Page 1 of 98

Claro M. Recto vs. Esperanza P. Harden

G.R. No. L-6897, Nove!er "9, 19#6
Concepc$on, %.&
'(C)*& Esperanza Harden contracted the legal services of Atty. Claro M. Recto as embodied in the
Contract of Professional Services entered into between them. t is in connection with the action which she
intended to !le against her h"sband #red M. Harden for the p"rpose of sec"ring an increase in the amo"nt
of s"pport being received by her from the con$"gal partnership of her and said #red M. Harden% and for the
p"rpose li&ewise of protecting and preserving her rights in the properties of the said con$"gal partnership%
in contemplation of the divorce s"it which she intent to !le against him in the competent Co"rt of
California and of the li'"idation of the con$"gal partnership between them.
(o compensate Atty. Recto for the services% Esperanza bo"nd herself in lie" of retainer)s fee% to pay
the former d"ring the pendency of the litigation and "ntil the termination of the same% twenty*!ve +,-./
per cent of the total increase in allowance or pension which may be awarded to her by the co"rt over and
above the amo"nt of P0%-11.11 which she now receive monthly from #red M. Harden o"t of the f"nds of
the con$"gal partnership and that if the case is terminated or an amicable settlement thereof be arrived at
by the parties before the e2piration of two years from the date of the !ling of the complaint% she shall
contin"e to pay the said twenty*!ve +,-./ per cent "p to the end of the period. Moreover% as f"ll and
complete satisfaction of the fees of Attorney Claro M. Recto in connection with the case and said case
being for the p"rposes aforestated% Esperanza also bo"nd herself to pay Atty. Recto twenty +,1./ per cent
of the val"e of the share and participation which may receive in the f"nds and properties of the said
con$"gal partnership of her and #red M. Harden% as a res"lt of the li'"idation thereof either by death%
divorce% $"dicial separation% compromise or by any means or method by virt"e of which said partnership is
or may be li'"idated.
P"rs"ant to the agreement% Atty. Recto commenced a civil action against #red Harden in the C# of
Manila. As prayed for in the complaint% the co"rt iss"ed the writ of preliminary in$"nction against #red
restraining him from disposing the assets of the con$"gal partnership in fra"d of Esperanza. S"bse'"ently%
3apanese forces invaded the Philippines and placed the latter "nder military occ"pation. 4"ring the
liberation% the records of the case were destroyed b"t the same were reconstit"ted at the instance of Atty.
Recto. (hereafter% the C# rendered a decision in favor of Esperanza to which #red appealed.
4"ring the pendency of the appeal% Atty. Recto !led a manifestation and a motion where he stated
that Mrs. Harden had instr"cted him% by letter% to 5discontin"e all proceedings relative to6 said case%
5vacate all orders and $"dgments rendered therein% and abandon and n"llify all her claims to the con$"gal
partnership e2isting between her and Mr. Harden6% in accordance with several instr"ments e2ec"ted
witho"t the &nowledge% advise and consent of him% as co"nsel for Mrs. Harden% whereby7 +0/ Mr. and Mrs.
Harden had p"rportedly agreed to settle their di8erences in consideration of the s"m of 9-%111 paid by Mr.
Harden to Mrs. Harden% and a monthly pension of P-11 to be paid by him to her: +,/ Mr. Harden had
created a tr"st f"nd of 9,1%111 from which said monthly pension of 9-11 wo"ld be ta&en: and +;/ Mr. and
Mrs. Harden had m"t"ally released and forever discharged each other from all actions% debts% d"ties%
acco"nts% demands and claims to the con$"gal partnership% in consideration of the s"m of 90. t was f"rther
asserted% in the manifestation that the p"rpose of the said instr"ments% e2ec"ted by Mr. and Mrs. Harden%
was to defeat the claim of the former for attorney)s fees% for which reason% he prayed% in his
aforementioned motion the contin"ance of the receive to hold the properties in '"estion and for the
reception of the evidence by a commissioner<referee to determine the amo"nt of fees d"e to him. 4espite
ob$ection from Esperanza and #red% the co"rt granted the motion and the Commissioner !nally
recommended that Atty. Claro M. Recto be paid the e'"ivalent amo"nt of ,1. of Esperanza P. de Harden)s
share of the con$"gal properties or the s"m of P;=>%?01.1? as his contingent fee for services rendered in
her behalf which recommendation was approved by the co"rt.
#rom the said action of the co"rt% Esperanza and #red appealed to SC wherein they assail the
validity of the Contract of Professional Services. @ne of their contentions is that% the contract in '"estion
has for its p"rpose to sec"re a decree of divorce% allegedly in violation of Articles 0;1-% 0;-, and 0?1> of
the Civil Code of the Philippines.
+**,E& Ahether or not the Contract of Professional Services +CPS/ is void.
Page " of 98
HEL-& Bo. (he contention that the contract is in violation of Articles 0;1-% 0;-, and 0?1> of the Civil
Code of the Philippines is not tenable. t is not borne o"t% either by the lang"age of the contract between
them% or by the intent of the parties thereto. ts p"rpose was not to sec"re a divorce% or to facilitate or
promote the proc"rement of a divorce. t merely so"ght to protect the interest of Mrs. Harden in the
con$"gal partnership% d"ring the pendency of a divorce s"it she intended to !le in the Cnited States. Ahat
is more% inasm"ch as Mr. and Mrs. Harden are admittedly citizens of the Cnited States% their stat"s and the
dissol"tion thereof are governed D p"rs"ant to Article > of the Civil Code of Spain +which was in force in
the Philippines at the time of the e2ec"tion of the contract in '"estion/ and Article 0- of the Civil Code of
the Philippines D by the laws of the Cnited States% which sanction divorce. n short% the contract of
services% between Mrs. Harden and Atty. Recto is not contrary to law% morals% good c"stoms% p"blic order or
p"blic policy.
N.)E*& @n the iss"e that the CPS is void since it binds the con$"gal partnership witho"t h"sband)s
consent. (he contract in disp"te does not see& to bind the con$"gal partnership. Ey virt"e of said
contract% Mrs. Harden merely bo"nd herself D or ass"med the personal obligation D to pay% by way of
contingent fees% ,1. of her share in said partnership. (he contract neither gives% nor p"rports to give% to
Atty. Recto any right whatsoever% personal or real% in and to her aforesaid share. (he amo"nt thereof is
simply a basis for the comp"tation of said fees.
@n the iss"e that the CPS is void being violative of Article 0?>0 of the Civil Code prohibiting
contingent fees. Aside from the r"ling in the previo"s iss"e% it has already been held that contingent fees
are not prohibited in the Philippines and are impliedly sanctioned by o"r Cannons +Bo. 0;/ of Professional
Ethics.
@n the iss"e that CPS is harsh% ine'"itable% and oppressive. t is based "pon principles of e'"ity%
b"t% p"rs"ant thereto% one who see&s e'"ity m"st come with clean hands and Atty. Recto have not done
so% for the circ"mstances s"rro"nding the case show% to o"r satisfaction% that their aforementioned
agreements% ostensibly for the settlement of the di8erences between h"sband and wife% were made for the
p"rpose of circ"mventing or defeating the rights of Atty. Recto "nder his above*'"oted contract of services
with Mrs. Harden. ndeed% having sec"red a $"dgment in her favor% ac&nowledging her rights to the assets
of the con$"gal partnership% which t"rned o"t to be worth almost P?%111%111 in addition to litis e2pensae in
the s"m of P0F-%111% it is inconceivable that Mrs. Harden wo"ld have waived s"ch rights% as well as the
bene!ts of all orders and $"dgments in her favor% in consideration of the paltry s"m of 9-%111 allegedly
paid to her by Mr. Harden and the additional s"m of 9,1%111 to be paid by him in installments% at the rate
of 9-11 a month. n fact% no e2planation has been given for this most "n"s"al avowed settlement between
Mr. and Mrs. Harden. @ne cannot even consider the possibility of a reconciliation between the spo"ses% the
same being inconsistent with the monetary consideration for said alleged settlement. Ahat is more% the
records show that the relations between said spo"ses D which were bad indeed% not only in 3"ly% 0>?0%
when Mrs. Harden engaged the services of Atty. Recto% b"t% even% before% for Mr. and Mrs. Harden were
separated since 0>;G D had worsened considerably thereafter% as evidence by an action for divorce !led
by Mr. Harden in Bew 3ersey% in 3"ly 0>?G% "pon the gro"nd of repeated acts of in!delity allegedly
committed by Mrs. Harden in 0>?1 and 0>?0.
@n the contention that the legal services are already paid by immediate e2ec"tion pending appeal
of the decision. (his line of arg"ment overloo&s the fact that said contract of services was made%
principally% in contemplation of a s"it for divorce that% according to Mrs. Harden% she intended to !le before
a competent co"rt in California% 5and of the li'"idation of the con$"gal partnership between6 her and Mr.
