kookooritchkin has shown legal
− SolGen claims that the lower court erred in not finding residence in the Philippines for a continuous period of
that the declaration of intention to become a Filipino not less than ten years as required by sec 2 of CA 473.
citizen filed by Kookooritchkin is invalid and insufficient − As to the next question, the SolGen alleges that in the
as a basis for the petition of naturalization. More oral test at the hearing, it was demonstrated that
specifically, no documentary or testimonial evidence Kookooritchkin has only a smattering of Bicol and he
was introduced to establish the fact that Kookooritchkin cannot speak it as he was not able to translate from
had lawfully been admitted into the Philippines for English to Bicol questions asked by the court and the
permanent residence. provincial fiscal, although, in the continuation of the
− SC: The question calls for the application of the hearing on Sept 30, 1947, "surprisingly enough, he
following provision of sec 5 of the Revised succeeded answering correctly in Bicol the questions
Naturalization Law: No declaration shall be valid until propounded by his counsel, however, he fumbled and
entry for permanent residence has been established and failed to give the translation of such a common word as
a certificate showing the date, place and manner of his 'love' which the fiscal asked of him.
arrival has been issued.
− SC: The lower court made the finding of fact that
− In the reconstituted declaration (page 11, record on applicant speaks and writes English and Bicol and there
appeal) the following can be read: I arrived at the Port of seems to be no question about the competency of the
Manila on or about the first day of March, 1923, as judge who made the pronouncement.
shown by the attached certificate of arrival or landing
− The law has not set a specific standard of the principal
certificate of residence. Philippine languages. A great number of standards can
• The records of the Bureau of Justice, where the be set. While there may be persons ambitious enough
declarations of intention to become a Filipino citizen to have a command of the about 600,000 words
were filed, had been lost or destroyed during the recorded in the Webster's International Dictionary, there
battle for the liberation of Manila, and the certificate are authorities who would reduce basic English to a few
alluded to has not been reconstituted. hundred words. Perhaps less than one hundred well
− The SolGen's contention that attachment of the selected words will be enough for the ordinary purposes
certificate of arrival is essential to the validity of a of daily life.
declaration finds no support in the wordings of the law,
− There is a reason to believe that the lower court's
as sect 5 of CA 473 uses the words "has been issued.” pronouncement is well taken considering the fact that,
− The undisputed fact that Kookooritchkin has been after he was liberated in 1942 from the Japanese in the
continuously residing in the Philippines for about 25 Naga prison, Kookooritchkin joined the guerrilla in the
years, without having been molested by the authorities, Bicol region, took part in encounters and skirmishes
who are presumed to have been regularly performing against the Japanese, and remained with the guerrilla
their duties and would have arrested him if his residence until the Americans liberated the Bicol provinces. If
is illegal, can be taken as evidence that he is enjoying Kookooritchkin with his smattering of Bicol was able to
permanent residence legally. get along with his Bicol comrades in the hazardous life

of the resistance movement, we believe that his testimony supports the lower court's pronouncement
knowledge of the language satisfies the requirement of that he is a stateless refugee in this country.
the law. − Kookooritchkin's testimony, besides being
− While the SolGen contends that there is no piece of uncontradicted, is supported by the well-known fact that
positive evidence to support Kookooritchkin's allegation the ruthlessness of modern dictatorship has scattered
that he can write too in the Bicol language, there is on throughout the world a large number of stateless
record circumstantial evidence from which it can be refugees or displaced persons, without country and
concluded that Kookooritchkin ought to know also how without flag. The tyrannical intolerance of said
to write Bicol. dictatorships toward all opposition induced them to
• We know that Bicol, as all the important Philippine resort to beastly oppression, concentration camps and
languages, uses the same alphabet used in blood purges, and it is only natural that the not-so-
English, and it is much easier to write Bicol than fortunate ones who were able to escape to foreign
English, because it is phonetic. countries should feel the loss of all bonds of attachment
• The ability to write cannot be denied to a person to the hells which were formerly their fatherland's.
like Kookooritchkin, who has undergone the Kookooritchkin belongs to that group of stateless
exacting technical training to be able to render refugees.
services as flier in the Russian Naval Squadron in − Knowing, as all cultured persons all over the world
the Baltic Sea and in the British Air Forces during ought to know, the history, nature and character of the
WWI. Soviet dictatorship, presently the greatest menace to
• The difference between the Cyrillic alphabet, as humanity and civilization, it would be technically
now used by Russians, and our Roman alphabet, fastidious to require further evidence of
cannot weigh much to deny Kookooritchkin the Kookooritchkin's claim that he is stateless than his
ability to use the latter. A person who has shown testimony that he owes no allegiance to the Russian
the command of English which can be seen in his Communist Government and, is because he has been at
testimony on record can easily make use of an war with it, he fled from Russia to permanently reside in
alphabet of twenty or more letters universally used the Philippines. After finding in this country economic
in this country where he has been residing security in a remunerative job, establishing a family by
continuously for 25 years. marrying a Filipina with whom he has a son, and
3. YES, Kookooritchkin is a stateless refugee. enjoying for 25 years the freedoms and blessings of our
− SolGen contends that the lower court erred in finding democratic way of life, and after showing his resolution
Kookooritchkin stateless and not a Russian citizen and in to retain the happiness he found in our political system
not finding that he has failed to establish that he is not to the extent of refusing to claim Russian citizenship
disqualified for Philippine citizenship under sec 4 (h) of even to secure his release from the Japanese and of
the Revised Naturalization Law. casting his lot with that of our people by joining the
• It is contended that Kookooritchkin failed to show fortunes and misfortunes of our guerrillas, it would be
that under the laws of Russia, he has lost his Russian beyond comprehension to support that Kookooritchkin
citizenship. could feel any bond of attachment to the Soviet
• It is also contended that Kookooritchkin failed to dictatorship.
show that Russia grants to Filipinos the right to
become a naturalized citizens or subjects thereof. DISPOSITION: The appealed resolution is affirmed.
• The SolGen points out that Kookooritchkin stated in

B. Domicile (Lex Domicilii)
his petition for naturalization that he is citizen or
subject of the Empire of Russia, but the Empire of Civil Code,
Russia has ceased to exist since the Czars were
overthrown in 1917 by the Bolshevists, and the Article 50. For the exercise of civil rights and the fulfillment
petitioner disclaims allegiance or connection with of civil obligations, the domicile of natural persons is the
place of their habitual residence. (40a)
the Soviet Government established after the
overthrow of the Czarist Government. Article 51. When the law creating or recognizing them, or
− SC: Kookooritchkin testified categorically that he is not a any other provision does not fix the domicile of juridical
Russian citizen and that he has no citizenship. His persons, the same shall be understood to be the place where

their legal representation is established or where they exercise Guray was able to obtain residence in Luna for at least 1 year
their principal functions. (41a) prior to the general elections.
Article 99. No person shall be entitled to a legal separation FACTS:

who has not resided in the Philippines for one year prior to the 1. Respondent Norberto Guray was a resident of the
filing of the petition, unless the cause for the legal separation
municipality of Luna, La Union.
has taken place within the territory of this Republic. (Sec. 2a,
a. He married therein and became the
Act No. 2710).
municipal treasurer.
2. On June 27, 1922, he was appointed as municipal
Article 1251. Payment shall be made in the place designated
treasurer of Balaoan, Province of La Union.
in the obligation. There being no express stipulation and if the
3. Under the rules of La Union, municipality treasurers
undertaking is to deliver a determinate thing, the payment
must live continuously in the municipality where they
shall be made wherever the
perform their official duties for them to be able to
thing might be at the moment the obligation was constituted. give an account of their acts at any time.
In any other case the place of payment shall be the domicile of a. Pursuant to this, and in order to qualify as a
the debtor. If the debtor changes his domicile in bad faith or voter in Balaoan in the upcoming 1925
after he has incurred in delay, the additional expenses shall be
elections, Guray asked for the cancellation of
borne by him. These provisions are without prejudice to venue
his name in the election list of Luna.
under the Rules of Court. (1171a)
b. He alleged that the ground for such
Article 58. Save marriages of an exceptional character cancellation was his transfer of residence to
authorized in Chapter 2 of this Title, but not those under article Poblacion, Balaoan La Union on June 28,
75, no marriage shall be solemnized without a license first 1922.
being issued by the local civil registrar of the municipality c. In the cedula certificates he issued to himself
where either contracting party habitually resides. (7a)
as the municipal treasurer of Balaoan, he
Article 829. A revocation done outside the Philippines, by a made it appear that from year 1923 up to
person who does not have his domicile in this country, is valid 1928, his residential district was Balaoan.
4. In 1926, his wife and children went back to the town of
when it
Luna to live in the house of her parents due to high
is done according to the law of the place where the will was cost of living in Balaoan.
made, or according to the law of the place in which the
a. During this time, Guray frequented the town
testator had his domicile at the time; and if the revocation
takes place in this country, when it is in accordance with the of Luna in the afternoon, after office hours
provisions of this Code. (n) and spent the night therein.
b. Also, his children studied in the public school
Nuval v. Guray – Villa-real, J. of Luna.
Petitioner: Gregorio Nuval 5. On January 1927, Guray commenced the construction
Respondent: Norberto Guray of a house of strong materials in Luna which was not
Concept: Domicile yet completed and hence, neither he nor his family
Digest by: Auren Mopera lived therein.
6. On February 1, 1928, Guray obtained a vacation leave
to be spent in Luna.
SHORT FACTS: Guray was elected as the municipal
7. On February 16, 1928, Guray filed his resignation as
president of the municipality of Luna, La Union. Nuval filed a
the municipal treasurer of Balaoan via telegraph. This
quo warranto proceeding questioning Guray’s eligibility for the
resignation was accepted on the same day via
position. Nuval alleged that Guray was actually a resident of
telegraph as well.
Balaoan, La Union and that he was not able to reside in Luna
a. On February 20, 1928, he obtained another
for at least 1 year prior the election, making him not eligible for
cedula from the municipality of Luna dated
the position. The Supreme Court upheld this contention. The
January 15, 1928, where it was stated that he
SC ruled that residence, as used in this context, pertains to
has resided in barrio Victoria, municipality of
domicile. In order to establish domicile, one must have an
Luna, province of La Union.
intent and bodily presence. Here, there was no showing that

b. On February 23, 1928, he obtained the 3. Whether or not Nuval may assume the position in
cancellation of his name from the election case Guray be held ineligible [Yes. But this was
list of Balaoan. reversed on MR]
8. On April 14, 1928, he registered as a voter in Luna,
alleging that he has been residing in the said Ruling:
municipality for 30 years already. For this purpose, he The election of respondent-appellee Norberto Guray to the
caused his cedula certificate be antedated. office of municipal president of Luna is hereby held to be
9. On May 11, 1928, Gregorio Nuval filed a civil case in unlawful and quashed and, in consequence, he has no right to
the CFI La Union in his capacity as a voter and a take possession of said office, petitioner Gregorio Nuval being
candidate for the office of municipal president of the one legally elected to said office with a right to take
municipality of Luna, asking for the exclusion of possession thereof, having secured second place in the
Guray’s name from the registered list of voters of election. [Underlined portion was deleted on MR]
Luna. [Petition for Exclusion]
a. He argued that Guray has not resided in Ratio:
Luna for 6 months prior to the election. 1. There is no doubt that when Guray accepted and
b. He cited Section 431 of the Administrative assumed the office of the municipal treasurer of
Code. Balaoan, he essentially transferred his residence
10. The CFI dismissed the petition saying that Guray was therein. The question is: When did he re-establish his
a bona fide resident of Luna since January 1, 1927. residence in the municipality of Luna?
a. As the order was not appealable, Guray’s
name was retained in the voters list. Where a voter abandons his residence in a state and
11. On June 25, 1928, the general elections took place. acquires one in another state, he cannot again vote in
a. Norberto Guray was elected to the office of the state of his former residence until he has qualified
the municipal president by plurality of votes. by a new period of residence. The term 'residence' as
b. Nuval got the second highest number of so used is synonymous with 'domicile,' which imports
votes. not only intention to reside in a fixed place, but also
12. On June 18, 1928, Nuval filed a quo warranto personal presence in that place, coupled with
proceeding with the CFI of La Union questioning the conduct indicative of such intention."
eligibility of Guray.
a. He said that according to section 2174 of the Here, Guray abandoned his Luna residence and
Administrative Code, in order to be eligible transferred to Balaoan. In order to be eligible in the
to an elective municipal office, the candidate municipality of Luna, he must re-acquire his previous
must have legally resided for at least one residence therein for the period of time prescribed by
year in the municipality prior to the elections. law for the position. For this purpose, he needed both
b. Here, he alleged that Guray failed to meet intention and personal presence.
such requirement.
13. Guray argued that res judicata would bar the quo The facts in this case show that that until the date of
warranto proceeding in view of the earlier petition for his resignation, he did not consider himself as a
exclusion filed by Nuval against him. resident of the municipality of Luna. The fact that his
14. The CFI of La Union upheld the defense of res wife and children lived in Luna not in his own house
judicata and dismissed the quo warranto proceeding. but in that of his wife's father since the year 1926,
15. Hence, this appeal to the Supreme Court. cannot be looked upon as a change of residence,
since a change of residence requires an actual
Issues: and deliberate abandonment of the former
1. Whether or not Guray was a resident of the and one cannot have two legal residences at
municipality of Luna for at least 1 year prior to the the same time. The facts prior to the actual
general elections in order to be eligible to the office resignation are not sufficient to show that he became
of municipal president [No] a resident of Luna once again.
2. Whether or not res judicata bars the quo warranto
proceeding [No]

