continue to be so, unless upon reaching the age of majority he
CITIZENSHIP CASES
Section 2:
1. Co vs. Electoral Tribunal
G.R. Nos. 92191-92, July 30, 1991
Facts:
On May 11, 1987, the congressional election of Northern Samar was
held.Among the candidate is herein respondent Jose Ong,
Jr. Respondent Ong was proclaimed the duly elected representative
of the second district of Northern Samar. Petitioners questioned the
citizenship of respondent Ong since Ongs father was only a
naturalized Filipino citizen and questioned Ongs residence
qualificationsince Ong does not own any property in Samar.
ISSUE/s:
1.) Whether the decision of HRET is appealable;
2.) Whether respondent is a citizen of the Philippines; and
3.) WhetherOng is a resident of Samar.
RULING:
1.) Yes. The Constitution explicitly provides that the House of
Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) and the Senate Electoral
Tribunal (SET) shall be the sole judges of all contests relating to the
election, returns, and qualifications of their respective members. In
the case at bar, the Court finds no improvident use of power, no
denial of due process on the part of the HRET which will necessitate
the exercise of the power of judicial review by the Supreme Court.
2.) Yes. On April 28, 1955, Jose OngChuan, respondents father,
an immigrant from China was declared a Filipino citizen by the CFI
of Samar. At the time Jose OngChuan took his oath, the private
respondent then is a minor of nine years, was finishing his
elementary education in the province of Samar. Hence, there is no
ground to deny the Filipino citizenship of respondent Ong.
Respondent Ong was also born of a natural-born Filipino mother,
thus the issue of citizenship is immaterial.
3.) Yes. The framers of the Constitution adhered to the earlier
definition given to the word residence which regarded it as having
the same meaning as domicile. The domicile of origin of the private
respondent, which was the domicile of his parents, is fixed at
Laoang, Samar. Contrary to the petitioners' imputation, Jose Ong,
Jr. never abandoned said domicile; it remained fixed therein even up
to the present. Hence, the residency of respondent Ong has
sufficiently proved.
WHEREFORE, the petitions are hereby DISMISSED.
2. Bar Matter No. 914, October 1, 1999
Re: Application for Admission to the Philippine Bar
vs. Vicente D. Ching, petitioner
Facts:
Vicente D. Ching, a legitimate child of a Filipino mother and an alien
Chinese father, was born on April 11, 1964 in Tubao La Union, under
the 1935 Constitution. He has resided in the Philippines
He completed his Bachelor of Laws at SLU in Baguio on July 1998,
filed an application to take the 1998 Bar Examination.
The Resolution in this Court, he was allowed to take the bar if he
submit to the Court the following documents as proof of his
Philippine Citizenship:
1. Certification issued by the PRC Board of Accountancy that Ching
is a certified accountant;
2. Voter Certification issued COMELEC in Tubao La Union showing
that Ching is a registered voter of his place; and
3. Certification showing that Ching was elected as member of the
Sangguniang Bayan of Tubao, La Union
On April 5, 1999, Ching was one of the bar passers. The oath taking
ceremony was scheduled on May 5, 1999.
Because of his questionable status of Ching's citizenship, he was not
allowed to take oath.
He was required to submit further proof of his citizenship.
The Office of the Solicitor General was required to file a comment
on Ching's petition for admission to the Philippine Bar.
In his report:
1. Ching, under the 1935 Constitution, was a Chinese citizen and
elected Philippine citizenship, under the compliance with the
provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 265 "an act providing for the
manner in which the option to elect Philippine citizenship shall be
declared by a person whose mother is a Filipino citizen"
2. He pointed out the Ching has not formally elected Philippine
citizenship, and if ever he does, it would already be beyond the
"reasonable time" allowed by the present jurisprudence.
Issue:
Whether or not he has elected Philippine citizenship within "a
reasonable time".
Rulings:
1. No. Ching, despite the special circumstances, failed to
elect Philippine citizenship within a reasonable time. The
reasonable time means that the election should be made
within 3 years from "upon reaching the age of majority",
which is 21 years old. Instead, he elected Philippine
citizenship 14 years after reaching the age of majority
which the court considered not within the reasonable time.
Ching offered no reason why he delayed his election of
Philippine citizenship, as procedure in electing Philippine
citizenship is not a tedious and painstaking process. All
that is required is an affidavit of election of Philippine
citizenship and file the same with the nearest civil registry.