Harden. Had she !led said action for divorce and sec"red a decree of divorce% said con$"gal partnership
wo"ld have been dissolved and then li'"idated% and the share of Mrs. Harden therein wo"ld have been
!2ed. However% this cannot ta&e place% either now% or in the foreseeable f"t"re% owing to the
aforementioned agreements between Mr. and Mrs. Harden% which were made for the evident p"rpose of
defeating Atty. Recto)s claim for attorney)s fees. n other words% the occ"rrence% within the time
contemplated by the parties D bearing in mind the nat"re of% and the circ"mstances "nder which they
entered into% said contract of services D of the event "pon which the amo"nt of said fees depended% was
rendered impossible by Mrs. Harden. Hence% whether s"ch event be regarded as a condition or as a period%
she may not insist "pon its occ"rrence% prior to the enforcement of the rights of Atty. Recto% for 5the
condition shall be deemed f"l!lled when the obligor vol"ntarily prevents its f"l!llment6 +Art. 00G=% Civil
Page / of 98
Code/ and 5the debtor shall lose every right to ma&e "se of the period6 when he 5violates any "nderta&ing%
in consideration of which the creditor agreed to the period.6 +Art. 00>G% Civil Code./
G.R. No. L-7087 -ece!er "9, 191/
C.N*)(N1( 2(3E1 -E 4(RN,E5., plainti8 and appellant% vs. G(4R+EL ',*)ER, defendant and
appellant.
%.HN*.N, J.:
'(C)*7 @n #ebr"ary 1F% 0GF-% Habriel #"ster and Constanza IaJez were $oined in a Catholic or canonical
marriage in the city of Malaga% Spain. n #ebr"ary of 0G>,% Habriel #"ster came to the Philippine slands%
settled% and ac'"ired real and personal property. (oward the middle of 0G>=% Constanza IaJez came to
Manila% where her h"sband was residing% and here lived with him in con$"gal relations. @n April 1?% 0G>>
they made an agreement% in a p"blic doc"ment% by which they Kresolved to separate and live apart% both
consenting to s"ch separation% and by virt"e thereof the h"sband a"thorized the wife to move to Spain%
there to reside in s"ch place as the said lady pleases.K n the same doc"ment% the h"sband "ndertoo& to
send his wife the s"m of ;11 pesetas monthly for her s"pport% payable in Madrid% Spain% from the month of
3"ne 0G>>. (he h"sband complied with this obligation "ntil A"g"st% 0G>>% after which time he ceased to
ma&e f"rther payments.
n the beginning of March% 0>1>% the wife ret"rned to the Philippines% b"t the h"sband had absented
himself therefrom in the early days of #ebr"ary of the same year. (he wife commenced divorce
proceedings against her h"sband% alleging as ca"se of action the ad"ltery committed by him in or abo"t
the year 0G>> with a certain woman that she named in the complaint and with whom he had lived and
cohabited and by whom he had had two children. She prayed that she be granted a decree of divorce: that
the co"rt order the separation of the properties of the plainti8 and the defendant% to date from the date of
the said decree: that the con$"gal society be therefore li'"idated% and after the amo"nt of the con$"gal
property had been determined% that one*half thereof be ad$"dicated to her: f"rthermore% as to the amo"nt
of pension owing for her s"pport b"t not paid to her% that the defendant be ordered to pay her the s"m of
;=%111 Spanish pesetas% that is% F%,,1 Spanish dollars% which% red"ced to Philippine c"rrency at the rate of
e2change on the date of the complaint% amo"nted to P0,%>->.>1.
(he defendant denied that either he or his wife was a resident of the city of Manila% as they had
their domicile in Earcelona% Spain% and he alleged that both of them were natives and s"b$ects of Spain. He
admitted that he was married to Constanza IaJez: he also admitted having e2ec"ted the doc"ment% in
which he had "nderta&en to ma&e an allowance for the s"pport of his wife in Madrid% b"t he denied the
other paragraphs of the complaint. As a special defense with regard to the allowance% he alleged7 K(hat in
or abo"t the month of May% 0>11% he wrote to his wife% the plainti8% instr"cting her to ret"rn to Manila% with
a view of $oining her h"sband and being maintained by him in his own ho"se: that the comm"nication was
ignored by the plainti8% who against the will of the defendant% contin"ed to live separately from him that
from the year 0>10% the defendant did not &now her address: that since 0>11% the plainti8 has lived in
comfort and has &nown where her h"sband resided: that the plainti8% d"ring all of the time referred to% in
addition to disposing of val"able property belonging to her h"sband% possessed and still possesses
property of her own% ac'"ired by her% in greater amo"nt than that owned by her h"sband: and that in any
case the action has prescribed by operation of law.K As to the divorce% he admits that he had by the
Page 0 of 98
plainti8 two children that have died. He e2pressly denied the charge of ad"ltery and also those concerning
the possession of real and personal property of the con$"gal partnership% the statement of their amo"nt%
and their '"ali!cation as being all con$"gal property. As a special defense% he alleged that prior to the year
0G>> he conferred powers of attorney "pon the plainti8 to administer and collect property and credits
pertaining to him to the val"e of abo"t ,11%111 pesos: that the plainti8 accepted and e2ercised the said
power of attorney% attached the property and collected the credits witho"t ever having rendered any
acco"nt of them. As a special preferred defense% he alleged that neither the trial co"rt nor any other co"rt
in the Philippine slands has $"risdiction over the s"b$ect matter of the complaint% beca"se% as to the
allowance for s"pport% since neither the plainti8 nor the defendant are residents of Manila% or of any other
place in the Philippine slands% the agreement "pon the s"b$ect was neither celebrated% nor was it to be
f"l!lled% in the Philippine slands: and as to the divorce% beca"se the action therefore o"ght to be tried by
the ecclesiastical co"rts. n concl"sion% he prayed that the co"rt !nd7 (hat the co"rt was witho"t
$"risdiction over the two ca"ses of action: that even if it had $"risdiction% it co"ld not order the payment of
the s"m claimed as arrears of alimony: that% after all% the action with regard to this ca"se of action has
prescribed: and as to the prayer for a decree of divorce% the defendant sho"ld be ac'"itted% while on the
other hand the plainti8 sho"ld be re'"ired to render to the defendant an acco"nting% s"pported by proofs%
of her operations as his attorney and administratri2 of his property in Spain.
n deciding the case% the C# of Manila held itself to have $"risdiction% decreed the s"spension of life
in common between the plainti8 and defendant% ordered the latter to pay the former% directed that the
comm"nal property be divided between the parties% with costs against the defendant% and in event that
the parties co"ld not agree to the division% it was to be e8ected by commissioners according to law.
Eoth parties appealed% b"t notwithstanding the appeal% the partition of the property% by means of
commissioners% was proceeded with. (hese latter% after vario"s vicissit"des% rendered their report and
acco"nt of the partition to the co"rt% who then rendered !nal $"dgment% from which% also% both parties
appealed.
+**,E7 A@B there is lac& of $"risdiction of the trial co"rt and of all other co"rts of the slands to try the
case% either with regard to the f"l!llment of the contract to f"rnish alimony% or to decree a divorce or
s"spension of life in common between the spo"ses7 lac& of $"risdiction over the s"b$ect matter of the
litigation: and over the persons of the contending parties% beca"se neither of the spo"ses was a resident of
the Philippines on the date of the complaint.
R,L+NG& n the present action for divorce the C# of Manila did not lac& $"risdiction over the persons of the
litigants% for% altho"gh Spanish Catholic s"b$ects% they were residents of this city and had their domicile
herein.
(he C# of the Philippine slands have the power and $"risdiction to try actions for divorce. (hat of
the city of Manila did not lac& $"risdiction by reason of the s"b$ect matter of the litigation.
(he defendant had not proved that he had elsewhere a legal domicile other than that which he
manifestly had in the Philippines d"ring the seventeen years preceding the date of the complaint. @n the
contrary% it plainly appears% witho"t proof to the contrary% that d"ring this not inconsiderable period%
e2tending from the year 0G>, "ntil a month prior to the arrival of his wife in the Philippines in March% 0>1>%
he had constantly resided in the said slands% had &ept open ho"se% and had ac'"ired in the city of Manila
'"ite a little real property which is now the ob$ect of the division of the con$"gal society. t is also plainly
shown% witho"t proof to the contrary% that his wife resided in this city of Manila from the middle of 0G>=
"ntil April% 0G>>% at which time she was permitted by him to change her residence. t is aLrmed by the
defendant that in May% 0>11% he sent a letter instructing the plainti8 to ret"rn to Manila to live with her
h"sband and to be s"pported by him in his house% b"t that the plainti8% against the will of the defendant%
contin"ed to live part from him. t is also aLrmed in the said answer% that d"ring all of the time referred to
in the complaint% and especially since 0>11% the plainti8 &new where her h"sband resided. t is also very
evident that the contract% by virt"e of which he a"thorized his wife to move to Spain and reside there in
s"ch place as was agreeable to her% was e2ec"ted in these slands% Kin the city of Manila on April ?% 0GG>%K
as is to be seen in the heading of the doc"ment. #inally% in his brief% he says that the record shows him to
be a Spanish s"b$ect% inscribed in the cons"late of his nation% and cities article ,= of the Civil Code% the
(reaty of Paris and the Philippine Eill.