Guray here cited the case of Doctor Apacible. [Note: proceedings is the alleged failure of Guray to meet
That case was not really substantiated in this case] the 1 year legal residency requirement for candidates.
However, the Supreme Court ruled that Apacible’s Clearly, there is no identity of causes of
case is different because he never had abandoned his action.
legal residence in the Province of Batangas,
notwithstanding that he had been living with his 3. Gregorio Nuval may assume the position since he
family in the City of Manila, taking out his cedula received the second highest number of votes in the
certificates here, but he never exercised the right of general elections.
suffrage here. Whereas in this case, Norberto Guray
abandoned his residence in Luna in order to comply RULING ON THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION:
with the requirement for the municipal treasurers of 1. The ruling on res judicata was affirmed.
La Union. 2. When the person elected is ineligible, the court
cannot declare that the candidate occupying the
Norberto Guray only abandoned his legal residence second place has been elected, even if he were
in the Municipality of Balaoan, and began to acquire eligible, since the law only authorizes a declaration of
another in the municipality of Luna from February 16, election in favor of the person who has obtained a
1928, when he filed his resignation from the office of plurality of votes, and has presented his certificate of
municipal treasurer of Balaoan which he had been candidacy.
holding, and at the time the resignation was 3. Thus, the ruling was amended. The portion in the
accepted. As such, he had not acquired eligibility for dispositive holding Nuval as the one who has been
the position. legally elected is deleted.
2. There is no res judicata. In order that res judicata may VILLAMOR – DISSENT:
exist the following are necessary: (a) Identity of 1. In the petition for exclusion case, the fact is that the
parties; (b) identity of things; and (c) identity of issues. Court of La Union found Guray to be a bona fide
resident of the municipality of Luna since January 1,
The earlier petition for exclusion was filed by Nuval in 1927. From that date until the general elections (June
his capacity as a qualified voter and a duly registered 5, 1928), more than one year has elapsed, and
candidate for the office of the municipal president of consequently, Guray had the legal residence of over
Luna against Norberto Guray in order to assail the one year at least, in the municipality of Luna at the
latter’s registration as a voter. On the other hand, the time of his election as municipal president.
quo warranto proceeding was filed by Nuval in his 2. If one has removed to another town solely by virtue
capacity as a candidate and against Guray in his of his appointment as the municipal treasurer, but
capacity as an elected officer. Due to the lack of with the intention to return to his original town, he has
identity in the capacities between the not lost his residence in his original town.
petition for exclusion and the quo warranto 3. While Guray has bodily presence in Balaoan, he did
proceedings, there is likewise no identity of not really intend to reside therein. The facts of this
parties. case show Guray’s intent to establish his residence in
Luna as early as January, 1927.
Furthermore, since the object of the petition for 4. After citing a number of cases, Villamor is of the
exclusion was the exclusion of Guray from the list of opinion that Guray had complied with the legal
voters, and the object of the quo warranto residence requirement to become eligible to the
proceedings was the exclusion or expulsion from office of the municipal president of the municipality of
office, there is also no identity of object in Luna.
this case.
1. Definition
Lastly, the cause of action in the petition for exclusion
Velilla v Posadas (1935) – J. Butte
was the alleged failure of Guray to meet the 6 month
Appellant: A. L. Velilla, administrator of the estate of Moody
legal residency requirement for voters. On the other
Appellee: Juan Posadas, CIR
hand, the cause of action in the quo warranto

Concept: domicile provable choice of a new domicile coupled with
Doctrine: For there to be abandonment, there must be a actual residence in the place chosen.
deliberate and provable choice of a new domicile coupled with - In this case there is no evidence that he established a
actual residence in the place chosen. different domicile either in Paris or in the many places
he visited before his death. There was a significant
Brief Facts: Moody was an American citizen who established period of time (April – Nov. 1931) when his
his domicile in the Philippines. He left the country for fear of whereabouts is unknown. The negative evidence in
being confined in a leprosy colony. He died in India leaving all the form of the letter is not sufficient evidence that he
his properties to his sister. CIR assessed inheritance and intended to live in Paris because such must be
income taxes to which the petitioner objected to. The court deliberate coupled with actual residence. He did stay
held that it was not established by clear and sufficient evidence in Paris but only for three months which negate his
that Moody abandoned his domicile in the Phils. His estate was intention to live there permanently.
properly taxed under Sec. 1536 - The court used Sec. 1536 to tax the inheritance of Ida
Facts: Palmer. This is the basis for the inheritance tax
assessment. Sec. 1536 of the Revised Administrative
1. Arthur Graydon Moody is an American citizen who came to Code states that every transmission by virtue of
the Phils. to actively engage in business here. He did not have inheritance, devise, bequest, gift mortis causa, or
other businesses elsewhere. He lived in the Elk’s Club in Manila advance of inheritance of real property located in the
for several years until he left on 1928 after contracting leprosy. Phils or of interests in shares, bligations or bonds
2. On Feb 1931, he died in Calcutta, India. He executed a will issued by any corporation organized in the Phils shall
wherein he bequeathed all his properties to his sister, Ida be subject to taxation.
Palmer (a citizen and resident of New York). - As to the propriety of the income tax on the estate of
3. His will was probated and Ida was declared as the sole heir. the deceased, an amount of P259,986.69 was received
His properties consist of bonds and shares of stocks of as dividends from the Camera Supply Company. The
corporations organized in the PH, bank deposits and personal petitioner is alleging that there was triple taxation
properties which were valued at P653,657.47. because the company already paid corporate income
4. BIR prepared an inheritance tax return in the amount of tax, the petitioner paid inheritance tax, and finally
P77,018.39 for Moody’s estate. In addition, an income tax another income tax is being assessed against the
return (P13,001.41) was also filed for the fractional period from estate.
Jan. to Jun. 1931 (which is weird because he died on Feb 1931). - The court ruled that there was no triple taxation
His estate paid P90,019.75 under protest. CIR overruled the involved. What is being assessed here is the
protest. additional tax imposed for the income received by the
5. According to the petitioner, there is no law or regulation estate of the deceased, not the earnings of the
allowing an imposition of inheritance tax for a person not corporation. The court further said that inheritance tax
domiciled in the Philippines. The levying and collection of and income tax are entirely distinct because they are
inheritance tax on the properties constituted deprivation assessed under different statutes. There was a last
without due process of law. At the time of his death, Moody effort on the part of the petitioner when he alleged
was not a resident of the Phils. Petitioner also questions the that the dividends should not be held liable for the
imposition of income tax on the estate of Moody. payment of income tax because the operation was a
conversion of the surplus of the corporation into the
Issues: property of the individual stockholders. The court
Where is the domicile of Moody? PH merely held that the dividends was already excluded
in the corporate income tax but such is included in
Ratio: the income of the shareholder subject to income tax.
- Art. 40 of the Civil Code defines domicile as the place
of their usual residence. The problem arose in Feb.
1928 when Moody had to leave the Philippines Dispositive:
secretly because he contracted leprosy and was about
to be confined in Culion Leper Colony.
- He escaped to Paris and lived there from March to
April 1929. He wrote a letter selling his interest in one Finding no merit in any of the assignments of error of the
of his companies (Camera Supply Co.) In this letter he appellant, we affirm the judgment of the trial court, first,
said that he will never return in the Phils to live or do because the property in the estate of Arthur G. Moody at
business here. the time of his death was located and had its situs within
- Moody never abandoned his domicile. For there to
the Philippine Islands and, second, because his legal
be abandonment, there must be a deliberate and

domicile up to the time of his death was within the begam primary education ast St. Theresa’s College,
Philippine Islands. Costs against the Appellant. and thereafter attended Little Flower of Jesus
Academy, then San Carlos College, and later still
Siliman University.
• He likwise studied in Mapua Institute of Technology in
Manila, and soon went to the US where, from 1947 to
1950, he was enrolled in the Leland Stanford Junior
Goddard, J. Concurring: Univsersity in California, graduating therefrom with a
degree Bachelor of Science
- There was sufficient evidence that Moody abandoned • In 1950, he returned to the Philippines for a 4-month
his Philippine domicile. vacation. In the same year, on Jul 15, he filed his
- However his estate would still be liable for the taxes application for naturalization
being assessed because Sec. 1536 did not make a o He then returned to the US and took a
distinction between the estate of residents and non- post-graduate course in chemical
residents. Neither was there evidence that Moody’s engineering in Fort Wayne, Indiana,
estate was taxed anywhere else. finishing the course in 1951 (lakas mo kuya)
• However, he didn’t return until Oct 13 1951.
The hearing of the naturalization case, set to be on
Uytengsu v. Republic Jul 12, 1951, had to be postponed
September 29, 1954 • Uytengsu contends that the word “residence” as used
In the matter of the petition of WILFRED UYTENGSU in the Naturalization Law is synonymous with domicile,
to be admitted a citizen of the Philippine. WILFRED which, once acquired, is not lost by physical absence,
UYTENGSU, petitioner-appellee, vs. until another domicile is obtained
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, oppositor-appellant. o Hence, that, from 1946 to 1951, he
Concepcion. J. continued to be domiciled in, and
NATURE: Appeal from CFI decision granting Uytengsu’s hence a resident of the Philippines, his
application for naturalization purpose in staying in the United States, at
that time, being merely to study therein.
SUMMARY: Uytengsu, born and raised in Dumaguete, o Also, in conformity to Sec. 730 of CA473
enrolled at Stanford for the years 1947 to 1950. He was on a 4- (Naturalization Law), Uytengsu stated in par
month vacation when he returned to the Philippines. During 13 of his application:
this time, he filed his application for naturalization but returned § “…I will reside continuously in the
forthwith to the US and took a post-graduate course, and later Philippine from the date of the
returned to the Philippines. The government questioned the filing of my petition up to the time
CFI’s granting the application based on the requirement in the of my admission to Philippine
Naturalization Law, CA473, that an applicant must “reside citizenship.”
continuously in the Philippines from the date of filing of the • CFI agreed and granted the application
petition up to the time of his admission to Philiipine
citizenship.” SC sided with the Government, ruling that
“residence” was not the same as “domicile,” and that for the ISSUE: May the application be granted, notwithstanding the
application to prosper, more than legal residence is necessary, fact that Uytengsu left the Philippines immediately after the
and actual residence within the Philippines was what was filing of his petition, and did not return for several months
required by law. thereafter? No
DOCTRINE: The essential distinction between residence and RATIO:
domicile is this: The first involves the intent to leave when the
purpose for which he/she has taken up his abode ceases; The
other has no such intent, the abiding is animo manendi. The
30
Any person desiring to acquire Philippine citizenship shall file with the
most satisfactory definition is that one is a resident of a place competent court, a petition in triplicate, accompanied by two photographs of the
from which his/her departure is in indefinite as to time, definite petitioner, setting forth his name and surname, his present and former place of
as to purpose. For this purpose, he/she has made the place his residence; his occupation; the place and date of his birth; whether single or
married and if the father of children, the name, age birthplace and residence of
temporary home. Residence is not domicile, but domicile is
the wife and of each of the children; the approximate date of his arrival in the
residence coupled with intention to remain for an unlimited Philippines, the name of the port of debarkation, and if he remembers it, the
time. name of the ship on which he came; a declaration that he has the qualifications
required by this Act, specifying the same, and that he is not disqualified for
naturalization under the provision of this Act; that he has complied with the
FACTS: requirements of section five of this Act, and that he will reside continuously in the
• Uytengsu was born of Chinese parents, in Philippines from the date of the filing of the petition up to the time of his
Dumaguete, Negros Occidental, on Oct 6 1927. He admission to Philippine citizenship ..."