3. Republic vs. Lim, G.R. No. 153883, January 13, 2004
In 1999, Chuley Lim filed a petition for correction of entries in her
birth certificate with the regional trial court of Lanao del Norte. Her
maiden name was Chuley Yu and thats how it appears in all her
official records except that in her birth certificate where it appears as
ChuleyYo. She said that it was misspelled. The Republic of the
Philippines through the local city prosecutor raised the issue of
citizenship because it appears that Lims birth certificate shows that
she is a Filipino. The prosecutor contends that Lims father was a
Chinese; that she acquired her fathers citizenship pursuant to the
1935 Constitution in place when she was born; that she never
elected Filipino citizenship when she reached the age of majority
(she is already 47 years old at that time); that since she is a
Chinese, her birth certificate should be amended to reflect that she is
a Chinese citizen. Lim contends that she is an illegitimate child
hence she is a Filipino.
ISSUE: Whether or not Lim is a Chinese citizen.
HELD: No. The provision which provides the election of Filipino
citizenship applies only to legitimate children. In the case at bar,
Lims mother was a Filipino. Lims mother never married the Chinese
father of Lim hence Lim did not acquire the Chinese citizenship of
her father. What she acquired is the Filipino citizenship of her
mother. Therefore, she is a natural born Filipino and she does not
need to perform any act to confer on her all the rights and privileges
attached to Philippine citizenship.
4. Tecson vs. COMELEC , GR 16134 , March 3, 2004
FACTS: Petitioners questioned the jurisdiction of the COMELEC in
taking cognizance of and deciding the citizenship issue affecting
Fernando Poe Jr. They asserted that under Section 4(7) , Article VII
of the 1987 Constituition, only the Supreme Court had original and
exclusive jurisdiction to resolve the basic issue of the case.
ISSUE: As the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) , does the
Supreme Court have jurisdiction over the qualifications of
presidential candidates?
RULING: No. An examination of the phraseology in Rule 12, 13, and
Rule 14 of the "Rules of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal,"
promulgated by the Supreme Court on April 1992 categorically
speak of the jurisdiction of the tribunal over contests relating to the
election, returns and qualifications of the "President" or "Vice-
President", of the Philippines, and not of "candidates" for President
or Vice-President. A quo warranto proceeding is generally defined as
being an action against a person who usurps, intrudes into, or
unlawfully holds or exercises a public office. In such context, the
1
election contest can only contemplate a post-election scenario. In
Rule 14, only a registered candidate who would have received either
the second or third highest number of votes could file an election
protest. This rule again presupposes a post-election scenario.
It is fair to conclude that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court,
defined by Section 4, paragraph 7, of the 1987 Constitution, would
not include cases directly brought before it, questioning the
qualifications of a candidate for the presidency or vice-presidency
before the elections are held.
5. Republic vs. Sagun
G.R. No. 187567, February 15, 2012
FACTS:
Respondent is the legitimate child of father, aChinese national, and
mother, a Filipino citizen. She was born on August 8, 1959 in Baguio
Cityand did not elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of
majority. At the age of 33, she executed an Oath of Allegianceto the
Republic of the Philippines. The document was notarized but was
not recorded and registered with the Local Civil Registrar of Baguio
City. In 2005, she applied for a Philippine passport but was denied
due to the citizenship of her father and there being no annotation on
her birth certificate that she has elected Philippine citizenship.
Consequently, she sought a judicial declaration of her election of
Philippine citizenship and prayed that the Local Civil Registrar of
Baguio City be ordered to annotate the same on her birth certificate.
ISSUE/s:
1.) Whether respondents petition for declaration of election of
Philippine citizenship is authorized by the Rules of Court and
jurisprudence; and
2.) Whether the respondent has effectively elected Philippine
citizenship in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.
RULING:
1.) Yes. But it should be stressed that there is no specific statutory
or procedural rule which authorizes the direct filing of a petition for
declaration of election of Philippine citizenship before the courts.
Respondent cannot now be allowed to seek the intervention of the
court to confer upon her Philippine citizenship when clearly she has
failed to validly elect Philippine citizenship.