Page # of 98
Hranting these facts% there can be no do"bt that the defendant% altho"gh a Spanish s"b$ect% was a
resident of these slands. Article ,= of the Civil Code that he cites itself provides that KSpaniards who
change their domicile to a foreign co"ntry% where they may be considered as natives witho"t other
conditions than that of residents therein% shall be re'"ired% in order to preserve the Spanish nationality% to
state that s"ch is their wish before the Spanish diplomatic or cons"lar agent% who m"st record them in the
registry of Spanish residents % as well as their spo"ses% sho"ld they be married% and any children they may
have.K #rom this provision% which is the e2cl"sive and irref"table law governing the defendant% we are to
concl"de that the domicile of the defendant and the plainti8 is f"lly proven% irrespective of the (reaty of
Paris. Aitho"t this s"pposition of having ac'"ired his domicile and residence in these slands% he co"ld not
have re'"ired his wife to ret"rn to live with him therein beca"se this re'"irement co"ld only be based on
articles -G of the Civil Code of Spain% according to which the wife is obliged to follow her h"sband wherever
he wishes to establish his residence% or on article ?G of chapter - of the Marriage Maw in force in the
Philippines% which imposes "pon the wife the d"ty of obeying her h"sband% living in his company% or of
following him to wherever he transfers his domicile or residence. And $"st beca"se he was absent for a
month before his wife ret"rned to the Philippines% he cannot be "nderstood to have s"rrendered his
habit"al domicile of more than seventeen years% witho"t having established any other afterwards% and
witho"t ma&ing any declaration in legal form% before he absented himself% of it being his intention to
change his domicile% while at the same time he retains here his ho"se% real property and all manner of
means of s"bsistence. Section ;FF of the Code of Civil Proced"re leaves to the election of the plainti8 the
bringing of a personal action li&e the one at bar either in the place where the defendant may reside or be
fo"nd% or in that where the plainti8 resides.
(he litigating spo"ses have gained not only domicile + domicilio / b"t also residence + vecindad / in
Manila. n this litigation the defendant claims that% born as he says in Mallorca% in the Ealearic slands% he is
not s"b$ect% in his marriage% to the r"les governing con$"gal property% that are in force in the territories of
Spain that are governed by the common law of Castillo% beca"se they are opposed to the #oral Maw in force
in the said slands and which is respected by the Civil Code. Even if this defense co"ld be s"stained herein%
paragraph , of article 0- of the said Civil Code wo"ld be applicable. t provides7 K#or the p"rposes of this
article% residence + vecindad / will be ac'"ired7 Ey residence of ten years in common law provinces or
territories% "nless before the termination of that time he manifests his will to the contrary: or by a
residence of two years% if the interested person declares this to be his will . . . n any case% the wife will
follow the condition of her h"sband. . . .K @n no occasion had the defendant manifested his will to the
contrary% not even as he was leaving% after a residence of seventeen years% a month before the ret"rn of
his wife to these slands. @n the contrary% when he inscribed himself in the Spanish cons"late% he declared
his intention of contin"ing to reside in the slands as a Spaniard and not as a Mallor'"in% s"b$ect as s"ch to
the common law of Spain.
(o demonstrate the lac& of $"risdiction of the co"rts of these slands over the s"b$ect matter of the
complaint that is to try an action for divorce between two Catholic Spaniards% he alleges in his appeal7 (hat
both litigants are Spanish s"b$ects and that they contracted a Catholic marriage: that in accordance with
article > of the Civil Code of Spain +the same as that of these slands/ the laws relating to family rights and
d"ties% or to the stat"s% condition and legal capacity of persons% govern Spaniards altho"gh they reside in a
foreign co"ntry: that% in conse'"ence% Kall '"estions of a civil nat"re% s"ch as those dealing with the
validity or n"llity of the matrimonial bond% the domicile of the h"sband and wife% their s"pport% as between
them% the separation of their properties% the r"les governing property% marital a"thority% division of
con$"gal property% the classi!cation of their property% legal ca"ses for divorce% the e2tent of the latter% the
AC(H@R(I to decree it% and% in general% the civil e8ects of marriage and divorce "pon the person and
properties of the spo"ses% are '"estions that are governed e2cl"sively by the national law of the h"sband
and wife% and% in o"r case% by the Spanish law by virt"e of article > as above set o"t.K (he appellant and
defendant contin"es his arg"ment% saying7 (hat by the e2press provision of article G1 of the Civil Code of
Spain% K$"risdiction in actions for divorce and n"lli!cation of canonical marriages lies with ecclesiastical
co"rts%K while that of civil trib"nals is limited to civil marriages: that this being so% the action for divorce
bro"ght by the plainti8 in the ca"se does not fall within the $"risdiction of the civil co"rts% according to his
own law of persons% beca"se these co"rts o"ght to apply the Spanish law in accordance with the said
article > of the Civil Cod of Spain% and this Spanish law grants the $"risdiction over the present ca"se to the
ecclesiastical co"rts% in the place of which no trib"nal of these slands can s"brogate itself. Says this
appellant7 Kf a law of a foreign co"ntry were of rigoro"s application in a given case% a Borth American
trib"nal wo"ld have no $"risdiction "pon an ecclesiastical co"rt and therefore the Borth American trib"nal
in applying it wo"ld have to e2ercise a fac"lty which that law reserved to the ecclesiastical co"rt.K
Page 6 of 98
(he a"thority of $"risdictional power of co"rts to decree a divorce is not comprised within the
personal stat"s of the h"sband and wife% simply beca"se the whole theory of the stat"tes and of the rights
which belong to everyone does not go beyond the sphere of private law% and the a"thority and $"risdiction
of the co"rts are not a matter of the private law of persons% b"t of the p"blic or political law of the nation.
K(he $"risdiction of co"rts and other '"estions relating to proced"re are considered to be of a p"blic nat"re
and conse'"ently are generally s"bmitted to the territorial principle. . . . All persons that have to demand
$"stice in a case in which foreigners intervene% since they can gain nothing by a simple declaration% sho"ld
endeavor to apply to the trib"nals of the state which have coercive means +property sit"ated in the
territory/ to enforce any decision they may render. @therwise% one wo"ld e2pose himself in the s"it to
ma&ing "seless e2pendit"res which% altho"gh he won his case% wo"ld not contrib"te to sec"re his rights
beca"se of the co"rtNs lac& of means to enforce them.K +(orres Campos% KElementos de 4erecho
nternational Privado%K/ K3"stice%K says the same professor% Kis a principle s"perior to that of nations% and it
sho"ld therefore be administered witho"t ta&ing into any acco"nt whatsoever the state to which the
litigants belong. . . . n order to foster their relations and develop their commerce% all civilized nations are
interested in doing $"stice% not alone to their own people% b"t to those foreigners who contract within the
co"ntry or o"tside of it $"ridical ties which in some manner e8ect their sovereignty. Might its co"rts% in
some cases% in s"its between foreigners residing in its territory% apply the personal law of the parties% b"t
abdicate their $"risdiction% refrain from administering $"stice beca"se the personal law of the foreigner
gave the $"risdiction of the given case to some co"rt that is not the territorial one of the nationO (his has
never yet been claimed in any of the theories regarding the conPict of laws arising o"t of '"estions of
nationality and domicile: it wo"ld be e'"ivalent to recognizing e2traterritorial law in favor of private
persons. (he provisions of article G1 of the Civil Maw of Spain is only binding within the dominions of Spain.
t does not accompany the persons of the Spanish s"b$ect wherever he may go. He co"ld not s"ccessf"lly
invo&e it if he resided in 3apan% in China% in Hong&ong or in any other territory not s"b$ect to the dominion
of Spain. #oreign Catholics domiciled in Spain% s"b$ect to the ecclesiastical co"rts in actions for divorce
according to the said article G1 of the Civil Code% co"ld not allege lac& of $"risdiction by invo&ing% as the
law of their personal stat"te% a law of their nation which gives $"risdiction in s"ch a case to territorial
co"rts% or to a certain co"rt within or witho"t the territory of their nation.
Bote7 @n the iss"e of ad"ltery. (he second assignment of error is directed against the !nding of the co"rt
that the defendant had committed ad"ltery with a certain woman in this city from the year 0G>> "ntil
0>1>: the third was against the !nding that the ad"ltery was accompanied by p"blic scandal and in$"red
the dignity of his wife: and the fo"rth for having decreed the divorce% s"spension of the married life% and
the separation of the properties of the parties. (he evidence relating to the foregoing not being sent "p on
appeal% we are "nable to review it% so we accept the !ndings of the trial co"rt.
(here is a point of law regarding the claim that the ad"ltery% even tho"gh it were proven wo"ld not
be a ca"se for divorce% beca"se no p"blic scandal res"lted therefrom nor was there contempt displayed for
the wife. (he facts m"st be accepted by this trib"nal as they were fo"nd by the trial co"rt% since the
evidence cannot be reviewed: moreover% the appellee aLrms the contrary and maintains that it is a proven
fact% p"blic and notorio"s% an assertion that the trial co"rt m"st have fo"nd to be proven. n law% it is not
necessary that ad"ltery% to be a ca"se for divorce% sho"ld be accompanied by p"blic scandal and contempt
for the wife. (here is no law that re'"ires this. Maw ,% title >% of the #o"rth Partida does not re'"ire it.
Bote7 @n the iss"e that there e2ists con$"gal property +proof of foreign law/. (he appellant aLrms that he
is a native of Mallorca in the Ealearic slands and that is also the condition of his wife% the plainti8. Maw7
(hat altho"gh the r"le of the Civil Code is that which legally governs con$"gal property% yet at the same
time it admits% as an e2ception% the laws% "sages% and c"stoms of the #oral Maw% according to which% as
applied in the Ealearic slands% the law of the family is that of the division of property and that of con$"gal
property is not &nown: so that the property pertains e2cl"sively to the spo"se who% by whatever title% has
ac'"ired it. n s"pport of the facts% appellant cites pages ,F to ;F and ;> to ?0 in the bill of e2ceptions:
and of the law% the doctrinal a"thority of Manresa% H"tierrez% and Alc"billa.