The applicant must prove that he is a residence of o The greater or less degree of permanency
the Philippines at the time, not only of the filing of contemplated or intended furnishes a clue to
the application, but, also, of its hearing. the sometimes shadowy distinction between
• It should be noted that to become a citizen of the residence and domicile.
Philippines by naturalization, one must reside therein o To be a resident one must be physically
for not less than 10 years, except in some special present in that place for a longer or shorter
cases, in which 5 years of residence is sufficient (Sec. 2 period of time.
and 3, CA473) • The essential distinction between residence
o The applicant should state in his/her and domicile is this:
application that he/she "has the o The first involves the intent to leave when the
qualifications required" by law. purpose for which he/she has taken up his
• Inasmuch as these qualifications include the residence abode ceases;
requirement already referred to, it follows that the o The other has no such intent, the abiding is
applicant must prove that he is a residence of animo manendi.
the Philippines at the time, not only of the • If his/her intent be to remain it becomes his domicile;
filing of the application, but, also, of its o If his/her intent is to leave as soon as his
hearing. purpose is accomplished, it is his/her
o If the residence thus required is the actual or residence.
constructive permanent home, otherwise • The most satisfactory definition is that one is a
known as legal residence or domicile, then resident of a place from which his/her departure is in
the applicant must be domiciled in the indefinite as to time, definite as to purpose. For this
Philippines on both dates. purpose, he/she has made the place his temporary
o Thus, when Sec. 7 imposes the duty to state home
in his/her sworn application “that he will • Residence is an act. Domicile is an act coupled with
reside in the continuously in the Philippines” an intent. A [person] may have a residence in one
in the intervening period, it can not refer state or country and his/her domicile in another, and
merely to the need of an he/she may be a nonresident of the date of his
uninterrupted domicile or legal domicile in the sense that his/her place of actual
residence, irrespective of actual residence is not there.
residence • Domicile is a much broader term than residence. A
§ Said legal residence or domicile is person may have their domicile in one state, and
obligatory under the law, even in actually reside in another, or in a foreign country
the absence of the requirement • Residence and habitation are generally regarded as
contained in said clause, and, it is synonymous. A resident and an inhabitant mean the
well settled that, whenever same thing. A person resident is defined to be one
possible, a legal provision must not "dwelling and having his abode in any place," "an
be so construed as to be a useless inhabitant," "one that resides in a place."
surplusage o The question of domicile is not involved in
§ The consequence of determining whether a person is a resident
surplusage may be avoided of a state or country.
only by construing the clause • Residence indicates permanency of occupation,
in question as demanding distinct from lodging or boarding, or temporary
actual resident in the occupation. It does not include as much as domicile,
Philippines from the filing for which requires intention combined with residence.
naturalization to its • The derivation of the two words "residence" and
determination by the court "domicile" fairly illustrates the distinction in their
Resident vs. Domicile (that age-old question) meaning.
• Indeed, although the words "residence" and o A home (domus) is something more than a
"domicile" are often used interchangeably, each has, temporary place of remaining (residendi)
in strict legal parlance, a meaning distinct and however long such stay may continue.
different from that of the other. • Residence combined with intention to remain,
• There is a decided preponderance of authority to the constitutes domicile while an established abode, fixed
effect that residence and domicile are not permanently for a time, for business or other
synonymous in connection with citizenship, purposes, constitutes a residence, though there may
jurisdiction, limitations, school privileges, probate and be an intent, existing all the while, to return to the
succession. true domicile."

• "Residence" is used to indicate the place of abode, • The Government has not had any chance whatsoever
whether permanent or temporary; "domicile" denotes to thus keep a watchful eye on Uytengsu
a fixed permanent residence to which, when absent, • This is because immediately after the filing of his
one has the intention of returning." "Residence is not application, notwithstanding the promise therein
domicile, but domicile is residence coupled with made by him, under oath, that he would reside
intention to remain for an unlimited time. continuously in the Philippines, he returned to the US
o Persons may have but one domicile, but they o For this reason, when this case was called for
may have numerous places of residence hearing, for the first time, on July 12, 1951,
his counsel had to move for continuance.
Application of the Distinction: William Dy Chinco v. Republic • The adverse effect of such absence upon the
• The question arose whether, having been domiciled opportunity needed by the Government to observe
in the Philippines for over 30 years, he could be Uytengsu was enhanced by the fact that, having been
naturalized as a citizen of the Philippines, without a born in the Philippines, where he finished his primary
previous declaration of intention, in view of section 6 and secondary education, he did not have to file, and
of CA473 (as amended by CA 535), exempting from did not file, a declaration of intention prior to the
such requirement "those who have resided in the filing of his petition for naturalization
Philippines continuously for a period of thirty years or o The Government had no previous notice of
more, before filing their application." his intention to apply for naturalization until
o This Court decided the question in the the filing of his petition, and thus could not
negative, upon that ground that "actual and make the requisite investigation
substantial residence within the Philippines, • Moreover, considering that Uytengsu had stayed in
not legal residence", or "domicile," alone, is the United States, practically without interruption for
essential to the enjoyment of the benefits of almost 5 years, it may be said that he resided in the
said exemption. US at that time and for over a year subsequently
• If said actual and substantial residence — not merely thereto
legal residence — is necessary to dispense with the o In fact, under our laws, residence for six (6)
filing of a declaration of intention, it is even more months suffices to entitle a person to
necessary during the period intervening from the exercise the right of suffrage in a given
filing of the petition for naturalization to the date of municipality, residence for one (1) year, to
the hearing thereof. run for a seat in the House of
o In this conneciton, it is to be remembered Representatives and residence for two (2)
that, upon filing of the petition, the clerk of years, to run for the Senate
court is ordained by law to publish it with a o In some states of the United States, a
notice of the date of the hearing, which shall residence of several weeks or months is
not be less than 60 days form date of last enough to establish a domicile for purposes
publication. This was extended to 6 months of divorce.
by RA530 o It is apparent that the length of Uytengsu’s
o The purpose of the period is to give the habitation in the US amply justifies the
government sufficient time to check the truth conclusion that he was residing abroad when
of the statements made in the declaration of his application was file and for 15 months
intention, and in the application for thereafter
naturalization o This is precisely the situation sought to be
o Although data pertinent to said forestalled by the law in enjoining the
qualifications and disqualifications could application to “reside continuously in the
generally be obtained from persons familiar Philippines from the date of the filing of the
with the applicant, it is to be expected that petition up to the time of his admission to
the information thus secured would consist, Philippine citizenship”
mainly, of conclusions and opinions of said • Thus, the SC is of the opinion that Uytengsu has not
individuals. What else can they be expected complied with the requirements of CA473
to say? DISPOSITIVE: Reversed. Without prejudice to the filing of
o Obviously, the Government would be in a another application.
better position to draw its own conclusions
on these matters if its officers could
personally observe the behavior of the Caasi v. Court of Appeals - CHAD
applicant and confer with him if necessary.
Case at Bar 2. Merits and demerits of domicile

3. General rules on domicile Romualdez-Marcos vs COMELEC (1995)
Petitioner: Imelda Marcos
Ujano v Republic (1966) – Bautista Angelo, J Respondent: COMELEC
Petitioner: Melecio Clariano Ujano
Respondent: Republic of the Philippines Doctrine: The term residence may mean one thing in civil law
(or under the Civil Code) and quite another thing in political
Topic: General rules on domicile
law. In the Civil Code, there is an obvious difference between
domicile and residence. Both terms imply relations between a
FACTS: person and a place; but in residence, the relation is one of fact
1. Petitioner was born 66 years ago of Filipino parents in while in domicile it is legal or juridical, independent of the
Ilocos Sur. He is married to Maxima O. Ujano with whom necessity of physical presence. In election law, residence is
he has one son, Prospero. He left the Philippines for the synonymous with domicile.
US in 1927, where after a residence of more than 20 years,
he acquired American citizenship by naturalization. He Facts:
returned to the Philippines on in 1960 to which Petitioner Imelda Romualdez-Marcos filed her
he was admitted merely for a temporary stay. He Certificate of Candidacy for the position of Representative of
owns an agricultural land and a residential house situated the First District of Leyte with the Provincial Election Supervisor
in Ilocos Sur worth not less than P5,000.00. He receives a providing the following information in item no. 8: RESIDENCE
monthly pension of $115.00 from the Social Security IN THE CONSTITUENCY WHERE I SEEK TO BE ELECTED
Administration of the US. He has no record of conviction, IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ELECTION: ____ Years and
and it is his intention to renounce his allegiance seven Months.
to the US. Private respondent Cirilo Roy Montejo, the incumbent
2. The court a quo rendered a decision denying the petition Representative of the First District of Leyte and a candidate for
on the ground that P did not have the residence required the same position, filed a "Petition for Cancellation and
by law 6 months before he filed his petition for Disqualification" with the Commission on Elections alleging
reacquisition of citizenship. that petitioner did not meet the 1-year constitutional
requirement for residency
ISSUE: WON P has the residence required by law (NO) Petitioner filed an Amended/Corrected Certificate of
Candidacy, changing the entry "seven" months to "since
RATIO: childhood"
COMELEC 2nd division cancelled petitioner’s COC.
1. The court a quo, in denying the petition, made the COMELEC En Banc affirmed
following comment: "One of the qualifications for
reacquiring Philippine citizenship is that the applicant Issue:
'shall have resided in the Philippines at least six months WON petitioner met the 1 year residency requirement. YES.
before he applies for naturalization' [Section 3(1),
Commonwealth Act No. 63]. Ratio:
2. This 'residence' requirement in cases of naturalization, has Residence, for election purposes, is synonymous with
already been interpreted to mean the actual or domicile which imports not only intention to reside in a fixed
constructive permanent home otherwise known as legal place, but also personal presence in that place, coupled with
residence or domicile. A place in a country or state where conduct indicative of such intention
he lives and stays permanently, and to which he intends to It is the fact of residence, not a statement in a
return after a temporary absence, no matter how long, is certificate of candidacy which ought to be decisive in
his domicile. In other words domicile is characterized by determining whether or not and individual has satisfied the
animus manendi. constitution's residency qualification requirement
3. So an alien who has been admitted into this country as a Petitioner merely committed an honest mistake in
temporary visitor, either for business or pleasure, or for jotting the word "seven" in the space provided for the
reasons of health, though actually present in this country residency qualification requirement. The circumstances leading
cannot be said to have established his domicile here to her filing the questioned entry obviously resulted in the
because the period of his stay is only temporary in nature subsequent confusion which prompted petitioner to write
and must leave when the purpose of his coming is down the period of her actual stay in Tolosa, Leyte instead of
accomplished. her period of residence in the First district, which was "since
4. The only way by which petitioner can reacquire his lost childhood" in the space provided
Philippine citizenship is by securing a quota for permanent An individual does not lose his domicile even if he has
residence so that he may come within the purview of the lived and maintained residences in different places. Residence
residence requirement of CA No. 63. implies a factual relationship to a given place for various
purposes. The absence from legal residence or domicile to