2.) No. Based on the foregoing circumstances, respondent clearly
failed to comply with the procedural requirements for a valid and
effective election of Philippine citizenship. Respondent cannot assert
that the exercise of suffrage and the participation in election
exercises constitutes a positive act of election of Philippine
citizenship since the law specifically lays down the requirements for
acquisition of citizenship by election.All that is required of the elector
is to execute an affidavit of election of Philippinecitizenship and,
thereafter, file the same with the nearest civil registry. Having failed
to comply with the foregoing requirements, respondents petition
before the trial court must be denied.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the
Regional Trial Court is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petition for
judicial declaration of election of Philippine citizenship filed by
respondent Nora Fe Sagun is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
6. Cabiling vs. Hernandez
G.R. No. 183133, July 26, 2010
FACTS:
The petitioners herein were born of a naturalized Filipino father and
a natural-born Filipino mother. They were all raised, have resided
and lived their whole lives in this country. During their age of
minority, they secured from the Bureau of Immigration their Alien
Certificates of Registration (ACRs).Immediately upon reaching the
age of twenty-one, they claimed Philippine citizenship. Having taken
their oath of allegiance as Philippine citizens, petitioners, however,
failed to have the necessary documents registered in the civil
registry as required under Section 1 of Commonwealth Act No. 625.
ISSUE:
Whether late registration of the acquired Filipino citizenship in the
Civil Registry encumbers persons to become naturalized citizens of
the Philippines.
RULING:
No. Petitioners complied with the first and second requirements
upon reaching the age of majority. It was only the registration of the
documents of election with the civil registry that was belatedly done.
The SC ruled that under the facts peculiar to the petitioners, the right
to elect Philippine citizenship has not been lost and they should be
allowed to complete the statutory requirements for such election.The
actual exercise of Philippine citizenship, for over half a century by
the herein petitioners, is actual notice to the Philippine public which
is equivalent to formal registration of the election of Philippine
citizenship.
WHEREFORE, the Decision Court of Appeals is hereby SET ASIDE.
Section 3:
1. YU vs. DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO
GR No. L-83882, January 24, 1989
FACTS: Petitioner Yu was originally issued a Portuguese passport in
1971. On February 10, 1978, he was naturalized as a Philippine
citizen. Despite his naturalization, he applied for and was issued
Portuguese Passport by the Consular Section of the Portuguese
Embassy in Tokyo on July 21, 1981. Said Consular Office certifies
that his Portuguese passport expired on 20 July 1986. He also
declared his nationality as Portuguese in commercial documents he
signed, specifically, the Companies registry of Tai Shun Estate Ltd.
filed in Hongkong sometime in April 1980.
The CID detained Yu pending his deportation case. Yu, in turn, filed
a petition for habeas corpus. An internal resolution of 7 November
1988 referred the case to the Court en banc. The Court en banc
denied the petition. When his Motion for Reconsideration was
denied, petitioner filed a Motion for Clarification.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners acts constitute renunciation of his
Philippine citizenship
HELD: Express renunciation was held to mean a renunciation that is
made known distinctly and explicitly and not left to inference or
implication. Petitioner, with full knowledge, and legal capacity, after
having renounced Portuguese citizenship upon naturalization as a
Philippine citizen resumed or reacquired his prior status as a
Portuguese citizen, applied for a renewal of his Portuguese passport
and represented himself as such in official documents even after he
had become a naturalized Philippine citizen. Such resumption or
reacquisition of Portuguese citizenship is grossly inconsistent with
his maintenance of Philippine citizenship.
While normally the question of whether or not a person has
renounced his Philippine citizenship should be heard before a trial
court of law in adversary proceedings, this has become unnecessary
as this Court, no less, upon the insistence of petitioner, had to look
into the facts and satisfy itself on whether or not petitioner's claim to
continued Philippine citizenship is meritorious.
Philippine citizenship, it must be stressed, is not a commodity or
were to be displayed when required and suppressed when
convenient.
2. Frivaldo vs COMELEC [174 SCRA 245] (Municipal
Corporation, Disqualification for Public Office)
Facts: Petitioner was proclaimed governor-elect of the province of
Sorsogon on January 22, 1988. On October 27, 1988, respondents
filed with the COMELEC a petition for the annulment of petitioners
election and proclamation on the ground that he was a naturalized
American citizen and had not reacquired Philippine citizenship on
the day of the election on January 18, 1988. He was therefore not
qualified to run for and be elected governor.
Petitioner insisted that he was a citizen of the Philippines because
his naturalization as an American citizen was not impressed with
voluntariness. His oath in his COC that he was a natural-born
citizen should be a sufficient act of repatriation. Additionally, his
active participation in the 1987 congressional elections had divested
him of American citizenship under the laws of the US, thus restoring
his Philippine citizenship.