(he citation from pages ;> to ?0 of the bill of e2ceptions% the only pertinent one% is b"t an aLdavit
!led by the defendant in which% "nder oath% he himself testi!es as to the #oral Maw in the Ealearic slands.
(he adverse party says with regard to this7 K(his aLdavit was never presented in proof% was never
received by the trial $"dge% and cannot serio"sly be considered as an e8ort to establish the law of a foreign
$"risdiction. Sections ;11% ;10 and ;1, of the Code of Civil Proced"re% now in force in these islands%
Page 7 of 98
indicate the method by which the law of a foreign co"ntry may be proved. Ae maintain that the aLdavit of
a person not versed in the law% which was never s"bmitted as proof% never received by the trial co"rt% and
which has never been s"b$ected to any cross*e2amination% is not a means of proving a foreign law on
which the defendant relies.K
#"rthermore% on the s"pposition that the defendant co"ld invo&e the #oral Maw as the law of his
personal stat"s in the matter of the regimen of his marriage% and that to allege this he be considered as
a"thorized by article 0- of the Civil Code% we have said before% in dealing with his law of domicile% that
paragraph , of this article 0- of the Civil Code wo"ld be entirely adverse to his claim% and if it be advanced
that there is a similar #oral Maw in the Philippines by virt"e of paragraph 0 of the said article 0-% it might be
said% tho"gh there is not at present any need to say it% that it is not in force. (he two !ndings attac&ed are
in perfect accord with the law. All the property of the marriage% says article 0?1F of the Civil Code% shall be
considered as con$"gal property "ntil it is proven that it belongs e2cl"sively to the h"sband or to the wife.
Bo proof has been s"bmitted to this e8ect.
Bote7 on prescription. (he co"rt below ordered the defendant to pay to the plainti8 P-=%101.0F Philippine
c"rrency. (he defendant alleged that whereas the plainti8 had made no demand in her complaint with
respect to this s"m: that no arrears of payment are owing for alimony% even tho"gh payments had been
stip"lated in the contract% "nless they are claimed by the person who had f"rnished the act"al s"pport%
and that alimony is d"e only when it is necessary: so that% as the plainti8 has had no need of it for ten
years% nor has she stated who has f"rnished it% there is no reason for awarding her the amo"nt of the
arrears for all that time: that as she has allowed ten years to elapse before claiming it% her action
prescribed in 0>1?% that is to say% after !ve years.
(he plainti8 ac&nowledges that there is no petition or prayer in her complaint as to this ca"se of
action% b"t she considers that in e'"ity s"ch an omission can be s"pplied.
Paragraph ; of section G> +>1/ of the Code of Civil Proced"re determines one of the re'"isites of the
complaint7 KA demand for the relief which the plainti8 claims.K (he section goes on to say7 Kf the recovery
of money or damages is demanded% the amo"nt demanded m"st be stated. f special relief% s"ch as an
order for the special restit"tion of property% etc.% the gro"nd of demanding s"ch relief m"st be stated and
the special relief prayed for. E"t there may be added to the statement of the speci!c relief demanded a
general prayer for s"ch f"rther or other relief as shall be deemed e'"itable.K
n the complaint of the case at bar the provisions of paragraph , of the said section G> Q>1R are
complied with by setting forth in its paragraphs ? and - the relation of the ca"se of action% that is% the
contract of the ?th of April% 0G>>% by which the defendant obligated himself to send to the plainti8 in Spain
a certain amo"nt of money monthly% for her s"pport% and the fail"re to comply with this obligation after the
month of A"g"st% 0G>>. Paragraph =% as a conse'"ence of the promise established in ? and -% says as
follows7 K(hat the defendant Habriel #"ster y #"ster act"ally owes the plainti8 the s"m of ;=%011 Spanish
pesetas% that is% F%,,1 dollars% which% red"ced at the present rate of e2change% amo"nts to the s"m of
P0,%>->.>1% Philippine c"rrency.K n the case of defa"lt on the part of the defendant Kthe co"rt shall
proceed to hear the plainti8 and his witnesses and assess the damages or determine the other relief to
which the plainti8 may be entitled% incl"ding the costs of the action% and render !nal $"dgment for the
plainti8 to recover such sum or to receive s"ch other relief as the pleadings and the facts warrant.K (he
pleadings% not the prayer of the complaint.
(his co"rt has recently decided that the pleadings% not the prayer% e2actly% are the essential part of
a complaint.
t is not a '"estion of alimony for the present% nor for the f"t"re% which constit"tes the !rst ca"se of
action% b"t of certain s"ms stip"lated in a contract. (his contract is a law for the contracting parties% a law
which rises s"perior to those general laws which reg"late the nat"re of the s"b$ect matter of the contract
+in the present case an entirely vol"ntary one/ and which govern $"dicial action.
An action arising o"t of a contract of this nat"re does not prescribe li&e all personal ones% b"t% by
the provisions of article 0>=? of the Civil Code% after !fteen years. E"t even tho"gh the provisions of article
Page 8 of 98
0>== were applicable% by which an action to compel the f"l!llment of an agreement to pay alimony
prescribes in !ve years% yet by section -1 of the Code of Civil Proced"re% Kwhen payment has been made
"pon any demand fo"nded "pon contract . . . an action may be bro"ght . . . after s"ch payment. . . .K And
the parties admit that on the 0Gth of A"g"st% 0>1G% the plainti8 sec"red the payment of =%;=-.=G pesetas
by virt"e of the contract of April ?% 0G>>. So that from A"g"st% 0>1G% "ntil March% 0>1>% the date of the
complaint% the said period of !ve years had not elapsed.
Bote7 in the matter of plainti8)s appeal. (he plainti8 contends that !ndings of the lower co"rt are
erroneo"s in that% !rstly% the parties had admitted that the pesetas referred to in the contract were
Spanish% and in view of this admission the co"rt was not empowered to de!ne them as being di8erent from
the &ind admitted by the parties: secondly% if he were so empowered% his interpretation sho"ld be
governed by the terms of the law.
(he co"rt has not inc"rred error% beca"se it does not appear that the defendant in his answer
accepted the fact in the manner alleged in the complaint. (he defendant said that he admitted having
made the agreement referred to in paragraph ? of the complaint% and that he stood upon its contents. (he
contents of the doc"ment to which he refers is of the following tenor7 KMr. #"ster binds and obligates
himself to pay to his said wife the s"m of ;11 pesetas% monthly% payable de su cuenta in the city and
capital of Madrid% for her s"pport. . . .K He did not therefore admit the matter of the Spanish pesetas: that
does not appear in the contents of the doc"ment D the only thing he admitted in his answer.
As to the second error% the co"rt did not commit it in applying the r"le contained in article 0,GF of
the Civil Code. K(he "sages or c"stoms of the co"ntry shall be ta&en into consideration in interpreting
ambig"ity in contracts. . . .K f in the contract the word K pesetas%K not being speci!c% was ambig"o"s% then
it was in harmony with this precept to interpret it as being the peseta then in use or c"rrent when and
where the agreement was made% Me2ican being then the "s"al and c"rrent money in the Philippines.
#"rthermore% the phrase de su cuenta clearly means that it was not KSpanish pesetasK that the contracting
parties had in mind% beca"se if the agreement had been a speci!c one to pay ;11 Spanish pesetas in
Madrid% everyone wo"ld of co"rse "nderstand that the e2pense of following the P"ct"ations of change and
of the di8erences in val"e between the money c"rrent in the co"ntry% and the Spanish pesetas% wo"ld
have to be defrayed by the obligated party: whereas% if nothing more than pesetas was mentioned% it was
necessary to decide which party sho"ld pay for the di8erence in val"e so that the ;11 pesetas stip"lated
here sho"ld be ;11 Spanish pesetas paid in Madrid. Against the reasons of the co"rt below for his decision
this co"rt can o8er no legal gro"nds. (he r"le of interpretation cited is the one applicable and it s"pports
the reasoning of the decision appealed from.
(he appellant also alleges as error that the co"rt did not ad$"dicate to her the ;1%111 Spanish
dollars which the commissioners proposed in their report. #irst she characterizes this s"m of ;1%111 dollars
as the dowry of the wife delivered to the h"sband% then% later% as paraphernal property bro"ght to the
marriage.
According to the last instr"ctions of the co"rt to the commissioners% this amo"nt of ;1%111 dollars
co"ld not enter into the partition% and with reason. f% as was claimed% it was inherited by the plainti8 from
her "ncle% it really constit"tes paraphernal property "nder article 0;G0. KParaphernal property is that which
the wife brings to the marriage witho"t being incl"ded in the dowry and that she may ac'"ire after the
creation of the same witho"t being added thereto.K E"t it is a provision of article 0;G? that K(he wife shall
have the management of the paraphernal property "nless she has delivered the same to her h"sband%
before a notary% in order that he may administer said property. n s"ch case the h"sband is obliged to
create a mortgage for the val"e of the personal property he may receive% or to sec"re said property% in the
manner established for the dowry property.K Bot even was there o8ered in evidence the p"blic deed of
delivery% nor the e'"ally p"blic mortgage deed that is re'"ired by law. So that% therefore% the necessary
proof of the obligation to ret"rn paraphernal property as here demanded does not e2ist.
(he partition of property decreed in the $"dgment appealed from of the >th of September% 0>00%
sho"ld be and is hereby con!rmed. (he two $"dgments appealed from are hereby aLrmed% witho"t special
prono"ncement of costs in this instance.