pursue a profession, to study or to do other things of a 110 of the Civil Code — to follow her husband's actual place of
temporary or semi-permanent nature does not constitute loss residence fixed by him. The problem here is that at that time,
of residence. Thus, the assertion by the COMELEC that "she Mr. Marcos had several places of residence, among which were
could not have been a resident of Tacloban City since San Juan, Rizal and Batac, Ilocos Norte. There is no showing
childhood up to the time she filed her certificate of candidacy which of these places Mr. Marcos did fix as his family's
because she became a resident of many places" flies in the residence. But assuming that Mr. Marcos had fixed any of
face of settled jurisprudence in which this Court carefully made these places as the conjugal residence, what petitioner gained
distinctions between (actual) residence and domicile for upon marriage was actual residence. She did not lose her
election law purposes domicile of origin
Private respondent contends that Tacloban was not
petitioner's domicile of origin because she did not live there Separate Opinions:
until she was eight years old. He avers that after leaving the Puno Concurring
place in 1952, she "abandoned her residency therein for many o The better stance is to rule that
years and . . . (could not) re-establish her domicile in said place petitioner reacquired her Tacloban domicile
by merely expressing her intention to live there again." This is upon the death of her husband in 1989. This
untenable is the necessary consequence of the view
o First, minor follows the domicile of that petitioner's Batac dictated domicile did
his parents. As domicile, once acquired is not continue after her husband's death;
retained until a new one is gained, it follows otherwise, she would have no domicile and
that in spite of the fact of petitioner's being that will violate the universal rule that no
born in Manila, Tacloban, Leyte was her person can be without a domicile at any
domicile of origin by operation of law point of time. This stance also restores the
o Second, domicile of origin is not right of petitioner to choose her domicile
easily lost. To successfully effect a change of before it was taken away by Article 110 of
domicile, one must demonstrate: 1. An the Civil Code, a right now recognized by
actual removal or an actual change of the Family Code and protected by the
domicile; 2. A bona fide intention of Constitution. Likewise, there is no fairness in
abandoning the former place of residence common law requiring petitioner to choose
and establishing a new one; and 3. Acts again her Tacloban domicile before she
which correspond with the purpose could be released from her Batac domicile.
In the absence of clear and positive proof based on She lost her Tacloban domicile not through
these criteria, the residence of origin should be deemed to her act but through the act of her deceased
continue husband when he fixed their domicile in
It cannot be correctly argued that petitioner lost her Batac. Her husband is dead and he cannot
domicile of origin by operation of law as a result of her rule her beyond the grave. The law disabling
marriage to the late President Ferdinand E. Marcos in 1952. For her to choose her own domicile has been
there is a clearly established distinction between the Civil repealed. Considering all these, common
Code concepts of "domicile" and "residence." In the Civil law should not put the burden on petitioner
Code, there is an obvious difference between domicile and to prove she has abandoned her dead
residence. Both terms imply relations between a person and a husband's domicile. There is neither rhyme
place; but in residence, the relation is one of fact while in nor reason for this gender-based burden
domicile it is legal or juridical, independent of the necessity of Francisco Concurring
physical presence o In election law, when our
The right of the husband to fix the actual residence is Constitution speaks of residence for election
in harmony with the intention of the law (Art. 11031 and 10932 of purposes it means domicile
CC) to strengthen and unify the family, recognizing the fact o Tacloban, Leyte, is petitioner's
that the husband and the wife bring into the marriage different domicile of origin which was involuntarily
domiciles (of origin). This difference could, for the sake of supplanted with another, i.e., Batac, Ilocos
family unity, be reconciled only by allowing the husband to fix Norte, upon her marriage in 1954 with then
a single place of actual residence Congressman Marcos. By legal fiction she
When Petitioner was married to then Congressman followed the domicile of her husband. The
Marcos, in 1954, petitioner was obliged — by virtue of Article reason for the law is for the spouses to fully
and effectively perform their marital duties
and obligations to one another. The
31
The husband shall fix the residence of the family. But the court may exempt the
wife from living with the husband if he should live abroad unless in the service of question of domicile, however, is not
the Republic. affected by the fact that it was the legal or
32
The husband and wife are obligated to live together, observe mutual respect moral duty of the individual to reside in a
and fidelity and render mutual help and support.

given place. Thus, while the wife retains her marriage, 3 is sometimes called domicilium
marital domicile so long as the marriage necesarium. There is no debate that the
subsists, she automatically loses it upon the domicile of origin can be lost or replaced by
latter's termination, for the reason behind a domicile of choice or a domicile by
the law then ceases. Otherwise, petitioner, operation of law subsequently acquired by
after her marriage was ended by the death the party
of her husband, would be placed in a quite o When petitioner contracted
absurd and unfair situation of having been marriage in 1954 with then Rep. Marcos, by
freed from all wifely obligations yet made to operation of law, not only international or
hold on to one which no longer serves any American but of our own enactment, 4 she
meaningful purpose acquired her husband's domicile of origin in
Romero Separate Opinion Batac, Ilocos Norte and correspondingly lost
o I submit that a widow, like the her own domicile of origin in Tacloban City
petitioner and others similarly situated, can o Her subsequent changes of
no longer be bound by the domicile of the residence — to San Juan, Rizal, then to San
departed husband, if at all she was before. Miguel, Manila, thereafter to Honolulu,
Neither does she automatically revert to her Hawaii, and back to now San Juan, Metro
domicile of origin, but exercising free will, Manila — do not appear to have resulted in
she may opt to reestablish her domicile of her thereby acquiring new domiciles of
origin. In returning to Tacloban and choice. In fact, it appears that her having
subsequently, to Barangay Olot, Tolosa, resided in those places was by reason of the
both of which are located in the First District fortunes or misfortunes of her husband and
of Leyte, petitioner amply demonstrated by his peregrinations in the assumption of new
overt acts, her election of a domicile of official positions or the loss of them. Her
choice, in this case, a reversion to her residence in Honolulu and, of course, those
domicile of origin. Added together, the time after her return to the Philippines were, as
when she set up her domicile in the two she claimed, against her will or only for
places sufficed to meet the one-year transient purposes which could not have
requirement to run as Representative of the invested them with the status of domiciles of
First District of Leyte choice. After petitioner's return to the
Padilla Dissenting Philippines in 1991 and up to the present
o Petitioner's certificate of candidacy imbroglio over her requisite residency in
filed on 8 March 1995 contains the decisive Tacloban City or Olot, Tolosa, Leyte, there is
component or seed of her disqualification. It no showing that she ever attempted to
is contained in her answer under oath of acquire any other domicile of choice which
"seven months" to the query of "residence could have resulted in the abandonment of
in the constituency wherein I seek to be her legal domicile in Batac, Ilocos Norte
elected immediately preceding the o Since petitioner had lost her
election" domicilium originis which had been
o Comelec committed no grave replaced by her domicilium necesarium, it is
abuse of discretion in holding that petitioner therefore her continuing domicile in Batac,
is disqualified from the position of Ilocos Norte which, if at all, can be the
representative for the 1st congressional object of legal change under the
district of Leyte in the elections of 8 May contingencies of the case at bar
1995, for failure to meet the "not less than Davide Dissenting
one-year residence in the constituency (1st o Petitioner herself has provided the
district, Leyte) immediately preceding the COMELEC, either by admission or by
day of election documentary evidence, overwhelming proof
Regalado Dissenting of the loss or abandonment of her domicile
o Domicile is said to be of three of origin, which is Tacloban City and not
kinds, that is, domicile by birth, domicile by Tolosa, Leyte. Assuming that she decided to
choice, and domicile by operation of law. live again in her domicile of origin, that
The first is the common case of the place of became her second domicile of choice,
birth or domicilium originis, the second is where her stay, unfortunately, was for only
that which is voluntarily acquired by a party seven months before the day of the election.
or domicilium propio motu; the last which is She was then disqualified to be a candidate
consequential, as that of a wife arising from for the position of Representative of the First

Congressional District of Leyte. A holding to domicile, unless, for various reasons, he successfully
the contrary would be arbitrary abandons his domicile in favor of another domicile of
choice. Residence is not domicile, but domicile is
Macalintal v. COMELEC – Austria-Martinez, J.
residence coupled with the intention to remain for an
unlimited time. A man can have but one domicile for
Petitioner: Atty. Romulo Macalintal
the same purpose at any time, but he may have
Respondents: COMELEC, Hon. Alberto Romulo as Executive numerous places of residence. (Uytengsu v. Republic)
Secretary, hon. Emilia Boncodin, Sec. of Dept. of Budget and Under election law, “residence” is used synonymously with
Management “domicile.”
Concept: General Rules on Domicile
Short Facts: Macalintal, as lawyer and taxpayer, assails FACTS:

several provisions in the Oversees Abstentee Voting Act of
2003 as unconstitutional, in particular the provision that
disqualifies immigrants or permanent residents abroad from
Macalintal, as taxpayer and lawyer, filed a petition for certiorari
voting unless they execute an affidavit, promising to return
and prohibition seeking a declaration that certain provisions of
permanently to the Ph within three years from their registration
the RA 9189 Oversees Absentee Voting Act of 2003 (OAVA)
as voters under such Act. Macalintal assails such provision for
suffers from constitutional infirmity. Because the OAVA
being an illegal circumvention of the residency requirement for
appropriates funds from the General Appropriations Act, the
voters under Sec. 1, Art. V of the Constitution. The Court held
Court upheld Macalintal’s right to file the present petition.
that the provision is constitutional. The word “residence” in
Furthermore, considering that the challenged provision
Sec. 1 is to be understood in the meaning of “domicile,”
involves the constitutional right of suffrage and the
insofar as an individual may have several residences for several
constitutional mandate to provide a system for absentee
reasons, but only one domicile to which he eventually intends
voting by qualified Filipinos abroad, it clearly presents an issue
to return, once the purpose for establishing a different
of transcendental significance to the Filipino people.
residence has been accomplished. Sec. 2, Art. V, as a distinct
provision placed in the Constitution right after Sec. 1, indicates
the clear intention of the framers of the Constitution that a
system of absentee voting serve as an exception to the ISSUE:
residency requirement in Sec. 1, so that “qualified Filipino
voters abroad” may be enfranchised to exercise their right of
suffrage despite lack of physical presence in the Ph on the date 3. [SYLLABUS TOPIC] WON Sec. 5(d) of OAVA allowing
of elections, provided they manifest their intention to return to registration of voters who are immigrants or permanent
the Ph. residents in other countries by their mere executing an
affidavit expressing their intention to return to the Ph
violate the residency requirement in Sec. 1 Art. V of the
Constitution.
Doctrine: Domicile means an individual’s permanent home,
a place to which, whenever absent for business or for pleasure,
one intends to return, and depends on facts and circumstances RATIO:
that disclose such intent. Thus the twin elements are the fact of
residing or physical residence in a fixed place, and animus
manendi or the intention of returning their permanently. (Ong 1.
v. Republic) Residence in its ordinary sense implies the
factual relationship of an individual to a certain place, i.e.
physical presence in a given area or community or country, and
MACAINTAL:
implies the intent to leave when the purpose for having taking
up such abode ends. A person can only have a single