2
The Solicitor General contends that petitioner was not a citizen of
the Philippines and had not repatriated himself after his
naturalization as an American citizen. As an alien, he was
disqualified for public office in the Philippines. His election did not
cure of this defect because the electorate could not amend the
Constitution, the Local Government Code and the Omnibus Election
Code.
Issue: Whether or not petitioner was qualified to run for public office.
Held: No. First, petitioners loss of his naturalized American
citizenship did not and could not have the effect of automatic
restoration of his Philippine citizenship.
Second, the mere filing of COC wherein petitioner claimed that he is
a natural born Filipino citizen, is not a sufficient act of repatriation.
Third, qualifications for public office are continuing requirements and
must be possessed not only at the time of appointment or election
or assumption of office but during the officers entire tenure. Once
any of the required qualifications is lost, his title may be seasonably
challenged.
3. LABO VS. COMELEC
GR No. 86564, August 1, 1989 (Constitutional Law Loss of
Citizenship)
FACTS: Herein petitioner, claiming for recognition as a Philippine
citizen is a mayor-elect who, through his marriage with an Australian
national, was naturalized and took an oath of allegiance as an
Australian citizen. Said marriage was found to be bigamous and
therefore was annulled. Petitioner claims that his naturalization
made him only a dual national and did not divest him of his
Philippine citizenship.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner was divested of his Philippine
citizenship.
HELD: Yes, because Commonwealth Act No. 63 clearly stated that
Philippine citizenship may be lost through naturalization in a foreign
country; express renunciation of citizenship; and by oath of
allegiance to a foreign country, all of which are applicable to the
petitioner.
4. REPUBLIC VS DELA ROSAG.R. No. 104654, 6 June 1994
[Citizenship; Naturalization; Naturalization Proceedings; C.A.
No. 473]
FACTS: September 20, 1991 - Frivaldo filed a petition for
naturalization under the Commonwealth Act No. 63 before the RTC
Manila.
October 7, 1991 - Judge dela Rosa set the petition for hearing on
March 16, 1992, and directed the publication of the said order and
petition in the Official Gazette and a newspaper of general
circulation, for 3 consecutive weeks, the last publication of which
should be at least 6 months before the date of the said hearing.
January 14, 1992 - Frivaldo asked the Judge to cancel the March 16
hearing and move it to January 24, 1992, citing his intention to run
for public office in the May 1992 elections. Judge granted the motion
and the hearing was moved to February 21. No publication or copy
was issued about the order.
February 21, 1992 - the hearing proceeded.
February 27, 1992 - Judge rendered the assailed Decision and held
that Frivaldo is readmitted as a citizen of the Republic of the
Philippines by naturalization.
Republic of the Philippines filed a petition for Certiorari under Rule
45 of the Revised Rules of Court in relation to R.A. No. 5440 and
Section 25 of the Interim Rules, to annul the decision made on
February 27, 1992 and to nullify the oath of allegiance taken by
Frivaldo on same date.
ISSUE: Whether or not Frivaldo was duly re-admitted to his
citizenship as a Filipino.
RULING: No. The supreme court ruled that Private respondent is
declared NOT a citizen of the Philippines and therefore disqualified
from continuing to serve as governor of the Province of Sorsogon.
He is ordered to vacate his office and to surrender the same to the
Vice-Governor of the Province of Sorsogon once this decision
becomes final and executory. The proceedings of the trial court was
marred by the following irregularities:
(1) the hearing of the petition was set ahead of the scheduled date of
hearing, without a publication of the order advancing the date of
hearing, and the petition itself;
(2) the petition was heard within six months from the last publication
of the petition;
(3) petitioner was allowed to take his oath of allegiance before the
finality of the judgment; and
(4) petitioner took his oath of allegiance without observing the two-
year waiting period.
5. MOY YA LIM YAO VS COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION
GR # L-21289, October 4, 1971 [Naturalization - Qualification
and Disqualification; CA 473]
FACTS: Lau Yuen Yeung, an alien visiting the Philippines, whose
authorized stay in the Philippines was to expire, claims herself to be
lawfully naturalized upon her marriage to a Filipino citizen. Solicitor
General opposes the ground that the marriage of the alien to a
Filipino citizen does not automatically confer on the latter Philippine
citizenship. Plaintiff-appellant does not possess all the qualifications
required for applicant for naturalization (CA 473), even she has
proven that she possesses none of the disqualifications in said law.
ISSUE: Whether or not Lau Yuen Yeung became ipso facto a Filipino
citizen upon her marriage to a Filipino citizen.