Governent o6 t7e P7$l$pp$ne +slands vs. Geor8e +. 'ran9
Page 9 of 98
G.R. No. L-"9/#, Marc7 "/, 19:9
%o7nson, %.&
'(C)*& @n or abo"t the 0Fth day of April 0>1;% in the city of Chicago% in the state of llinois% in the Cnited
States% Heorge . #ran&% thro"gh a representative of the ns"lar Hovernment of the Philippine slands +HP/%
entered into a contract for a period of two years with the HP% by which #ran& was to receive a salary of
0%,11 dollars per year as a stenographer in the service of the HP% and in addition thereto was to be paid in
advance the e2penses inc"rred in traveling from the said city of Chicago to Manila% and one*half salary
d"ring said period of travel. Said contract contained a provision that in case of a violation of its terms on
the part of #ran&% he sho"ld become liable to HP for the amo"nt e2pended by the Hovernment by way of
e2penses inc"rred in traveling from Chicago to Manila and one*half salary paid d"ring s"ch period. Also% it
was e2pressly agreed between the parties to said contract that Maws Bo. G1 and Bo. ,,? sho"ld constit"te
a part of said contract. #ran& entered "pon the performance of his contract "pon the ;1th day of April%
0>1;% and was paid half*salary from that date "ntil 3"ne ?% 0>1;% the date of his arrival in the Philippine
slands. @n the 00th day of #ebr"ary 0>1?% #ran& left the service of HP and ref"sed to ma&e f"rther
compliance with the terms of the contract.
As a res"lt% on the ;rd day of 4ecember% 0>1?% HP commenced an action in the Co"rt of #irst
nstance of the city of Manila to recover from #ran& the s"m of ,=>.,; dollars% which amo"nt the HP
claimed had been paid to #ran& as e2penses inc"rred in traveling from Chicago to Manila% and as half
salary for the period cons"med in travel. n the said complaint% #ran& !led a general denial and a special
defense% alleging in his special defense that HP had amended Maws Bo. G1 and Bo. ,,? and had thereby
materially altered the said contract% and also that he was a minor at the time the contract was entered into
and was therefore not responsible "nder the law. HP !led a dem"rrer on the special defense which was
s"stained by the co"rt. Cpon the iss"e th"s presented% and after hearing the evidence add"ced d"ring the
trial of the ca"se% the lower co"rt rendered a $"dgment against #ran& and in favor of HP for the s"m of
,=-.>1 dollars. (he lower co"rt fo"nd that at the time #ran& '"it the service of HP there was d"e him from
the HP the s"m of ;.;; dollars% leaving a balance d"e the HP in the s"m of ,=-.>1 dollars. #ran&
appealed and one of his contentions is that% he was minor% hence% the contract cannot be enforced against
him.
+**,E& Ahether or not #ran&)s contention is correct.
HEL-& Bo. (he record discloses that% at the time the contract was entered into in the State of llinois% he
was an ad"lt "nder the laws of that State and had f"ll a"thority to contract. #ran& claims that% by reason of
the fact that% "nder the laws of the Philippine slands at the time the contract was made% male persons in
said slands did not reach their ma$ority "ntil they had attained the age of ,; years% he was not liable
"nder said contract% contending that the laws of the Philippine slands governed. t is not disp"ted D "pon
the contrary the fact is admitted D that at the time and place of the ma&ing of the contract in '"estion
#ran& had f"ll capacity to ma&e the same. Bo r"le is better settled in law than that matters bearing "pon
the e2ec"tion% interpretation and validity of a contract are determined by the law of the place where the
contract is made. Matters connected with its performance are reg"lated by the law prevailing at the place
of performance. Matters respecting a remedy% s"ch as the bringing of s"it% admissibility of evidence% and
stat"tes of limitations% depend "pon the law of the place where the s"it is bro"ght. #ran&Ns claim that he
was an ad"lt when he left Chicago b"t was a minor when he arrived at Manila: that he was an ad"lt at the
time he made the contract b"t was a minor at the time HP attempted to enforce the contract% more than a
year later% is not tenable.
N.)E*& @n the iss"e that HP had amended Maws Bo. G1 and Bo. ,,?% hence% the contract is materially
altered. t may be said that the mere fact that the legislative department of the Hovernment of the
Philippine slands had amended said Acts Bo. G1 and Bo. ,,? by the Acts Bo. =?; and Bo. 01?1 did not
have the e8ect of changing the terms of the contract made between the plainti8 and the defendant. (he
legislative department of the Hovernment is e2pressly prohibited by section - of the Act of Congress of
0>1, from altering or changing the terms of the contract. (he right which the defendant had ac'"ired by
virt"e of Acts Bo. G1 and Bo. ,,? had not been changed in any respect by the fact that said laws had been
amended. (hese acts% constit"ting the terms of the contract% still constit"ted a part of said contract and
were enforceable in favor of the defendant.
Page 1: of 98
;7$te v. )ennant.
;0 A.Sa. F>1
S"preme Co"rt of Appeals of Aest Sirginia.
S"bmitted 3"ne ,=% 0GGG.
4ecided 4ecember 0% 0GGG.
0. 4omicile Change of Residence ntent.
Ahere a person entirely abandons his former residence in one State with no intention of res"ming it
and goes with his family to another residence% which he has rented in another State% with the intention of
ma&ing the latter his residence for an inde!nite time% the latter State is his domicile notwithstanding the
fact% that% after he and his family arrive at the new residence% which is only abo"t 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 ret"rn in the morning of the ne2t day% b"t he is detained there by sic&ness% "ntil he dies% and
never does in fact ret"rn to his new home.
,. 4omicile ConPict of Maws 4istrib"tion of Property.
(he laws of the State% in which the domicile of a decedent is at the time of his death% control and
govern the distrib"tion of his personal estate% altho"gh he may die in another State.
*n<der, %=d8e&
'acts7 (his is a s"it bro"ght 4ecember% 0GG=% in the Circ"it Co"rt of Monongalia co"nty by Ailliam M. Ahite
and others against Emrod (ennant% administrator of Michael Ahite deceased and M"cinda Ahite% the widow
of said Michael Ahite% to set aside the settlement and distrib"tion made by the administrator of the
personal estate of said decedent% and to have the same settled and distrib"ted according to the laws of
the State of Pennsylvania% which State it is claimed was the domicile of said decedent at the time of his
death +May 0GG-/. (he plainti8s are the brothers and sisters of the decedent% who died in this State
intestate. @n @ctober ,G% 0GGF% the co"rt entered a decree dismissing the plainti8sN bill% and they have
appealed.
3oseph S. Ahite% the father of the plainti8s and Michael Ahite% died intestate in Monongalia co"nty
seized of a tract of abo"t ,?1 acres of land% of which abo"t forty acres lay in Hreene co"nty% Pa.% the whole
constit"ting b"t one tract or farm. (he mansion*ho"se in which the father resided was located on the Aest
Sirginia side of the farm% and there was also a dwelling*ho"se generally occ"pied by tenants on the
Pennsylvania part of the farm. After the death of the father% his widow and the plainti8s remained together
and occ"pied the home*farm% residing in the mansion*ho"se in Aest Sirginia. Michael Ahite married the
defendant% M"cinda Ahite% a da"ghter of the defendant% Emrod (ennant% and abo"t that time p"rchased a
farm on 4ayNs r"n% in Monongalia co"nty% some !fteen miles from the home*place% to which he moved% and
at which he and his wife resided. t is conceded% that Michael was born and had his domicile in Aest
Sirginia all his life% "ntil abo"t April 0% 0GG-.
n the winter of 0GG?*G-% Michael sold his 4ayNs r"n farm% and then rented or made an arrangement
with his mother and brothers and sisters% the plainti8s% to occ"py the forty acres of the home*farm% in
which he still had an "ndivided interest% and to live in the ho"se on said forty acres in Hreene co"nty% Pa.
He was to give to the p"rchaser the possession of Ms 4ayNs r"n farm on April 0% 0GG-% and to have
possession of the Pennsylvania ho"se and forty acres at the same time. n March% 0GG-% he moved part of
his ho"sehold*goods into the Pennsylvania ho"se% and p"t them into one of the rooms by permission of the
tenant% who then occ"pied it% and who did not vacate it "ntil between the middle and last of March% 0GG-.
Page 11 of 98
Abo"t the same time he moved an organ and some grain to the old homestead% "ntil he co"ld get
possession of the Pennsylvania ho"se.
@n the morning of April ,% 0GG-% he !nally left the 4ayNs r"n ho"se with the remainder of his goods
and his wife% he having no children% with the declared intent and p"rpose of ma&ing the Pennsylvania
ho"se his home that evening. He with his team% wife and goods and live*stoc& passed into the State of
Pennsylvania several miles before he reached said ho"se and contin"ed in said State thence to said
Pennsylvania ho"se% where they arrived that evening abo"t s"ndown% and then and there "nloaded their
goods and p"t them in the ho"se% setting "p one bed and t"rning the fowls and other live*stoc& loose at
the ho"se.
(he said ho"se had been vacated for several days. t was a damp% cool day% and the ho"se was
fo"nd to be damp and "ncomfortable. (he wife was complaining of feeling "nwell% and in conse'"ence of
that fact and the "ncomfortable condition of the ho"se% on the invitation of her brother*in*law and others of
the family who then resided at the mansion*ho"se% b"t a short distance therefrom% the said Michael and his
wife went to the mansion*ho"se in Aest Sirginia to stay all night and ret"rn in the morning. Eefore leaving
the Pennsylvania ho"se the wife had gotten o"t of the b"ggy at the ho"se% and the said Michael after
p"tting into it his ho"sehold*goods loc&ed the door and too& the &ey with him. @n the following morning%
the wife still feeling "nwell% and the brother who was to ret"rn the team% which they had "sed in moving
their goods% having ta&en sic&% the wife after going to the Pennsylvania ho"se to mil& ret"rned to the
mansion*ho"se% and Michael too& the team hac& to 4ayNs r"n.