• Sec. 4(d) 33is unconstitutional for violating Sec. 1 Art. V of have resided in Ph for at least 1 year and in place where
the ’87 Constitution which requires that the voter must be they propose to vote for at least 6 months immediately
a resident in the Ph for at least 1 year and in the place preceding the election, with no literacy, property or other
where he proposes to vote for at least six months substantive requirement to be imposed) and that
immediately preceding an election. Furthermore, a green Congress is to provide for a system for absentee voting by
card holder immigrant to the U.S. is deemed to have qualified Filipinos abroad, respectively.
abandoned his domicile and residence in the Ph. (Caasi v. • Sec.5 of OAVA disqualifies immigrants or permanent
CA) residents of a host country from voting unless they
• The legislature should not be allowed to circumvent the execute an affidavit declaring they will resume actual
Constitutional requirement of residency by providing a physical permanent residence in the Ph not later than 3
condition (i.e. affidavit) which in effect amends the years from approval of his/her registration under the Act.
residence qualification. The right of suffrage should not be • The essence of OAVA is to enfranchise overseas
granted to anyone who, on the date of election, does not qualified Filipinos, enacted to comply with the
possess the qualifications provided for by Sec. 1, Art. V. Constitutional mandate that Congress provide a
system for voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.
o Concept of absentee voting
OSG: § A method completely separable and distiinct from
regular voting; the right of absentee and disabled
• All laws are presumed constitutional. voters to cast their ballots is purely statutory.
• Sec. 1, Art. V of the Constitution is a verbatim § It was devised toa ccomodate thos engaged in
reproduction of those in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions military or civil life whose duties make it
and as already ruled in Co. v. Electoral Tribunal of House impracticable for them to attend their polling days
of Representatives, “residence” has been understood to on the day of election, and the privilege of
be synonymous with domicile under both Constitutions. absentee voting may flow from constitutional
While a person can have only one domicile, but have two provisions or be conferred by statutes.
residences (one permanent (domicile) and the other § Should Congress choose to grant this right, it must
temporary, and this definition of the term “residence” operate with equality among all classes to which it
applies to absentee voters, insofar as Filipino immigrants is granted.
or permanent residents abroad may have never o Residence v. Domicile
abandoned their Ph domicile. § For the exercise of civil rights and the fulfillment of
• Through the execution of the requisite affidavits, the civil obligations, the domicile of natural persons is
Congress of the Ph with the concurrence of the President their habitual residence. (Art. 50, Civil Code)
of the Ph has given these immigrants and permanent § Domicile means an individual’s permanent home,
residents the opportunity pursuant to Sec. 2, Art. V of the a place to which, whenever absent for business or
Constitution to manifest that they have never abandoned for pleasure, one intends to return, and depends
their Ph domicile and have categorically expressed the on facts and circumstances that disclose such
requisite intentions i.e. animus manendi and animus intent. Thus the twin elements are the fact of
revertendi. residing or physical presidence in a flixed place,
and animus manendi or the intention of returning
their permanently. (Ong v. Republic)
COURT: § Residence in its ordinary sense implies the factual
relationalship of an individual to a certain place, i.e.
• Phrase under contention is “qualified citizens of the Ph physical presence in a given area or community or
abroad” in OAVA who may exercise the right to vote country, and implies the intent to leave when the
albeit being abroad on the day of elections, which must purpose for having taking up such abode ends.
be read in relation to Sections 1 and 2 of Art. V of the § A person can only have a single domicile,
Constitution which provide for the qualifications for unless, for various reasons, he successfully
exercising the right to suffrage (e.g. Ph citizens not abandons his domicile in favor of another
otherwise disqualified by law, at least 18 years old, who domicile of choice. Residence is not domicile,
but domicile is residence couples with the

33
d) An immigrant or a permanent resident who is recognized as such in the host
intention to remain for an unlimited time. A
country, unless he/she executes, upon registration, an affidavit prepared for the man can have but one domicile for the same
purpose by the Commission declaring that he/she shall resume actual physical purpose at any time, but he may have numerous
permanent residence in the Philippines not later than three (3) years from
places of residence. (Uytengsu v. Republic)
approval of his/her registration under this Act. Such affidavit shall also state that
he/she has not applied for citizenship in another country. Failure to return shall § Under election law, “residence” is used
be cause for the removal of the name of the immigrant or permanent resident synonymously with “domicile.”
from the National Registry of Absentee Voters and his/her permanent
disqualification to vote in absentia.

o The framers of the Constitution clearly meant o The Execution of the affidavit itself is not the
for the exercise of the right to vote abroad for enabling or enfranchising act. Rather, it is an
Filipino citizens an effective, rather than explicit expression by such immigrant or
merely a nominal, right. The reason they permanent resident, that he had not in fact
inserted a distinct provision for absentee abandoned his domicile of origin. Thus, such
voting in the Constitution was to officially execution of affidavit does not violate the
declare it possible, then allow legislation to Constitutional requirement, because it does not, as
take care of the rest. Sec. 2 Art. V of the Macalintal claims, amend the residency requirement.
Constitution was meant to remove any doubt The affidavit is required because as
as to the inapplicability of the residency immigrants and permanent residents abroad,
requirement in Sec. 1, to avoid any problems they are presumed to have relinquished their
that could impede the implementation to intent to return to the country – without the
enfranchise the largest number of qualified affidavit, the presumption of abandonment of
Filipinos who are not in the Ph. Ph domicile shall remain.
§ Registered qualified voters, by having left § What the affidavit does is leave the choice to voter,
birthplace for professional reasons and cannot and enable him to make the decision of whether or
absent himself from the place of his professional or not he intends to return.
business activities, have not willingly given up or § The affidavit not only requires the promise to
lost the opportunity to choose the ofificials who are resume actual physical permanent residence in the
to run the government especially in national Ph not later than 3 years from approval of his or her
elections. registration, but the Filipino abroad must also
§ Residence in the Constitutional provision refers to declare that they have not applied for citizenship in
two residence qualifications: residence in the Ph, another country. Failure to return to the Ph shall be
and residence in the place where he will vote. As cause for removing their names from the National
far as residence in the Ph is concerned, the word Registry of Absentee Voters and his or her
‘residence’ means ‘domicile’, but as far as permanent disqualification to vote in absentia.
residence in the place where he will actually his o Although it is possible that immigrants renege on their
ballot… he can have a domicile elsewhere yet be a promise to return, it is not for the Court to determine
resident of a place for six months and thus be the wisdom of the legislative exercise. Furthermore,
allowed to vote there. the penalty of perpetual disenfranchisement would
§ With the Constitutional mandate to provide for suffice to serve as deterrence to non-compliance with
absentee voting in mind, the framers of the the immigrant’s undertaking in the affidavit.
Constitution opted to use the term “qualified o Likewise, the failure of qualified voters to return within
Filipinos abroad” with respect to absentee voting, three years will not invalidate their votes, because at
to indicate the assumption that they have the the time such votes were cast, they were qualified
qualifications and none of the disqualifications to Fiipinos abroad. Failure to return will not invalidate
vote, the qualifications being those stated in Sec. 1 the votes, but shall be cause for the removal of the
except for the residency requirement. Otherwise, a names of the immigrants or permanent residents from
Filipino citizen who would be qualified to vote the National Registry of Absentee Voters and their
would be nevertheless barred by mere fact of his permanent disqualification.
being temporarily abroad on the date of elections.
§ The clear intention of the Constitutional Nicolas-Lewis v. COMELEC
Commission was to enfranchise as much as Petitioner: Louis Nicolas-Lewis et. al
possible all Filipino citizens abroad who have not Respondent: COMELEC
abandoned their domicile of origin. Topic: Personal Laws
§ By the doctrine of necessary implication in
statutory construction, which may be Brief Facts: Petitioners are dual citizens (by virtue of Republic
applied in construing constitutional Act No. 9225 - Citizenship Retention and Re Acquisition Act of
provisions, the strategic location of Sec. 2 2003, allowing one to retain or re-acquire Phil. Citizenship) who
indicates that the Constitutional want to exercise their right to suffrage under the Overseas
Commission provided for an exception to Absentee Voting Act of 2003 (R.A. 9189). The Comelec denies
the actual residency requirement of Sec. 1 on the ground that they fail to meet the qualification of 1-year
with respect to qualified Filipinos abroad. residency required by the Constitution.
To read the Constitutional provision as literally Doctrine: By applying the doctrine of necessary implication,
demanding physical presence would make offshore Constitutional Commission provided for an exception to actual
voting impossible, otherwise. residency requirement of Section 1, Article 5 of 1987
Constitution, with respect to qualified Filipinos abroad. Filipino

immigrants and permanent residents, as well as dual-citizens, as voter for as long as he/she executes an affidavit to
in another country may be allowed to vote even though they show that he/she has not abandoned his domicile in
do not fulfill the residency requirement of said Sec 1 Art V of pursuance of the constitutional intent expressed in
the Constitution. Sections 1 and 2 of Article V that all citizens of the
Facts Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law must be
1. Petitioners, who reacquired Philippine citizenship under entitled to exercise the right of suffrage and, that
R.A. No. 9225, sought registration and certification as Congress must establish a system for absentee
“overseas absentee voters.” However they were advised voting; for otherwise, if actual, physical residence in
by the Philippine Embassy in the US that as per a the Philippines is required, there is no sense for the
COMELEC letter to DFA dated September 23, 2003, they framers of the Constitution to mandate Congress to
have no right yet to vote in such elections owing to their establish a system for absentee voting.”
lack of the one-year residence requirement prescribed by • Soon after Section 5(d) of R.A. 9189 passed the test of
Sec. 1, Art. IV of the Constitution. constitutionality, Congress enacted R.A. 9225 to
2. When petitioner Nicolas-Lewis asked for clarification on address the concern of dual-citizens.
said requirement in light of the ruling in Macalinta v. • There is no provision in the dual citizenship
COMELEC, the COMELEC replied that the OAVL was not law - R.A. 9225 - requiring "duals" to actually
enacted for the petitioners and that they are considered establish residence and physically stay in the
regular voters who have to meet the requirements of Philippines first before they can exercise
residency under the Constitution. their right to vote. On the contrary, R.A. 9225, in
3. Faced with the prospect of not being able to vote in the implicit acknowledgment that duals are most likely
May 2004 elections because of COMELEC's refusal to non-residents, grants under its Section 5(1) the same
include them in the National Registry of Absentee Voters, right of suffrage as that granted an absentee voter
petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus. under R.A. 9189. It cannot be overemphasized that
4. On May 20, 2004, the OSG filed a Manifestation (in Lieu of R.A. 9189 aims, in essence, to enfranchise as much as
Comment) stating that “all qualified overseas Filipinos, possible all overseas Filipinos who, save for the
including dual citizens who care to exercise the right of residency requirements exacted of an ordinary voter
suffrage, may do so.” Observing, however, that the under ordinary conditions, are qualified to vote
conclusion of the 2004 elections had rendered the petition • Considering the unison intent of the Constitution and
moot and academic. R.A. 9189 and the expansion of the scope of that law
Issue: with the passage of R.A. 9225, the irresistible
Whether or not dual citizens may exercise their right to conclusion is that "duals" may now exercise the right
suffrage as absentee voters even short of 1-year residency of suffrage thru the absentee voting scheme and as
requirement (YES) overseas absentee voters.
Ruling: Decision: Petition granted
YES. There is no provision in the RA 9225 requiring
duals to actually establish residence and physically
stay in the Philippines first before they can exercise
their right to vote
• In a nutshell, Sec. 1, Art. V of the 1987 Constitution Caballero v. COMELEC
prescribes residency requirement as a general
eligibility factor for the right to vote. On the other Petitioner: Rogelio Batin Caballero
hand, Section 2 authorizes Congress to devise a
system wherein an absentee may vote, implying that a Respondents: COMELEC and Jonathan Enrique V. Nanud,
non resident may, as an exception to the residency Jr.
prescription in the preceding section, be allowed to
vote. Digest by: Denesy Jao
• In response to its above mandate, Congress enacted
R.A. 9189 - the OAVL- identifying in its Section 4 who
can vote under it and in the following section who
cannot. Notably, Section 5 lists those who cannot avail Foreign elements:
themselves of the absentee voting mechanism.
However, Section 5(d) of the enumeration respecting Petitioner was a Canadian citizen who renounced this
Filipino immigrants and permanent residents in citizenship and later ran for public office. His domicile is in
another country opens an exception and qualifies the question.
disqualification rule. But as was pronounced in
Macalintal: “However, same Section allows an
immigrant and permanent resident abroad to register