RULING: Yes. An alien woman, upon her marriage to a Filipino
citizen, becomes lawfully naturalized ipso facto, provided that she
does not possess all of the disqualifications enumerated in CA 473.
(Sections 15 and 4).
Under Section 15 of Commonwealth Act 473, an alien woman
marrying a Filipino, native born or naturalized, becomes ipso facto a
Filipina provided she is not disqualified to be a citizen of the
Philippines under Section 4 of the same law. Likewise, an alien
woman married to an alien who is subsequently naturalized here
follows the Philippine citizenship of her husband the moment he
takes his oath as Filipino citizen, provided that she does not suffer
from any of the disqualifications under said Section 4. Whether the
alien woman requires to undergo the naturalization proceedings,
Section 15 is a parallel provision to Section 16. Thus, if the widow of
an applicant for naturalization as Filipino, who dies during the
proceedings, is not required to go through a naturalization
proceedings, in order to be considered as a Filipino citizen hereof, it
should follow that the wife of a living Filipino cannot be denied the
same privilege.
This is plain common sense and there is absolutely no evidence that
the Legislature intended to treat them differently. As the laws of our
country, both substantive and procedural, stand today, there is no
such procedure (a substitute for naturalization proceeding to enable
the alien wife of a Philippine citizen to have the matter of her own
citizenship settled and established so that she may not have to be
called upon to prove it everytime she has to perform an act or enter
into a transaction or business or exercise a right reserved only to
Filipinos), but such is no proof that the citizenship is not vested as of
the date of marriage or the husband's acquisition of citizenship, as
the case may be, for the truth is that the situation obtains even as to
native-born Filipinos. Everytime the citizenship of a person is
material or indispensible in a judicial or administrative case.
Whatever the corresponding court or administrative authority
decides therein as to such citizenship is generally not considered as
res adjudicata, hence it has to be threshed out again and again as
the occasion may demand. Lau Yuen Yeung, was declared to have
become a Filipino citizen from and by virtue of her marriage to Moy
Ya Lim Yao al as Edilberto Aguinaldo Lim, a Filipino citizen of 25
January.
6. BENGSON vs. HRET and CRUZ G.R. No. 142840 May 7, 2001
FACTS: The citizenship of respondent Cruz is at issue in this case,
in view of the constitutional requirement that no person shall be a
Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born
citizen.
Cruz was a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. He was born in
Tarlac in 1960 of Filipino parents. In 1985, however, Cruz enlisted in
the US Marine Corps and without the consent of the Republic of the
Philippines, took an oath of allegiance to the USA. As a
Consequence, he lost his Filipino citizenship for under CA No. 63
[(An Act Providing for the Ways in Which Philippine Citizenship May
3
Be Lost or Reacquired (1936)] section 1(4), a Filipino citizen may
lose his citizenship by, among other, rendering service to or
accepting commission in the armed forces of a foreign country.
Whatever doubt that remained regarding his loss of Philippine
citizenship was erased by his naturalization as a U.S. citizen in
1990, in connection with his service in the U.S. Marine Corps.
In 1994, Cruz reacquired his Philippine citizenship through
repatriation under RA 2630 [(An Act Providing for Reacquisition of
Philippine Citizenship by Persons Who Lost Such Citizenship by
Rendering Service To, or Accepting Commission In, the Armed
Forces of the United States (1960)]. He ran for and was elected as
the Representative of the 2nd District of Pangasinan in the 1998
elections. He won over petitioner Bengson who was then running for
reelection.
Subsequently, petitioner filed a case for Quo Warranto Ad Cautelam
with respondent HRET claiming that Cruz was not qualified to
become a member of the HOR since he is not a natural-born citizen
as required under Article VI, section 6 of the Constitution.
HRET rendered its decision dismissing the petition for quo warranto
and declaring Cruz the duly elected Representative in the said
election.
ISSUE: WON Cruz, a natural-born Filipino who became an American
citizen, can still be considered a natural-born Filipino upon his
reacquisition of Philippine citizenship.
HELD: petition dismissed. YES, Filipino citizens who have lost their
citizenship may however reacquire the same in the manner provided
by law. C.A. No. 63 enumerates the 3 modes by which Philippine
citizenship may be reacquired by a former citizen:
1. by naturalization,
2. by repatriation, and
3. by direct act of Congress.