@n the ret"rn of Michael from this trip he fo"nd his wife so sic& with typhoid fever% that it was
impossible to move her% in conse'"ence of which both he and she remained at the mansion*ho"se% she
beca"se she was "nable to get away% and he to wait on her% b"t he went daily over to the Pennsylvania
ho"se to loo& after it% and to feed his stoc& there% calling it his K home.K n ten or !fteen days% and before
the wife had s"Lciently recovered to leave her bed% Michael was attac&ed with typhoid fever% and abo"t
ten days thereafter died intestate in the same ho"se. (he wife recovered% and the defendant% Emrod
(ennant% her father% administered on the estate of Michael% ta&ing o"t letters of administration in
Monongalia co"nty% A. Ia. (he administrator settled his acco"nts before a commissioner of said co"nty%
and distrib"ted the estate according to the laws of Aest Sirginia: that is% by paying over to the widow the
whole personal estate remaining after the payment of the debts of the decedent. t is admitted% that% if the
distrib"tion had been according to the laws of the State of Pennsylvania% the wife wo"ld have been entitled
to the one half only of said estate% and the plainti8s wo"ld have been entitled to the other half.
+**,E7 A@B at the time of Ahite)s death% he had his legal domicile in this State or in the State of
Pennsylvania.
R,L+NG7 t is admitted to be the settled law% that the law of the State% in which the decedent had his
domicile at the time of his death% will control the s"ccession and distrib"tion of his personal estate.
4r. Aharton says7K N 4omicile N is a residence ac'"ired as a !nal abode. (o constit"te it there m"st
be +0/ residence% act"al or inchoate: +,/ the non*e2istence of any intention to ma&e a domicile elsewhere.K
Ahart. Conn. Maw T,0. KN4omicileN is that place or co"ntry% either +0/ in which a person in fact resides with
an intention of residence% animus manendi; or +,/ in which% having so resided% he contin"es act"ally to
reside% tho"gh no longer retaining the intention of residence% animus manendi; or +;/ with regard to which%
having so resided there% he retains the intention of residence%* animus manendi, tho"gh he in fact no longer
resides there.K 4icey 4om. ??. (wo things m"st conc"r to establish domicile% the fact of residence% and the
intention of remaining. (hese two m"st e2ist% or m"st have e2isted% in combination. (here m"st have been
an act"al residence. (he character of the residence is of no importance: and% if domicile has once e2isted%
mere temporary absence will not destroy it% however long contin"ed. Munro v. Munro. (he original domicile
contin"es "ntil it is fairly changed for another. t is a legal ma2im that every person m"st have a domicile
somewhere: and he can have b"t one at a time for the same p"rpose. #rom this it follows that one can not
be lost or e2ting"ished "ntil another is ac'"ired. Baird v. Byrne. Ahen one domicile is de!nitely abandoned
and a new one selected and entered "pon% length of time is not important: one day will be s"Lcient%
provided the animus e2ists. Even when the point of destination is not reached% domicile may shift in
itinere, if the abandonment of the old domicile and the setting o"t for the new are plainly shown. Munroe v.
Douglass. (h"s a constr=ct$ve res$dence seems to be s"Lcient to give domicile% tho"gh an act"al
Page 1" of 98
residence may not have beg"n. Ahart. Conn. Maw% T -G. A change of domicile does not depend so m"ch
"pon the intention to remain in the new place for a de!nite or inde!nite period as "pon its being witho"t
an intention to ret"rn. An intention to ret"rn however at a remote or inde!nite period to the former place
of act"al residence will not control% if the other facts% which constit"te domicile% all give the new residence
the character of a permanent home or place of abode. (he intention and act"al fact of residence m"st
conc"r% where s"ch residence is not in its nat"re temporary. Hallet v. Bassett: Long v. Ryan. n Bradley v.
Lowery% it is held% that K change of domicile is cons"mmated when one leaves the State where he has
hitherto resided% avowing his intention not to ret"rn% and enters another State intending to permanently
settle there.K A domicile once ac'"ired remains "ntil a new one is ac'"ired elsewhere% facto et animo.
Story Conn. Maw% T ?F: art v. Lindsey, 0F B. . ,;-. Ahere a person removes from one State to another
and establishes a !2ed residence in the latter% it will become his domicile% altho"gh there may be a Poating
intention to ret"rn to his former place of abode at some f"t"re period. Ringgold v. Barley.K f a man
intending to remove with his family visits the place of removal beforehand% to ma&e arrangements% or even
sleeps there occasionally for convenience and then transfers his family% the change of domicile ta&es e8ect
from the time of removing with the family: b"t if he has de!nitely changed his residence and ta&en "p his
abode permanently in a new place% the fact% that his family remains behind% "ntil he can remove them
conveniently% and that he visits them occasionally% will not prevent the new place being his domicile.K
Huier v. @NDaniel, Amer. Mead: !ambridge v. !harlestown.
According to the a"thorities hereinbefore cited% if it is shown% that a person has entirely abandoned
his former domicile in one State with the intention of ma&ing his home at a !2ed place in another State
with no intention of ret"rning to his former domicile and then establishes a residence in the new place for
any period of time% however brief% that will be in law a change of domicile% and the latter will remain his
domicile "ntil changed in li&e manner.
(he facts in this case concl"sively prove% that Michael Ahite% the decedent% abandoned his
residence in Aest Sirginia with the intention and p"rpose not only of not ret"rning to it% b"t for the
e2pressed p"rpose of ma&ing a !2ed place in the State of Pennsylvania his home for an inde!nite time.
(his fact is shown by all the circ"mstances as well as by his declarations and acts. He had sold his
residence in Aest Sirginia and s"rrendered its possession to the p"rchaser% and thereby made it impossible
for him to ret"rn to it and ma&e it his home. He rented a dwelling in Pennsylvania% for which he had no "se
e2cept to live in and ma&e it his home. n addition to all this% he had moved a part of his ho"sehold goods
into this ho"se% and then% on April 1,% 0GG-% he with his family and the remainder of his goods and stoc&
!nally left his former home and the State of Aest Sirginia% and moved into the State of Pennsylvania to his
ho"se n that State% and there p"t his goods in the ho"se% and t"rned his stoc& loose on the premises. At
the time he left his former home on that morning% and while he was on the way to his new home% his
declared p"rpose and intention were to ma&e that his home from that very day% and to occ"py it that
night. He arrived in Pennsylvania and at his new home with that intention: and it was only after he arrived
there and for reasons not before &nown% which had no e8ect to change his p"rpose of ma&ing that his
f"t"re home% that he failed to remain there from that time. (here was no change in his p"rpose% e2cept
that after he arrived at his new home and "nloaded and left his property there% he concl"ded on acco"nt of
the condition of the ho"se and the illness of his wife% that it wo"ld be better to go with his wife to remain
one night with his relatives and ret"rn the ne2t morning.
Ahen he left his former home witho"t any intention of ret"rning and in p"rs"ance of that intention
did in fact move with his family and e8ects to his new home with the intention of ma&ing it his residence
for an inde!nite time% it is my opinion% that% when he and his wife arrived at his new home% it became eo
instanti his domicile% and that his leaving there "nder the circ"mstances with the intention of ret"rning the
ne2t day did not change the fact. (he conc"rrence of his intention to ma&e the Pennsylvania ho"se his
permanent residence with the fact% that he had act"ally abandoned his former residence and moved to and
p"t his goods in the new one% made the latter his domicile. According to the a"thorities hereinbefore
referred to he m"st of necessity have had a domicile somewhere. f he did not have one in Pennsylvania%
where did he have oneO (he fact% that he left the Pennsylvania ho"se% after he had moved to it with his
family and goods% to spend the night% did not revive his domicile at his former residence on 4ayNs r"n%
beca"se he had sold that% and left it witho"t any p"rpose of ret"rning there. Ey going from his new home
to the ho"se of his relatives to spend the night he certainly did not ma&e the ho"se th"s visited his
domicile: therefore% "nless the Pennsylvania ho"se was on the evening of April ,% 0GG-% his domicile% he
was in the anomalo"s position of being witho"t a domicile anywhere% which% as we have seen% is a legal
Page 1/ of 98
impossibility: and% that ho"se having become his domicile% there is nothing in this case to show% that he
ever did in fact change or intend to change it or to establish a domicile elsewhere.
t follows% therefore% that that ho"se remained his domicile "p to and at the time of his death: and%
that ho"se being in the State of Pennsylvania% the laws of that State m"st control the distrib"tion of his
personal estate notwithstanding the fact% that he died in State of Aest Sirginia.
#or these reasons the decree of the Circ"it Co"rt m"st be reversed% and the ca"se m"st be
remanded to that co"rt to be there f"rther proceeded in according to the principles anno"nced in this
opinion and the r"les of co"rts of e'"ity.
La=reto (. )alaroc vs. (le>andro -. ,<
G.R. No. L-#/97, *epte!er "6, 19#"
)=ason, %.