Facts: Ratio:
1. Caballero and Nanud were both candidates for the 1. COMELEC Rules of Procedure are subject to
mayoralty position of the Municipality of Uyugan, Province liberal construction. Moreover, the COMELEC
of Batanes in the May 13, 2013 elections may exercise its power to suspend its own rules.
2. Respondent filed a Petition to deny due course to or • Petitioner: when private respondent filed a petition to
cancellation of petitioner's certificate of candidacy deny due course or to cancel his COC, a copy thereof
alleging that the latter made a false representation when was not personally served on him; private respondent
he declared in his COC that he was eligible to run for later sent a copy of the petition to him by registered mail
Mayor of Uyugan, Batanes despite being a Canadian without an attached affidavit stating the reason on why
citizen and a nonresident thereof registered mail as a mode of service was resorted to.
3. Petitioner: • Section 4, Rule 1 of their Rules of Procedure: In the
a. Prior to the filing of his COC, he took an Oath of interest of justice and in order to obtain speedy
Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines before disposition of all matters pending before the
the Philippine Consul General in Toronto, Canada Commission, these rules or any portion thereof may be
and became a dual Filipino and Canadian citizen suspended by the Commission
pursuant to RA 9225, otherwise known as the • Here, we find that the issue raised, i.e., whether
Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition Act of 2003. petitioner had been a resident of Uyugan, Batanes at
b. He executed an Affidavit of Renunciation before a least one (1) year before the elections held on May 13,
Notary Public in Batanes to conform with Section 5(2) 2013 as he represented in his COC, pertains to his
of RA No. 9225 qualification and eligibility to run for public office,
c. He did not lose his domicile of origin in Uyugan, therefore imbued with public interest, which justified the
Batanes despite becoming a Canadian citizen as he COMELEC's suspension of its own rules.
merely left Uyugan temporarily to pursue a brighter • COMELEC's s ratiocination in accepting the petition as
future for him and his family; and that he went back adopted by SC: The very purpose of prior service of the
to Uyugan during his vacation while working in petition to respondent is to afford the latter an
Nigeria, California, and finally in Canada. opportunity to answer the allegations contained in the
4. COMELEC First Division: petitioner made a material petition even prior to the service of summons by the
misrepresentation. He failed to comply with the other Commission to him. In this case, respondent was given a
requirements provided under RA No. 9225 for those copy of the petition during the conference held on 10
seeking elective office, i.e., persons who renounced their December 2012 and was ultimately accorded the
foreign citizenship must still comply with the one year occasion to rebut all the allegations against him. He
residency requirement provided for under Section 39 of even filed a Memorandum containing his defenses to
the LGC. petitioner's allegations. For all intents and purposes,
5. Elections were subsequently held and the election returns therefore, respondent was never deprived of due
showed that petitioner won over private respondent. process
Private respondent filed an Urgent Ex-parte Motion to 2. Records showed that petitioner failed to prove
Defer Proclamation that he had been a resident of Uyugan, Batanes
6. Petitioner was proclaimed Mayor. He also filed a Motion for at least one year immediately preceding the
for Reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc. day of elections as required under Section 39 of
7. Private respondent filed a Petition to Annul Proclamation the LGC.
8. COMELEC en banc: issued its assailed Resolution denying • Petitioner: requirement of the law in fixing the residence
petitioner's motion for reconsideration. qualification of a candidate running for public office is
9. Petitioner to SC: certiorari with TRO not strictly on the period of residence in the place where
10. COMELEC Chairman Sixto S. Brillantes, Jr. issued a Writ of he seeks to be elected but on the acquaintance by the
Execution of the Resolution of the COMELEC First Division candidate on his constituents' vital needs for their
as affirmed by the En Banc. Private respondent took his common welfare; and that his nine months of actual stay
Oath of Office in Uyugan, Batanes prior to his election is a substantial
compliance with the law
• SC: RA No. 9225 does not provide for residency
Issues: requirement for the reacquisition or retention of
Philippine citizenship; nor does it mention any effect of
1. WON the COMELEC En Banc disregarded the procedural such reacquisition or retention of Philippine citizenship
rules in filing for cancellation of COC? NO. on the current residence of the concerned natural-born
2. WON petitioner is qualified to run for public office? No. Filipino
• RA No. 9225 treats citizenship independently of
residence

• Since a natural-born Filipino may hold, at the same time, September 13, 2012 that petitioner can rightfully claim
both Philippine and foreign citizenships, he may that he re-established his domicile in Uyugan, Batanes, if
establish residence either in the Philippines or in the such was accompanied by physical presence thereat,
foreign country of which he is also a citizen. However, coupled with an actual intent to reestablish his domicile
when a natural-born Filipino with dual citizenship seeks there. However, the period from September 13, 2012 to
for an elective public office, residency in the Philippines May 12, 2013 was even less than the one year residency
becomes material required by law
• Section 5(2) of FLA No. 9225: 2) Those seeking elective • That material representation contemplated by Section
public office in the Philippines shall meet the 78 refers to qualifications for elective office, such as the
qualifications for holding such public office as required requisite residency, age, citizenship or any other legal
by the Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of qualification necessary to run for a local elective office as
the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal provided for in the LGC.
and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship • Aside from the requirement of materiality, the
before any public officer authorized to administer an misrepresentation must consist of a deliberate attempt
oath. to mislead, misinform, or hide a fact which would
• Local Government Code of 1991: SEC. 39. Qualifications. otherwise render a candidate ineligible. We, therefore,
- (a) An elective local official must be a citizen of the find no grave abuse of discretion committed by the
Philippines… a resident therein for at least one (1) year COMELEC in canceling petitioner's COC for material
immediately preceding the day of the election… misrepresentation
• Clearly, the Local Government Code requires that the
candidate must be a resident of the place where he
seeks to be elected at least one year immediately Held: Petition for certiorari dismissed.
preceding the election day
• "Residence" is to be understood not in its common In Re Dorrance’s Estate – DODOT
acceptation as referring to "dwelling" or "habitation,"
but rather to "domicile" or legal residence,25 that is, "the 4. Kinds of domicile
place where a party actually or constructively has his
permanent home, where he, no matter where he may be Dela Vina vs. Villareal and Geopano
found at any given time, eventually intends to return and
remain (animus manendi)." July 31, 1920; Johnson J
• Petitioner was a natural born Filipino who was born and
raised in Uyugan, Batanes. Thus, it could be said that he
had his domicile of origin in Uyugan, Batanes. However,
he later worked in Canada and became a Canadian Summary: Narcisa Geopano filed with the CFI of Iloilo a
citizen. complaint seeking for a decree of divorce, partition of conjugal
• Naturalization in a foreign country may result in an property, and support against her husband, Diego Dela Vina.
abandonment of domicile in the Philippines. This holds Diego filed with the SC a petition for certiorari alleging that the
true in petitioner's case as permanent resident status in
CFI has no jurisdiction over the case because Geopano was
Canada is required for the acquisition of Canadian
not a resident of Iloilo. The SC denied the petition for certiorari
citizenship.29 Hence, petitioner had effectively
abandoned his domicile in the Philippines and and ruled that Geopano resided at Iloilo.
transferred his domicile of choice in Canada. His
frequent visits to Uyugan, Batanes during his vacation
from work in Canada cannot be considered as waiver of
Doctrine: Although the law fixes the domicile of the wife as
such abandonment.
• Effect of petitioner's retention of his Philippine being that of her husband, universal jurisprudence recognizes
citizenship under RA No. 9225 on his residence or an exception to the rule in the case where the husband's
domicile: reacquisition of his Philippine conduct has been such as to furnish lawful ground for a
citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 had no divorce, which justifies her in leaving him, and, therefore,
automatic impact or effect on his necessarily authorities her to live elsewhere and to acquire a
residence/domicile
separate domicile.
• He must still prove that after becoming a Philippine
citizen on September 13, 2012, he had reestablished
Uyugan, Batanes as his new domicile of choice which is
reckoned from the time he made it as such.
• COMELEC found that it was only after reacquiring his
Filipino citizenship by virtue of RA No. 9225 on
FACTS:

• September 17, 1917, Narcisa Geopano filed a • It is intended to promote, strenghten, and secure
complaint in the Court of First Instance of the their interests in this relation, as it ordinarily exists,
Province of Iloilo against Diego de la Viña, alleging: where union and harmony prevail. But the authorities
(1) That she was a resident of the municipality of Iloilo, are unanimous in holding that this is not an absolute
Province of Iloilo, and that the defendant was a rule.
resident of the municipality of Vallehermoso, Province • "Under modern laws it is clear that many exceptions
of Oriental Negros; (2) that she was the legitimate to the rule that the domicile from of the wife is
wife of the defendant, having been married to him in determined by that of her husband must obtain.
the municipality of Guijulñgan, Province of Negros Accordingly, the wife may acquire another and
Oriental, in the year 1888; (3) that since the year 1913 seperate domicile from that of her husband where the
and up to the date of the complaint, the defendant theorical unity of husband and wife is is dissolved, as
had been committing acts of adultery with one Ana it is by the institution of divorce proceedings;
Calog, sustaining illicit relations with her and having or where the husband has given cause for divorce; or
her as his concubine, with public scandal and in where there is a separation of the parties by
disgrace of the plaintiff; (4) that because of said illicit agreement, or a permanent separation due to
relations, the defendant ejected the plaintiff from the desertion of the wife by the husband or attributable
conjugal home, for which reason she was obliged to to cruel treatment on the part of the husband; or
live in the city of Iloilo, where she had since where there has been a forfeiture by the wife of the
established her habitual residence; and (5) that the benefit of the husband's domicile."
plaintiff, scorned by her husband, the defendant, had • Although the law fixes the domicile of the wife as
no means of support and was living only at the being that of her husband, universal jurisprudence
expense of one of her daughters. recognizes an exception to the rule in the case where
• She prayed for a decree of divorce, separation of the husband's conduct has been such as to furnish
property, and support. lawful ground for a divorce, which justifies her in
• The defendant Diego de la Viña, petitioner herein, leaving him, and, therefore, necessarily authorities her
demurred to the complaint upon the ground that the to live elsewhere and to acquire a separate domicile
court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the • It is clear, therefore, that a married woman may
cause, "nor over the person of the defendant." He acquire a residence or domicile separate from that of
filed a petition for ceriorari with the SC. her husband, during the existence of the marriage,
• The petitioner contends that the Court of First where the husband has given cause for divorce.
Instance of Iloilo had no jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the said action for divorce because the
defendant therein was a resident of the Province of Go Chien v. Collector of Customs Cebu
Negros Oriental and the plaintiff, as the wife of the Petitioners: Go Chien and Go Lek
defendant, must also be considered a resident of the Respondent: Collector of Customs of Cebu
same province inasmuch as, under the law, the
Topic: Kinds of domicile
domicile of the husband is also the domicile of the
wife; that the plaintiff could not acquire a residence in
Iloilo before the arriage between her and the FACTS
defendant was legally dissolved. • This appeal was taken by the collector of customs for
Cebu against the judgment of the CFI Cebu, granting
the writ of habeas corpus applied for by Go Chen and
ISSUE: May a married woman ever acquire a residence or Go Lek, and ordering that they be set at liberty and
domicile separate from that of her husband during the permitted to remain in the Philippine Islands.
existence of the marriage? YES!
• The petitioners are the minor children of Go Tuan and
Tan Bon.
• Go Tuan died in China. Two years later, Tan Bon
RATIO: married another Chinaman, and shortly thereafter
came to the Philippines with her second husband,
• It is true, as a general of law, that the domicile of the where she was admitted as the wife of a Chinese
wife follows that of her husband. This rule is founded merchant, and where she has been residing for the
upon the theoretic identity of person and of interest
past eight years. The petitioners remained in China
between the husband and the wife, and the
presumption that, from the nature of the relation, the under a paternal uncle, together with their three
home of the one is that of the other. brothers and one sister.