**
Repatriation may be had under various statutes by those who lost
their citizenship due to:
1. desertion of the armed forces;
2. services in the armed forces of the allied forces in World War II;
3. service in the Armed Forces of the United States at any other
time,
4. marriage of a Filipino woman to an alien; and
5. political economic necessity
Repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality This
means that a naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will be
restored to his prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen. On the
other hand, if he was originally a natural-born citizen before he lost
his Philippine citizenship, he will be restored to his former status as a
natural-born Filipino.
R.A. No. 2630 provides:
Sec 1. Any person who had lost his Philippine citizenship by
rendering service to, or accepting commission in, the Armed Forces
of the United States, or after separation from the Armed Forces of
the United States, acquired United States citizenship, may reacquire
Philippine citizenship by taking an oath of allegiance to the Republic
of the Philippines and registering the same with Local Civil Registry
in the place where he resides or last resided in the Philippines. The
said oath of allegiance shall contain a renunciation of any other
citizenship.
Having thus taken the required oath of allegiance to the Republic
and having registered the same in the Civil Registry of Magantarem,
Pangasinan in accordance with the aforecited provision, Cruz is
deemed to have recovered his original status as a natural-born
citizen, a status which he acquired at birth as the son of a Filipino
father. It bears stressing that the act of repatriation allows him to
recover, or return to, his original status before he lost his Philippine
citizenship.
7. ALTAREJOS VS COMELEC G.R. No. 163256, 10 Nov 2004
[Naturalization; Reacquisition]
FACTS: Private respondents filed with the COMELEC to disqualify
and deny due course or cancel the certificate of candidacy of
Ciceron P. Altarejos, on the ground that he is not a Filipino citizen
and that he made a false representation in his COC that he was not
a permanent resident of the Municipality of San Jacinto, Masbate,
the town he's running for as mayor in the May 10, 2004 elections.
Altarejos answered that he was already issued a Certificate of
Repatriation by the Special Committee on Naturalization in
December 17, 1997.
ISSUE: Whether or not the registration of petitioners repatriation
with the proper civil registry and with the Bureau of Immigration a
prerequisite in effecting repatriation.
RULING: Yes. The registration of certificate of repatriation with the
proper local civil registry and with the Bureau of Immigration is a
prerequisite in effecting repatriation. Petitioner completed all the
requirements of repatriation only after he filed his certificate of
candidacy for a mayoralty position but before the elections.
Petitioners repatriation retroacted to the date he filed his application
and was, therefore, qualified to run for a mayoralty position in the
government in the May 10, 2004 elections.
Section 5:
1. JOSE AZNAR vs COMELEC and Emilio Mario Renner Osmea
G.R. No. 83820 25 May 1990
FACTS: On 19 November 1987, private respondent filed his
certification of candidacy with the COMELEC for the position of
Governor of Cebu. Petitioner filed with the COMELEC a petition for
disqualification of Osmea on the ground that he is allegedly not a
Filipino citizen.
In 27 January 1988, Petitioner filed a Formal Manifestation
submitting a certificate issued by the then Immigration and
Deportation Commission that Osmea is an American Citizen.
According to the evidence presented, Osmea maintained that he is
a Filipino Citizen, that he is a legitimate son of Emilio Osmea, a
Filipino and son of the Late President Sergio Osmea Sr., that he is
a holder of a valid and subsisting Philippine passport and been
continuously residing in the Philippines since birth and that he has
been a registered voter in the Philippines.
COMELEC dismissed the petition for Disqualification for not
having been timingly filed and for lack of sufficient proof that private
respondent is not s Filipino citizen and Osmea was proclaim of
winning candidates for obtaining the highest number of votes.
ISSUE: Whether or not Osmea remains a Filipino and loss of his
Philippine Citizenship cannot be presumed.
HELD: Yes, Petitioner failed to present direct proof that Osmea had
lost his Filipino Citizenship by any of the modes provided for under
C.A. No. 63 these are :
1. By naturalization in foreign country;
2. By express renunciation of Citizenship; and
3. By subscribing to an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution
or Law of the foreign country.
The evidence clearly shows that Osmea did not lose his
Philippine citizenship by any of the three (3) mentioned
hereinaboved or any other modes of losing Philippine citizenship.
The 1987 Constitution, Article IV, Section 5 states Dual
allegiance of citizens is iniminical to the national interest and shall be
dealt with by law has no retroactive effect.
The petition for certiorari DISMISSED and the Resolution of the
COMELEC is hereby AFFIRMED.