'(C)*& Ale$andro 4. Cy was elected as m"nicipal mayor of Manticao% Misamis% @riental n Bovember 0;%
0>-,. @ne of the defeated candidates in the person of Ma"reto A. (alaroc bro"ght an action for '"o
warranto in the C# of the province on the gro"nd that Cy is a Chinese national: th"s% ineligible from oLce.
(he material facts pertinent to the iss"e of Cy)s citizenship are as follows7 @ne of the respondent)s
brothers% Pedro 4. Cy% before the war and "p to this time has been occ"pying the position of income ta2
e2aminer of the E"rea" of nternal Reven"e. His other brother% 3ose 4. Cy% is a practicing certi!ed p"blic
acco"ntant% and before the war was the acco"ntant of the Bational Abaca and #iber Corporation +BA#C@/.
His other brother% 4r. Sictorio 4. Cy% is a practicing physician% and% before the war% was charity physician in
nitao and later a physician in the provincial hospital. 4"ring the war% 4r. Cy was a captain in the Philippine
Army. His yo"nger brother was a lie"tenant in the 0,1th nfantry Regiment of the g"errillas. All his brothers
married #ilipino girls and they were never identi!ed with any Chinese political or social organization.
Respondent)s father ac'"ired properties in M"gait. His mother% who never remarried% campaigned for
woman s"8rage in 0>;- and voted in the s"bse'"ent elections.
Cy)s contention which was re$ected by the co"rt is that% his father was a s"b$ect of Spain on April
00% 0G>> by virt"e of Article 0F of the Civil Code: that his mother ipso facto reac'"ired her #ilipino
citizenship "pon the death of her h"sband on #ebr"ary 0F% 0>0F% and the child followed her citizenship:
and that the respondent is a citizen of the Philippines by the mere fact of his birth therein. (he 3"dge noted
that% while "nder the Roa doctrine +Roa v. ns"lar Collector of C"stoms% ,; Phil.% ;0-/% Ale$andro 4. Cy
wo"ld be a #ilipino citizen regardless of the nationality of his parents% yet% he said% this doctrine was
abandoned in (an Chong v. Secretary of Mabor% +F> Phil.% ,?>/% Swee Sang v. (he Commonwealth of the
Philippines% +F> Phil.% ,?>/% decided with (an Chong v. Secretary of Mabor and Sillahermosa v. (he
Commissioner of mmigration% G1 Phil.% -?0.
(he co"rt r"led in favor of (alaroc and declared the position vacant. Cy appealed the said decision.
Page 10 of 98
+**,E& Ahether or not Ale$andro Cy is a #ilipino citizen.
HEL-& Ies. (his Co"rt held that Article 0F of the Civil Code Kis s"Lcient to show that the !rst paragraph
aLrms and recognizes the principle of nationality by place of birth% $"s soli.K Citing vario"s decisions%
a"thorities% and opinions of the Cnited States Attorney Heneral% it fo"nd that the decided weight of
a"thority was to the e8ect that the marriage of an American woman with an alien conferred his nationality
"pon her d"ring covert"re: that "pon the dissol"tion of the marriage by death of the h"sband% the wife
reverted% ipso facto% to her former stat"s% "nless her cond"ct or acts showed that she elected to retain the
nationality of her h"sband% and that where the widowed mother herself th"s reac'"ired her former
nationality% her children% she being their nat"ral g"ardian% sho"ld follow her nationality with the proviso
that they may elect for themselves "pon reaching ma$ority. (he Roa decision% prom"lgated on @ctober ;1%
0>0,% set a precedent that was "niformly followed in n"mero"s cases. (his long line of decisions applied
the principle of $"s soli "p to September 0=% 0>?F% when that principle was reno"nced in the cases of (an
Chong v. Secretary of Mabor and Swee Sang v. (he Commonwealth of the Philippines cited in the appealed
decision.
(he (an and Swee Sang cases are not controlling in this case. Article S +Citizenship/% Section 0% par.
0% of the Constit"tion provides one of the classes of #ilipino citizens i.e. 5(hose who are citizens of the
Philippine slands at the time of the adoption of this Constit"tion6. @n the strength of the Roa doctrine%
Ale$andro 4. Cy "ndo"btedly was considered a f"ll*pledged Philippine citizen on the date of the adoption of
the Constit"tion% when $"s soli had been the prevailing doctrine. KAith it%K as Mr. 3"stice Ma"rel said in
Ramon (orres Et. Al. v. (an Chin Kthe bench and the bar were familiar. (he members of the Constit"tional
Convention were also aware of this r"le% and in abrogating the doctrine laid down in the Roa case% by
ma&ing the $"s sang"inis the predominating principle in the determination of Philippine citizenship% they
did not intend to e2cl"de those who% in the sit"ation of (ran'"ilino Roa% were citizens of the Philippines by
$"dicial declaration at the time of the adoption of the Constit"tion.K K(his%K the Co"rt went on to say% Kis
apparent from the proceedings of the Constit"tional Convention when Article S of the Constit"tion was
disc"ssed.
Cnli&e the (an Chong case% the herein appellant Cy had attained the age of ma$ority when the
Constit"tion went into e8ect% and had been allowed to e2ercise the right of s"8rage% to hold p"blic oLces%
and to ta&e the oath of allegiance to the Commonwealth Hovernment or Rep"blic of the Philippines. (he
(an Chong decision itself ma&es this e2press reservation7 KBeedless to say% this decision is not intended or
designed to deprive% as it cannot divest% of their #ilipino citizenship% those who have been declared to be
#ilipino citizens% or "pon whom s"ch citizenship had been conferred by the co"rts beca"se of the doctrine
or principle of res ad$"dicata.K Certainly% it wo"ld neither be fair nor good policy to hold the respondent an
alien after he had e2ercised the privileges of citizenship and the Hovernment had con!rmed his Philippine
citizenship on the faith of legal principles that had the force of law. @n several occasions the Secretary of
3"stice had declared as #ilipino citizens persons similarly circ"mstanced as the herein Respondent.
C"t o"t of the same pattern and deserving of the same consideration is the proposition that
Ale$andro 4. Cy became a Philippine citizen at least "pon his father)s death. t has been seen that%
according to the r"le of the Roa case% a #ilipino woman married to Chinese ipso facto reac'"ired her
#ilipino citizenship "pon her h"sband)s demise and that thereafter her minor children)s nationality
a"tomatically followed that of the mother)s. (his r"le was not changed by the adoption of the $"s sang"inis
doctrine% and was in force "ntil Commonwealth Act Bo. =; went into e8ect in 0>;=% by which the
legislat"re% for the !rst time% provided a method for regaining Philippine citizenship by #ilipino women in
s"ch cases. t is to be noted that when Commonwealth Act Bo. =; was passed Crs"la 4iabo had been a
widow for 0> years and Ale$andro 4. Cy had been of age three years% and that the new law carries no
provision giving it retroactive e8ect.
Conc=rr$n8 .p$n$on. Pad$lla, %.& wo"ld rest the $"dgment in this case on the "ndisp"ted fact
that the respondent was born o"t of wedloc& in ligan% Manao% on ,G 3an"ary 0>0, of a #ilipino mother and a
Chinese father who were married on ; March 0>0? and that his father died on 0F #ebr"ary 0>0F. He was a
#ilipino citizen% became Chinese citizen when his father and mother were married% and reac'"ired his
original citizenship on the death of his father% beca"se being "nder age he followed the citizenship of his
mother who reac'"ired her #ilipino citizenship "pon the death of her h"sband and never remarried. do
not agree to the proposition that persons born in this co"ntry of alien parentage or whose father is an alien
m"st be deemed #ilipino citizens "nder and by virt"e of the doctrine laid down in the case of Roa v.
Page 1# of 98
Collector of C"stoms% ,; Phil.% ;0-. Precisely% the $"dgment in the cases of (an Chong v. (he Secretary of
Mabor and Mam Swee Sang v. (he Commonwealth of the Philippines% ?- @8. Haz.% 0,=>% holds that as the
doctrine laid down in the case of Roa v. Collector of C"stoms% s"pra% is in conPict with the law in force at
the time it m"st be abandoned. 3ose (an Chong invo&ed also the bene!t of the doctrine in the Roa v.
Collector of C"stoms case. (here is only an e2ception to the r"le laid down in the cases of (an Chong v. (he
Secretary of Mabor and Mam Swee Sang v. (he Commonwealth of the Philippines.
N.)E*& A glimpse on the Roa vs. Collector of C"stoms case. (he petitioner was born in lawf"l
wedloc& in the Philippines on 3"ly =% 0G>>% his father being a native of China and his mother a #ilipina. His
father was domiciled in this co"ntry "p to the year 0G>- when he went to China and never ret"rned% dying
there abo"t 0>11. n May% 0>10% Roa% who was then a minor% was sent to China by his widowed mother for
the sole p"rpose of st"dying% and ret"rned in @ctober% 0>01% being then abo"t ,0 years and ; months of
age. He was denied admission by the board of special in'"iry% whose decision was aLrmed by the Co"rt of
#irst nstance in habeas corpus proceedings.
4eliberation of the Constit"tional Convention when Article S is crafted.
4elegate Ar"ego. D Mr. President% may $"st have one '"estionO May as& Mr. Ro2as if% "nder this
proposition that yo" have% all children born in the Philippines before the adoption of the Constit"tion was
incl"dedO
K4elegate Ro2as. D Bo% sir7 that is to say% if they are citizens in accordance with the present law% they will
be citizens.
K4elegate Ar"ego. D E"t as have said they are citizens by $"dicial decisions.