• Tan Bon is at present engaged in the furniture Plaintiff: Rommel Apolinario Jalosjos
business in Cebu. Being a resident merchant, she Defendant: COMELEC and Dan Erasmo
ordered the petitioners to join her in these Islands. Topic: Kinds of Domicile
Foreign Elements:
The petitioners, then aged 20 and 18 arrived in the
(2) Jalosjos migrated to Australia in 1981 when he was
Philippines on board the S. S. Susana II, and took up
eight years old and there acquired Australian
their abode with their mother at her home and went citizenship.
to Talisayan, Misamis Province, at the invitation of a
friend of hers named Go Tian Ho, whom she had Brief Facts:
been helping in his store in that municipality. They are Jalosjos was born in QC. He migrated to Australia when he was
both single and have another brother, also single 21 8 years old. At age 35, he decided to return to the
Philippines and lived with his brother. He filed his candidacy for
years of age, named Go Soon, who is living in Cebu
Governor. The cancellation of his COC was sought on the
with his mother. ground that he failed to satisfy the one-year residency
requirement. SC ruled that Jalosjos has satisfied the residency
requirement.
ISSUE: W/N Tan Bon is entitled to bring in her minor children
by the first marriage - NO Doctrine: LGC requires a candidate seeking the position of
provincial governor to be a resident of the province for at least
RATIO one year before the election. For purposes of the election laws,
• The ground of the wife's right of entry into the the requirement of residence is synonymous with
territory of the United States and hence, into the domicile, meaning that a person must not only intend to reside
Philippine Islands, is the principle of Private in a particular place but must also have personal presence in
such place coupled with conduct indicative of such intention.
International Law and of Civil Law, that a man's
domicile is also the domicile of his wife and
Jurisprudence has laid down the following guidelines to
minor children, and that he is in duty bound to determine compliance with the residency requirement:
protect, support, and keep them in his company. A (a) every person has a domicile or residence somewhere;
Chinaman's Chinese wife and here minor children, (b) where once established, that domicile remains until he
then, do not enter the Philippine Islands acquires a new one; and
(c) a person can have but one domicile at a time.
through their own right, but by virtue of the
right of the husband and father, unless the
FACTS:
Chinese wife belongs to the privileged class. 10. Petitioner Rommel Jalosjos was born in Quezon
• The Chinese woman Tan Bon, who seeks to bring in City on October 26, 1973. He migrated to Australia in
her minor children, the petitioners herein, did not 1981 when he was eight years old and there acquired
enter through her own but through that of her second Australian citizenship.
husband. If the wife's right to enter is derived from 11. On November 22, 2008, at age 35, he decided to
return to the Philippines and lived with his brother,
her husband's, and the rights of the minor children
Romeo, Jr., in Barangay Veterans Village, Ipil,
from that of their father, then the petitioners, not
Zamboanga Sibugay.
being children of their mother's second husband, are 12. Four days upon his return, he took an oath of
not entitled to enter. The mere fact of their being allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, resulting
children of Tan Bon confers on them no right of entry, in his being issued a Certificate of Reacquisition of
inasmuch as she herself did not enter of her own right, Philippine Citizenship by the Bureau of Immigration.
and they cannot base their right on hers. That she On September 1, 2009 he renounced his Australian
citizenship, executing a sworn renunciation of the
became a merchant after coming into these Islands,
same.
gives her no right to remain. She has the latter right
13. From the time of his return, Jalosjos acquired a
by virtue of being the wife of a Chinese merchant who residential property in Veterans Village, Ipil where he
came into the country in that capacity. lived and a fishpond in San Isidro, Naga, Zamboanga
Sibugay. He applied for registration as a voter in
Caraballo v. Republic – Kat L. the Municipality of Ipil.
a. Dan Erasmo, Sr., the Barangay Captain of
Velilla v. Posadas, supra – KIKO Barangay Veterans Village, opposed the
registration.
Jalosjos v. COMELEC

b. The Election Registration Board approved it
and included Jalosjos’ name in the voters It is clear from the facts that Quezon City was Jalosjos
list. domicile of origin, the place of his birth. It may be
14. Erasmo filed a petition for the exclusion of Jalosjos’ taken for granted that he effectively changed his
name from the official voters list. After hearing, the domicile from Quezon City to Australia when he
MCTC rendered a decision, denying the petition. RTC migrated there at the age of eight, acquired
affirmed MCTC and this became final and executory. Australian citizenship, and lived in that country for 26
15. Jalosjos filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC) for years. Australia became his domicile by operation of
Governor of Zamboanga Sibugay for the May 2010 law and by choice.
elections.
16. Erasmo promptly filed a petition to deny due course When he came to the Philippines in November 2008
or to cancel Jalosjos COC on the ground that the to live with his brother in Zamboanga Sibugay, it is
latter made material misrepresentation in the same evident that Jalosjos did so with intent to change his
since he failed to comply with (1) the requirements of domicile for good. He left Australia, gave up his
R.A. 9225 and (2) the one-year residency requirement Australian citizenship, and renounced his allegiance
of the LGC. to that country.
17. 2nd Division of the COMELEC ruled that, while
Jalosjos had regained Philippine citizenship by In addition, he reacquired his old citizenship by taking
complying with the requirements of R.A. 9225, he an oath of allegiance to the Republic of
failed to prove the residency requirement for a the Philippines, resulting in his being issued a
gubernatorial candidate. COMELEC en banc affirmed Certificate of Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship
the 2nd Division’s ruling, finding that Jalosjos had by the Bureau of Immigration. By his acts, Jalosjos
been a mere guest or transient visitor in his brothers forfeited his legal right to live in Australia, clearly
house and, for this reason, he cannot claim Ipil as his proving that he gave up his domicile there. And he
domicile. has since lived nowhere else except in Ipil,
18. Jalosjos prayed for the issuance of the TRO. SC Zamboanga Sibugay.
issued status quo ante order.
2. A candidate is not required to have a house
ISSUE: in a community to establish his residence or domicile
WON Jalosjos failed to present ample proof of a bona fide in a particular place.
intention to establish his domicile in Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay?
NO. JALOSJOS HAS COMPLIED WITH THE RESIDENCY Fact that Jalosjos has been merely staying at his
REQUIREMENT. brother’s house does not support the conclusion that
Jalosjos has not come to settle his domicile in Ipil. It is
RATIO: sufficient that he should live there even if it be in a
LGC requires a candidate seeking the position of provincial rented house or in the house of a friend or relative. To
governor to be a resident of the province for at least one year insist that the candidate own the house where he lives
before the election. For purposes of the election laws, the would make property a qualification for public
requirement of residence is synonymous with office. What matters is that Jalosjos has proved two
domicile, meaning that a person must not only intend to reside things: actual physical presence in Ipil and an
in a particular place but must also have personal presence in intention of making it his domicile. Jalosjos’ adjoining
such place coupled with conduct indicative of such intention. neighbors attested to Jalosjos’ physical presence.
Jurisprudence has laid down the following guidelines to Digest by: Kiko del Valle
determine compliance with the residency requirement:
(a) every person has a domicile or residence somewhere;
(b) where once established, that domicile remains until he
acquires a new one; and
(c) a person can have but one domicile at a time.
Jalosjos has complied with these requirements:

1. To hold that Jalosjos has not establish a new
domicile in Zamboanga Sibugay despite the loss of White v. Tennant - Snyder (1888)
his domicile of origin (Quezon City) and his domicile
of choice and by operation of law (Australia) would Plaintiff: William L. White et al
violate the settled maxim that a man must have a
domicile or residence somewhere. Defendant: Emrod Tennant

to tend to his livestock but continued to stay with Lucinda at
the mansion-house because she turned out to have typhoid
Brief facts: Suit was brought in the Circuit Court of fever.
Monongalia county by William L. White and others (brothers
and sisters of decedent) against Emrod Tennant, administrator 5. Two weeks later, Michael came down with typhoid fever as
of Michael White (deceased) and Lucinda White, the widow of well. He subsequently died, intestate.
said Michael White, to set aside the settlement and
distribution made by the administrator of the personal estate 6. Emrod Tennant (defendant), the administrator of Michael’s
of said decedent, and to have the same settled and distributed personal estate, distributed it in accordance with West Virginia
according to the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, which State law, which gave everything to Lucinda.
it is claimed was the domicile of said decedent at the time of

7. Michael’s brothers and sisters sued Tennant and Lucinda in a
his death.
West Virginia circuit court, arguing that Pennsylvania law, which
would entitle them to half of Michael’s estate, should apply.
Doctrine: Where a person entirely abandons his former 8. They appealed the court’s dismissal of their claim.
residence in one State with no intention of resuming it and

goes with his family to another residence, which he has rented
in another State, with the intention of making the latter his ISSUE: WON Michael White at the time of his death (May
residence for an indefinite time, the latter State is his domicile 1885) had his legal domicile in this State or in the State of
notwithstanding the fact, that, after he and his family arrive at Pennsylvania.
the new residence, which is only about a half a mile from the
State line, they go on the same day on a visit to spend the
night with a neighbor in the former State intending to return in
RATIO:Pennsylvania. The laws of that State must
the morning of the next day, but he is detained there by
control the distribution of his personal estate
sickness, until he dies, and never does in fact return to his new
notwithstanding the fact, that he died in State of
home. The laws of the State, in which the domicile of a
West Virginia.
decedent is at the time of his death, control and govern the
distribution of his personal estate, although he may die in - It is admitted to be the settled law, that the law of the State,
another State. in which the decedent had his domicile at the time of his
death, will control the succession and distribution of his
personal estate. Before referring to the facts proved in this
FACTS: cause, the Court endeavored to determine what in law is
meant by " domicile."
1. The Whites owned a large family farm along the West
Virginia and Pennsylvania border, with property located in each - Dr. Wharton: 'Domicile' is a residence acquired as a final
state. The mansion-house was located in West Virginia. abode. To constitute it there must be (1) residence, actual or
inchoate; (2) the non-existence of any intention to make a
2. Michael White and his wife Lucinda (defendant) sold their domicile elsewhere."
house in West Virginia in order to move into a house on the
family property in Pennsylvania. - "'Domicile' is that place or country, either (1) in which a
person in fact resides with an intention of residence, animus
3. On April 2, 1885, Michael and Lucinda traveled to the new manendi; or (2) in which, having so resided, he continues
residence with all of their possessions and livestock. Lucinda actually to reside, though no longer retaining the intention of
was ill at the time, and they found the house to be dark and residence, animus manendi; or (3) with regard to which, having
uncomfortable. Thus, they accepted the invitation of Michael’s so resided there, he retains the intention of residence,-animus
brothers and sisters (collectively, plaintiffs) to spend the night manendi, though he in fact no longer resides there."
at the mansion-house back in West Virginia.
- Two things must concur to establish domicile, the
4. They left all of their possessions and livestock at the fact of residence, and the intention of remaining.
Pennsylvania property. Michael returned to Pennsylvania daily These two must exist, or must have existed, in

combination. There must have been an actual establishes a residence in the new place for any period of time,
residence. however brief, that will be in law a change of domicile, and the
latter will remain his domicile until changed in like manner.
- The character of the residence is of no importance; and, if
domicile has once existed, mere temporary absence will not - The facts in this case conclusively prove, that
destroy it, however long continued. Michael White, abandoned his residence in West
Virginia with the intention and purpose not only of
- The original domicile continues until it is fairly changed for not returning to it, but for the expressed purpose of
another. It is a legal maxim that every person must have a making a fixed place in the State of Pennsylvania his
domicile somewhere; and he can have but one at a time for the home for an indefinite time. This fact is shown by all
same purpose. From this it follows that one can not be lost or the circumstances as well as by his declarations and
extinguished until another is acquired. acts.
- When one domicile is definitely abandoned and a new one - He had sold his residence in West Virginia and surrendered
selected and entered upon, length of time is not important; its possession to the purchaser, and thereby made it
one day will be sufficient, provided the animus exists. Even impossible for him to return to it and make it his home. He
when the point of destination is not reached, domicile may rented a dwelling in Pennsylvania, for which he had no use
shift in itinere, if the abandonment of the old domicile and the except to live in and make it his home.
setting out for the new are plainly shown.
- In addition to all this, he had moved a part of his household
- Thus a constructive residence seems to be sufficient to give goods into this house, and then, he with his family and the
domicile, though an actual residence may not have begun. remainder of his goods and stock finally left his former home
and the State of West Virginia, and moved into the State of
- A change of domicile does not depend so much upon the
Pennsylvania to his house. His declared purpose and intention
intention to remain in the new place for a definite or indefinite
were to make that his home from that very day, and to occupy
period as upon its being without an intention to return. An
it that night.
intention to return however at a remote or indefinite period to
the former place of actual residence will not control, if the - There was no change in his purpose, except that after he
other facts, which constitute domicile, all give the new arrived at his new home and unloaded and left his property
residence the character of a permanent home or place of there, he concluded on account of the condition of the house
abode. and the illness of his wife, that it would be better to go with his
wife to remain one night with his relatives and return the next
- The intention and actual fact of residence must concur, where
morning.
such residence is not in its nature temporary.
- When he left his former home without any intention of