2. Mercado v. Manzano G.R. No. 135083 May 26, 1999
FACTS: Petitioner Ernesto Mercado and Eduardo Manzano were
both candidates for Vice-Mayor of Makati in the May 11, 1998
elections.
Based on the results of the election, Manzano garnered the highest
number of votes. However, his proclamation was suspended due to
the pending petition for disqualification filed by Ernesto Mercado on
the ground that he was not a citizen of the Philippines but of the
United States.
From the facts presented, it appears that Manzano is both a Filipino
and a US citizen.
The Commission on Elections declared Manzano disqualified as
candidate for said elective position.
However, in a subsequent resolution of the COMELEC en banc, the
disqualification of the respondent was reversed. Respondent was
held to have renounced his US citizenship when he attained the age
of majority and registered himself as a voter in the elections of 1992,
1995 and 1998.
Manzano was eventually proclaimed as the Vice-Mayor of Makati
City on August 31, 1998. Thus the present petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not a dual citizen is disqualified to hold public
elective office in the philippines.
Ruling: The Court first defined dual citizenship and compared it to
dual allegiance. Dual citizenship arises when a person whose
parents are citizens of a state that follows jus saguinis and was born
4
in a state that follows jus soli, hence, resulting to a concurrent
application of different two laws or more.
On the other hand, dual allegiance is a situation whre a person
simultaneously owes loyalty to two or more states.
In this case, Respondent, though dual citizen, his act of filing a
certificate of candidacy tantamount to his election of Phil. citizenship
meaning he forswears allegiance to the other country and thereby
terminating their status as dual.
The Court stressed that participating in the election is an express
renunciation of American citizenship.
overwhelming evidence of her actual stay and intent to abandon
permanently her domicile in the US. Coupled with her eventual
application to reacquire Philippine citizenship and her familys actual
continuous stay in the Philippines over the years, it is clear that
when Grace Poe returned on May 24, 2005, it was for good.
*NOTES (http://batangmataba.blogspot.com/2016/03/poe-
llamanzares-v-comelec-arguments.html)
CITIZENSHIP
RESPONSE

5. Grace Poe V. COMELEC Material misrepresentation

PRESUMED TO
when POE said she is a natural-born
BE NATURAL-BORN
Facts: In her COC for presidency for the May 2016 elections, Grace Filipino citizen
Poe declared that she is a natural-born citizen and that her a.
residence in the Philippines up to the day before 9 May 2016 would b. POE is a Burden of proof not with
be 10 years and 11 months counted from 24 May 2005. foundling SO since her parentage her
May 24, 2005 was the day she came to the Philippines after deciding cannot be determined, her status
to stay in the PH for good. Before that however, and even as natural-born citizen is likewise
Customary
afterwards, she has been going to and fro between US and undeterminable
International Law dictates
Philippines. She was born in 1968, found as newborn infant in Iloilo, a.
that
and was legally adopted. She immigrated to the US in 1991 and b. We
was naturalized as American citizen in 2001. On July 18, 2006, the follow jus sanguinis principle
BI granted her petition declaring that she had reacquired her Filipino - nationality followed by the foundling
citizenship under RA 9225. She registered as a voter and obtained nationality of parents s are entitled to
a new Philippine passport. In 2010, before assuming her post as an c. nationality
appointed chairperson of the MTRCB, she renounced her American d. Since
citizenship to satisfy the RA 9225 requirement . From then on, she POE does not have any
known biological parents, Foundlin
stopped using her American passport.
her status as a natural-born gs are citizens of the
Petitions were filed before the COMELEC to deny or cancel her
citizen cannot be country where they are
candidacy on the ground particularly, among others, that she cannot
determined found
be considered a natural-born Filipino citizen since she cannot prove
that her biological parents or either of them were Filipinos. The c.
