MBrown - Angat v. Republic, 314 SCRA 438 (1999)

Angat v.
Republic, 314
SCRA 438 (1999)
Maribeth Brown-Oliver
JD1B
SLIDESMANIA.COM
Petitioner Gerardo Angat was a natural
1. Facts born citizen of the Philippines until he
lost his citizenship by naturalization in
the United States of America.
11 Mar 1996-Angat file before the RTC

of Marikina City, a petition to regain his
status as a citizen of the Philippines
under Commonwealth Act No. 63,
Republic Act No. 965 and Republic Act
No. 2630. The case was thereafter set
SLIDESMANIA.COM
for initial hearing.

The petitioner sought to be allowed to
1. Facts take his oath of allegiance to the
Republic of the Philippines pursuant to
R.A. 8171.The motion was initially
denied by the trial judge but after a
motion for reconsideration, it was
granted.
20 Sep 1996-RTC Ruling: The

petitioner was ordered to take his oath
of allegiance pursuant to R.A. 8171.
SLIDESMANIA.COM
1. Facts 03 Oct 1996- After taking his oath of
allegiance, the trial court issued an
order repatriating petitioner and
declaring him as citizen of the
Philippines pursuant to RA 8171. The
Bureau of Immigration was ordered to
cancel his alien certificate of registration
and issue the certificate of identification
as Filipino citizen.
SLIDESMANIA.COM
1. Facts March 1997- the Office of the Solicitor
General filed a Manifestation and Motion
-asserting that the petition itself should have
been dismissed by the court a quo for lack of
jurisdiction because the proper forum for it was
the Special Committee on Naturalization
consistently with AO No. 285, dated 22 August
1996, issued by President Fidel V. Ramos. AO
285 had tasked the Special Committee on
Naturalization to be the implementing agency of
R.A 8171.
SLIDESMANIA.COM
1. Facts
The trial court granted the motion and
dismissed the petition.
Petitioner appealed contending that the

RTC seriously erred in dismissing the
petition by giving retroactive effect to
Administrative Order No. 285, absent a
provision on Retroactive Application.
SLIDESMANIA.COM
2. Issue:
Whether or not The Regional Trial Court
(has) seriously erred in dismissing the
petition by giving retroactive effect to
Administrative Order No. 285, absent a
provision on Retroactive Application.
SLIDESMANIA.COM
3. Held
No. Under Sec 1 of PD 725, 05 June 1975, amending
Commonwealth Act No. 63,
an application for repatriation could be filed by Filipino women

who lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens, as
well as by natural born Filipinos who lost their Philippine
citizenship, with the Special Committee on Naturalization.
SLIDESMANIA.COM
3. Held
The committee, chaired by the Solicitor General with the
Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs and the Director of the
National Intelligence Coordinating Agency as the other
members, was created pursuant to Letter of Instruction
("LOI") issued with its amendments. Although the agency was
deactivated by virtue of President Corazon C. Aquino's
Memorandum of 27 March 1987, it was not however,
abrogated.
SLIDESMANIA.COM
3. Held
In Frivaldo vs. Commission on Elections, the Court observed that the
mentioned memorandum of President Aquino had merely directed the
Special Committee on Naturalization "to cease and desist from undertaking
any and all proceedings. The Court elaborated:
...It is obvious that no express repeal was made because then President
Aquino in her memorandum-based on the copy furnished us by Lee-did
not categorically and/or impliedly state that P.D. 725 was being
repealed or was being rendered without any legal effect. In fact, she
did not even mention it specifically by its number or text.
SLIDESMANIA.COM
3. Held: Indeed, the Committee was reactivated on 08 June
1995; hence, when petitioner filed his petition on 11
March 1996, the Special Committee on Naturalization
constituted was in place. Administrative Order 285,
promulgated on 22 August 1996 relative to R.A. No.
8171, in effect, was merely then a confirmatory
issuance.
The Court affirmed the SGO’s stand and the court's

order of 04 October 1996 was declared null and void,
and it did not acquire finality nor could be a source of
SLIDESMANIA.COM
right on the part of petitioner.

3. Held It should also be noteworthy that the was one for
repatriation, and it was thus incorrect for petitioner to
initially invoke Republic Act No. 965 and R.A. No. 2630
since these laws could only apply to persons who had lost
their citizenship by rendering service to a foreign military.
Categorically, under these statutes, the person desiring to

re-acquire Philippine citizenship would not even be required
to file a petition in court, and all that he had to do was to take
an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and to
register that fact with the civil registry in the place of his
SLIDESMANIA.COM
residence or where he had last resided in the Philippines.

4. Ruling:
The petition for review is DENIED, and the

Order, dated 22 September 1996, issued by
the court a quo, dismissing the petition of
petitioner in Civil Case No. N-96-03-MK for
want of jurisdiction, is AFFIRMED. No costs.
SLIDESMANIA.COM

MBrown - Angat v. Republic, 314 SCRA 438 (1999)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MBrown - Angat v. Republic, 314 SCRA 438 (1999)

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

MBrown - Angat v. Republic, 314 SCRA 438 (1999)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Angat v.

11 Mar 1996-Angat ﬁle before the RTC

for initial hearing.

20 Sep 1996-RTC Ruling: The

Petitioner appealed contending that the

an application for repatriation could be ﬁled by Filipino women

The Court afﬁrmed the SGO’s stand and the court's

right on the part of petitioner.

Categorically, under these statutes, the person desiring to

residence or where he had last resided in the Philippines.

The petition for review is DENIED, and the

You might also like