- A change of domicile is consummated when one leaves the
returning and in pursuance of that intention did in fact move
State where he has hitherto resided, avowing his intention not
with his family and effects to his new home with the intention
to return, and enters another State intending to permanently
of making it his residence for an indefinite time, it is my
settle there. A domicile once acquired remains until a new one
opinion, that, when he and his wife arrived at his new home, it
is acquired elsewhere, facto et animo.
became eo instanti his domicile, and that his leaving there
- According to the facts of the case, if the distribution had under the circumstances with the intention of returning the
been according to the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, the next day did not change the fact.
wife would have been entitled to the one half only of said
- The fact, that he left the Pennsylvania house, after he had
estate, and the plaintiffs would have been entitled to the other
moved to it with his family and goods, to spend the night, did
half.
not revive his domicile at his former residence on Day's run,
- Prior to the 2nd day of April, 1885, his domicile was and had because he had sold that, and left it without any purpose of
been in the State of West Virginia but if it is shown, that he has returning there.
entirely abandoned his former domicile in one State with the
- By going from his new home to the house of his relatives to
intention of making his home at a fixed place in another State
spend the night he certainly did not make the house thus
with no intention of returning to his former domicile and then
visited his domicile; therefore, unless the, Pennsylvania house

was his domicile, he was in the anomalous position of being 11. Rodolfo and Perico Jao were the only sons of the
without a domicile anywhere, which, as we have seen, is a legal spouses Ignacio Jao Tayag and Andrea V. Jao, who
impossibility died intestate in 1988 and 1989, respectively. The
decedents left real estate, cash, shares of stock and
- Therefore the house remained his domicile up to and at the other personal properties.
12. April 17, 1991: Perico instituted a petition for issuance
time of his death; and, that house being in the State of
of letters of administration before the RTC of Quezon
Pennsylvania, the laws of that State must control the
City over the estate of his parents.
distribution of his personal estate notwithstanding the fact, 13. Pending the appointment of a regular administrator,
that he died in State of West Virginia. Perico moved that he be appointed as special
administrator. He alleged that his brother, Rodolfo,
was gradually dissipating the assets of the estate.
14. Rodolfo filed a MOTION TO DISMISS on the ground
DISPOSITIVE: Reversed. Remanded. of IMPROPER VENUE
a. He argued that the deceased spouses DID NOT
reside in Quezon City either during their lifetime
5. Vis-à-vis Residency or at the time of their deaths.
b. The decedents’ actual residence was in Angeles
Uytengsu vs. Republic, supra – GERTRUDE City, Pampanga, where his late mother used to
run and operate a bakery.
Ujano v. Republic, supra – RON H c. As the health of his parents deteriorated due to
old age, they stayed in Rodolfo’s residence at 61
JAO v CA – Ynares-Santiago, J Scout Gandia Street, Quezon City, solely for the
purpose of obtaining medical treatment and
Petitioner: Rodolfo Jao hospitalization.
d. Rodolfo submitted documentary evidence
Respondent: Perico Jao previously executed by the decedents, consisting
of income tax returns, voter’s affidavits,
Concept: DOMICILE-> Vis-à-vis RESIDENCY
statements of assets and liabilities, real estate tax
payments, motor vehicle registration and
Digest by: Joyce Gamonnac
passports, all indicating that their permanent
residence was in Angeles City, Pampanga.
15. PERICO’S COUNTER-ARGUMENTS:
a. It was conclusively declared in their death
Doctrine:
certificates that their last residence before they
died was at 61 Scout Gandia Street, Quezon City.
The term “resides” connotes ex vi termini actual residence as
b. Rodolfo himself even supplied the entry
distinguished from legal residence or domicile. In other words,
appearing on the death certificate of their
“resides” should be viewed or understood in its popular sense, mother, Andrea, and affixed his own signature on
meaning, the personal, actual or physical habitation of a the said document.
person, actual residence or place of abode. It signifies physical 16. Rodolfo filed a REJOINDER
presence in a place and actual stay thereat. In this popular a. He said that he gave the information regarding
the decedents’ residence on the death
sense, the term means merely residence, that is, personal
certificates in good faith and through honest
residence, not legal residence or domicile. Residence
mistake.
simply requires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a b. He gave his residence only as reference,
given place, while domicile requires bodily presence considering that their parents were treated in
in that place and also an intention to make it ones their late years at the Medical City General
domicile. No particular length of time of residence is Hospital in Mandaluyong, Metro Manila.
required though; however, the residence must be c. Their stay in his house was merely transitory, in
the same way that they were taken at different
more than temporary.
times for the same purpose to Perico’s residence
at Legaspi Towers in Roxas Boulevard.
d. The death certificates could not, therefore, be
deemed conclusive evidence of the decedents’
residence in light of the other documents
FACTS: showing otherwise.

17. The court required the parties to submit their 2. Clearly, the estate of an inhabitant of the Philippines
respective nominees for the position but both failed shall be settled or letters of administration granted in
to comply. The trial court ordered that the petition be the proper court located in the province where the
archived. decedent resides AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH
18. Subsequently, Perico moved that the intestate 3. In the case of Eusebio v. Eusebio which was cited by
proceedings be REVIVED. After the parties submitted PETITIONER to advance his arguments:
the names of their respective nominees, the trial court a. SC held that the situs of settlement proceedings
designated Justice Carlos L. Sundiam as special shall be the place where the decedent had his
administrator of the estate of Ignacio Jao Tayag and permanent residence or domicile at the time of
Andrea Jao. death.
19. RTC LEVEL: the MOTION TO DISMISS filed by b. In determining residence at the time of
petitioner Rodolfo was DENIED. death, the following factors must be
a. The death certificates of the spouses issued considered, namely, the decedent had:
separately in 1988 and 1989, respectively, confirm (a) capacity to choose and freedom of
the fact that Quezon City was the last place of choice; (b) physical presence at the place
residence of the decedents. The entries chosen; and (c) intention to stay therein
appearing on the death certificate of Andrea V. permanently.
Jao were supplied by movant Rodolfo V. Jao, c. While it appears that the decedents in this case
whose signature appears in said document. chose to be physically present in Quezon City for
Movant, therefore, cannot disown his own medical convenience, petitioner avers that they
representation by taking an inconsistent position never adopted Quezon City as their permanent
other than his own admission. residence.
20. CA LEVEL: AFFIRMED RTC DECISION in toto 4. SC said that the facts in Eusebio were different from
PETITION IS DISMISSED those in the case at bar so it’s not applicable
a. The decedent therein, Andres Eusebio, passed
away while in the process of transferring his
ISSUE: Whether the settlement proceedings should be in personal belongings to a house in Quezon City.
Pampanga where the decedents had their permanent b. He was then suffering from a heart ailment and
residence, or in Quezon City, where they actually stayed before was advised by his doctor/son to purchase a
Quezon City residence, which was nearer to his
their demise – QUEZON CITY is the correct VENUE
doctor.
c. While he was able to acquire a house in Quezon
City, Eusebio died even before he could move
RATIO: therein.
d. In said case, SC ruled that Eusebio retained his
1. Rule 73, Section 1 of the Rules of Court states: domicile --- and hence, residence --- in San
Where estate of deceased persons be settled: If the Fernando, Pampanga.
e. It cannot be said that Eusebio changed his
decedent is an inhabitant of the Philippines
residence because, strictly speaking, his physical
at the time of his death, whether a citizen or an
presence in Quezon City was just temporary.
alien, his will shall be proved, or letters of IN THE CAB:
administration granted, and his estate
settled, in the Court of First Instance in the 1. The decedents’ respective death certificates state that
province in which he resides at the time of they were both residents of Quezon City at the time
of their demise. Significantly, it was petitioner himself
his death, and if he is an inhabitant of a foreign
who filled up his late mother’s death certificate.
country, the Court of First Instance of any province in
2. Since the death certificates were accomplished even
which he had estate. The court first taking cognizance before petitioner and respondent quarreled over their
of the settlement of the estate of a decedent shall inheritance, they may be relied upon to reflect the
exercise jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other true situation at the time of their parents’ death.
courts. The jurisdiction assumed by a court, so far as it 3. The documents presented by petitioner pertained not
depends on the place of residence of the decedent, to residence at the time of death, as required by the
Rules of Court, but to permanent residence or
or of the location of his estate, shall not be contested
domicile.
in a suit or proceeding, except in an appeal from that
4. In Garcia-Fule v. Court of Appeals:
court, in the original case, or when the want of
jurisdiction appears on the record.

a. The term “resides” connotes ex vi termini b. It may be that he has his domicile in a place
actual residence as distinguished from different from that where he keeps his records, or
legal residence or domicile. where he maintains extensive personal and
b. Like the terms residing and residence, the term business interests.
“resides” is elastic and should be interpreted in c. No generalizations can thus be formulated on the
the light of the object or purpose of the statute matter, as the question of where to keep records
or rule in which it is employed. or retain properties is entirely dependent upon
c. In the application of venue statutes and rules an individual’s choice and peculiarities.
Section 1, Rule 73 of the Revised Rules of Court is d. At any rate, petitioner is obviously splitting straws
of such nature residence rather than domicile is when he differentiates between venue in ordinary
the significant factor. Even where the statute uses civil actions and venue in special proceedings.
the word domicile still it is construed as meaning e. In Raymond v. CA and Bejer v. CA, SC ruled that
residence and not domicile in the technical venue for ordinary civil actions and that for
sense. special proceedings have one and the same
d. Some cases make a distinction between the meaning. As thus defined, residence, in the
terms residence and domicile but as generally context of venue provisions, means nothing more
used in statutes fixing venue, the terms are than a person’s actual residence or place of
synonymous, and convey the same meaning as abode, provided he resides therein with
the term inhabitant. continuity and consistency.
e. In other words, “resides” should be viewed or
understood in its popular sense, meaning, the
personal, actual or physical habitation of a DISPOSITIVE:
person, actual residence or place of abode. It
signifies physical presence in a place and actual WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, and the decision of the
stay thereat. Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
f. In this popular sense, the term means merely
residence, that is, personal residence, not legal Saludo vs. American Express International – RON H
residence or domicile.
g. Residence simply requires bodily presence as an
inhabitant in a given place, while domicile Limbona vs. COMELEC – MABEL
requires bodily presence in that place and also an
intention to make it ones domicile. No particular
length of time of residence is required though;
however, the residence must be more than
temporary.
5. Petitioner strains to differentiate between the venue
provisions found in Rule 4, Section 2, on ordinary civil
actions, and Rule 73, Section 1, which applies
specifically to settlement proceedings.
a. He argues that while venue in the former
understandably refers to actual physical
residence for the purpose of serving summons, it
is the permanent residence of the decedent
which is significant in Rule 73, Section 1.
b. Petitioner insists that venue for the settlement of
estates can only refer to permanent residence or
domicile because it is the place where the
records of the properties are kept and where
most of the decedents properties are located.
6. PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT DOES NOT PERSUADE
a. It does not necessarily follow that the records of a
person’s properties are kept in the place where
he permanently resides. Neither can it be
presumed that a person’s properties can be
found mostly in the place where he establishes
his domicile.

Those Who Retain or Re-Acquire Philippine Citizenship Under

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Those Who Retain or Re-Acquire Philippine Citizenship Under

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Those Who Retain or Re-Acquire Philippine Citizenship Under

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |1

Civil Code 1. Joselito Yu petitioned the Juvenile and Domestic Relations

Yu vs. Republic – Makalintal, J.

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |2

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |3

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |4

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |5

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |6

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |7

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |8

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |9

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |10

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |11

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |12

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |13

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |14

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |15

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |16

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |17

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |18

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |19

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |20

2. Having established a new industry or introduced a useful

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |21

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |22

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |23

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |24

person convicted is a naturalized citizen his certificate of

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |25

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |26

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |27

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |28

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |29

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |30

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |31

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |32

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |33

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |34

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |35

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |36

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |37

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |38

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |39

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |40

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |41

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |42

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |43

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |44

Doctrine: the petitioner failed to present direct proof that

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |45

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |46

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |47

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |48

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |49

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |50

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |51

B2017 TIMELESS REVIEWERS | PRIL 7 | Prof. Nicky Ty |52

"24.8. A special ballot Reception and Custody Group