COMELEC en banc cancelled her candidacy on the ground that she d. 1935 Constitution Petitione
is in want of citizenship and residence requirements, and that she does not include foundlings as r is consdered natural-
committed material misrepresentations in her COC. natural-born citizens born citizen under
On certiorari, the SC reversed the ruling and held (9-6 votes) that - statcon rule that what is not Customary IL
Poe is qualified as a candidate for Presidency. Three justices, included is excluded: if framers
however, abstained to vote on the natural-born citizenship issue. wanted to include foundlings,
Issue: W/N Grace Poe-Llamanzares is a natural-born Filipino they could have done so Since she is a
citizen. e. natural-born citizen, she has
Held: Yes, Grace Poe might be and is considerably a natural-born f. International lawright under RA 9225 to
Filipino. For that, she satisfies one of the constitutional requirements does not confer upon POEreacquire her status as
that only natural-born Filipinos may run for presidency. natural-born status and Filipinonatural-born citizen
First, there is a high probability that Grace Poes parents are citizenship of foundling; if there
Filipinos. Her physical features are typical of Filipinos. The fact that are any, International Official acts of state
she was abandoned as an infant in a municipality where the Conventions/treaties notconfirming her "natural-born
population of the Philippines is overwhelmingly Filipinos such that automatically binding: citizenship of the Philippines"
there would be more than 99% chance that a child born in such a. enjoy presumption of
province is a Filipino is also a circumstantial evidence of her parents b. Not selfregularity:
nationality. That probability and the evidence on which it is based executory; local legislations
are admissible under Rule 128, Section 4 of the Revised Rules on necessary to give it effect in
Evidence. To assume otherwise is to accept the absurd, if not the the Philippines 18 July
virtually impossible, as the norm. c. 2006 Order of BI
Second, by votes of 7-5, the SC pronounced that foundlings are as a d. No declaring her as a
class, natural-born citizens. This is based on the finding that the standard state practice that natural-born citizen
deliberations of the 1934 Constitutional Convention show that the automatically confers
framers intended foundlings to be covered by the enumeration. natural-born status to Appoint
While the 1935 Constitutions enumeration is silent as to foundlings, foundlings ment as MRTCB Chair
there is no restrictive language which would definitely exclude g.
foundlings either. Because of silence and ambiguity in the h. So POE is not
enumeration with respect to foundlings, the SC felt the need to qualified to apply for reacquisition Issuance
examine the intent of the framers. of Filipino Citizenship since there of decree of adoption by
Third, that foundlings are automatically conferred with natural-born is nothing to reacquire - not a RTC San Juan
citizenship is supported by treaties and the general principles of natural born, not a filipino citizen,
international law. Although the Philippines is not a signatory to some and it doesn't apply to foundlings
of these treaties, it adheres to the customary rule to presume a.
foundlings as having born of the country in which the foundling is b. Assumi
found. ng that POE is natural-born,
Issue 3: W/N Grace Poe satisfies the 10-year residency she lost it when she was
requirement naturalized as an American
Held: Yes. Grace Poe satisfied the requirements of animus manendi Citizen (natural-born
coupled with animus revertendi in acquiring a new domicile. citizenship MUST BE
Grace Poes domicile had been timely changed as of May 24, 2005, CONTINUOUS FROM
and not on July 18, 2006 when her application under RA 9225 was BIRTH) - she should not
approved by the BI. COMELECs reliance on cases which decree perform any act to acquire
that an aliens stay in the country cannot be counted unless she citizenship for it to be
acquires a permanent resident visa or reacquires her Filipino natural; otherwise, she is
citizenship is without merit. Such cases are different from the a naturalized citizen
circumstances in this case, in which Grace Poe presented an i.

5
j. Granting she is RA 9225 (Elamparo, Valdez, Corinthian Hills
qualified to reacquire Contreras) vs. 2010 or 2011
citizenship, she only (tatad) when she renounced US
She can
reacquired Filipino citizenship - Citizenship in 2010-2011
reestablish her domicile of
not natural-born status e.
choice even before she
(Valdez) f. POE failed to
reacquired her Philippine
establish domicile in the
Citizenship (before she was
Philippines
Material misrepresentation repatriated under RA 9225)
As early as 1Q of 4.
when POE said that she is a resident and renounced US
2005, she already began -she cannot establish domicile prior to
of Philippines for at least 10 years and Citizenship
reestablishing her domicile in reacquisition of Philippine citizenship -
11 months from May 2005
the Philippines as her so did not establish 10 year residence
a.
domicile of choice: requirement Renunci
b. Senatorial a
COC of POE indicated that she
ation of foreign
b lack of intent to abandon citizenship is not a
was a resident of the Philippines Transfer domicile: (TATAD) requirement for the
for 6 years, 6 months as of May of schools of her
2013 Elections; So assuming children acquisition of new
Frequen domicile of choice
POE is natural-born, she still fell
short of residency requirement t trips to the US
Purchas
(Elamparo, Valdez)
e of San Juan Condo Senatorial COC is
c. a mistake she made in Good
Stays at
d. Residency should faith
US
be counted from July 2006 when Construc
she reacquired citizenship under tion of house at