K4elegate Ro2as. D f they are citizens now by $"dicial decisions% they will be citizens.
K4elegate Ar"ego. D sho"ld li&e to ma&e it clear that we are voting on the proposition so that it will
incl"de all those born in the Philippines% regardless of their parentage% beca"se have heard some
ob$ections here to the incorporation in toto of the doctrine of $"s soli. (here are many who do not want to
incl"de% as citizens% children of Chinese parents% b"t they are incl"ded in the proposition we are voting
"pon . . . sho"ld li&e to !nd o"t from the gentleman from Capiz if that proposition wo"ld ma&e #ilipino
citizens of children of Chinese parents born last year or this year.
K4elegate Ro2as. D Bo% beca"se by the laws of the Philippine slands% they are not #ilipino citizens now.K
G.R. No. 1":"9# %=ne "8, 1996
%,(N G. 'R+5(L-., petitioner%
vs.
C.MM+**+.N .N ELEC)+.N*, and R(,L R. LEE, respondents.
G.R. No. 1"/7## %=ne "8, 1996
R(,L R. LEE, petitioner%
vs.
C.MM+**+.N .N ELEC)+.N* and %,(N G. 'R+5(L-., respondents.
P(NG(N+4(N, J.:
Page 16 of 98
(he "ltimate '"estion posed before this Co"rt in these twin cases is7 Aho sho"ld be declared the
rightf"l governor of Sorsogon *
+i/ 3"an H. #rivaldo% who "n'"estionably obtained the highest n"mber of votes in three s"ccessive elections
b"t who was twice declared by this Co"rt to be dis'"ali!ed to hold s"ch oLce d"e to his alien citizenship%
and who now claims to have re*ass"med his lost Philippine citizenship thr" repatriation:
+ii/ Ra"l R. Mee% who was the second placer in the canvass% b"t who claims that the votes cast in favor of
#rivaldo sho"ld be considered void: that the electorate sho"ld be deemed to have intentionally thrown
away their ballots: and that legally% he sec"red the most n"mber of valid votes: or
+iii/ (he inc"mbent Sice*Hovernor% @scar H. 4eri% who obvio"sly was not voted directly to the position of
governor% b"t who according to prevailing $"rispr"dence sho"ld ta&e over the said post inasm"ch as% by
the ineligibility of #rivaldo% a Kpermanent vacancy in the contested oLce has occ"rredK
n r"ling for #rivaldo% the Co"rt lays down new doctrines on repatriation% clari!es<
reiterates<ampli!es e2isting $"rispr"dence on citizenship and elections% and "pholds the s"periority of
s"bstantial $"stice over p"re legalisms.
G .R . No . 1"/7##
A special civil action "nder R"les =- and -G of the R"les of Co"rt for certiorari and preliminary
in$"nction to review and ann"l a Resol"tion of the respondent C@MEMEC #irst 4ivision%

prom"lgated on
4ecember 0>% 0>>- and another Resol"tion of the Comelec en banc prom"lgated #ebr"ary ,;% 0>>=


denying petitionerNs motion for reconsideration.
G .R . No . 1":"9#
(his is a petition to ann"l three Resol"tions of the respondent Comelec% the !rst two of which are
also at iss"e in H.R. Bo. 0,;F--% as follows7
0. Resol"tion of the Second 4ivision% prom"lgated on May 0% 0>>-% dis'"alifying #rivaldo from r"nning for
governor of Sorsogon in the May G% 0>>- elections Kon the gro"nd that he is not a citizen of the
PhilippinesK:
,. Resol"tion of the Comelec en banc% prom"lgated on May 00% 0>>-: and
;. Resol"tion of the Comelec en banc% prom"lgated also on May 00% 0>>- s"spending the proclamation of%
among others% #rivaldo.
'acts&
@n March ,1% 0>>-% private respondent 3"an H. #rivaldo !led his Certi!cate of Candidacy for the
oLce of Hovernor of Sorsogon in the May G% 0>>- elections. @n March ,;% 0>>-% petitioner Ra"l R. Mee%
another candidate% !led a petition

with the Comelec praying that #rivaldo Kbe dis'"ali!ed from see&ing or
holding any p"blic oLce or position by reason of not yet being a citizen of the PhilippinesK% and that his
Certi!cate of Candidacy be cancelled. @n May 0% 0>>-% the Second 4ivision of the Comelec granted the
petition and declared that respondent is 4SUCAM#E4 to r"n for the @Lce of Hovernor of Sorsogon on the
gro"nd that he is B@( a citizen of the Philippines. Accordingly% respondentNs certi!cate of candidacy is
cancelled.
Page 17 of 98
(he Motion for Reconsideration !led by #rivaldo remained "nacted "pon "ntil after the May G% 0>>-
elections. So% his candidacy contin"ed and he was voted for d"ring the elections held on said date. @n May
00% 0>>-% the Comelec en banc

aLrmed the aforementioned Resol"tion of the Second 4ivision.
(he Provincial Eoard of Canvassers completed the canvass of the election ret"rns and a Certi!cate
of Sotes dated May ,F% 0>>- was iss"ed showing the following votes obtained by the candidates for the
position of Hovernor of Sorsogon7
Antonio H. Esc"dero% 3r. -0%1=1
3"an H. #rivaldo F;%??1
Ra"l R. Mee -;%;1?
sagani P. @campo 0%>,-
Mee !led a s"pplemental petition praying for his proclamation as the d"ly*elected Hovernor of
Sorsogon. n an order

dated 3"ne ,0% 0>>-% b"t prom"lgated according to the petition Konly on 3"ne ,>%
0>>-%K the Comelec en banc directed Kthe Provincial Eoard of Canvassers of Sorsogon to reconvene for the
p"rpose of proclaiming candidate Ra"l Mee as the winning g"bernatorial candidate in the province of
Sorsogon on 3"ne ,>% 0>>- . . .K Accordingly% at G7;1 in the evening of 3"ne ;1% 0>>-% Mee was proclaimed
governor of Sorsogon.
@n 3"ly =% 0>>-% #rivaldo !led with the Comelec a new petition%

praying for the ann"lment of the
3"ne ;1% 0>>- proclamation of Mee and for his own proclamation. He alleged that on 3"ne ;1% 0>>-% at ,711
in the afternoon% he too& his oath of allegiance as a citizen of the Philippines after Khis petition for
repatriation "nder P.4. F,- which he !led with the Special Committee on Bat"ralization in September 0>>?
had been grantedK. As s"ch% when Kthe said order was released and received by #rivaldo on 3"ne ;1% 0>>-
at -7;1 oNcloc& in the evening% there was no more legal impediment to the proclamation of #rivaldo as
governor . . .K n the alternative% he averred that p"rs"ant to the two cases of Labo vs. !omelec% the Sice*
Hovernor * not Mee * sho"ld occ"py said position of governor.
@n 4ecember 0>% 0>>-% the Comelec #irst 4ivision prom"lgated the herein assailed Resol"tion
holding that Mee% Knot having garnered the highest n"mber of votes%K was not legally entitled to be
proclaimed as d"ly*elected governor: the proclamation of Mee sho"ld be ann"lled: and that #rivaldo%
Khaving garnered the highest n"mber of votes% and having reac'"ired his #ilipino citizenship by
repatriation on 3"ne ;1% 0>>- "nder the provisions of Presidential 4ecree Bo. F,- is '"ali!ed to hold the
oLce of governor of SorsogonK
@n 4ecember ,=% 0>>-% Mee !led a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the Comelec en
banc. @n #ebr"ary ,=% 0>>=% the present petition was !led. Acting on the prayer for a (R@% this Co"rt
iss"ed on #ebr"ary ,F% 0>>= a Resol"tion which inter alia directed the parties Kto maintain the status "uo
prevailing prior to the !ling of this petition.K
Mee assailsthat7
#irst ** (he initiatory petition below was so far ins"Lcient in form and s"bstance to warrant the e2ercise by
the C@MEMEC of its $"risdiction with the res"lt that% in e8ect% the C@MEMEC acted witho"t $"risdiction in
ta&ing cognizance of and deciding said petition:
Second $$ (he $"dicially declared dis'"ali!cation of respondent was a contin"ing condition and rendered
him ineligible to r"n for% to be elected to and to hold the @Lce of Hovernor:
%hird $$ (he alleged repatriation of respondent was neither valid nor is the e8ect thereof retroactive as to
c"re his ineligibility and '"alify him to hold the @Lce of Hovernor: and
Page 18 of 98
#ourth ** (he Mabo 4octrine f"lly s"pports the validity of petitionerNs proclamation as d"ly elected Hovernor
of Sorsogon.
#rivaldo assails the above*mentioned resol"tions on a di8erent gro"nd7 that "nder Section FG of the
@mnib"s Election Code7
Sec. FG. &etition to deny due course or to cancel a certi'cate of candidacy. ** A veri!ed
petition see&ing to deny d"e co"rse or to cancel a certi!cate of candidacy may be !led by
any person e2cl"sively on the gro"nd that any material representation contained therein as
re'"ired "nder Section F? hereof is false. (he petition may be !led at any time not later
than twenty*!ve days from the time of the !ling of the certi!cate of candidacy and shall be
decided% after notice and hearing% not later than 'fteen days before the election. +Emphasis
s"pplied./
the Comelec had no $"risdiction to iss"e said Resol"tions beca"se they were not rendered Kwithin the
period allowed by lawK i.e.% Knot later than !fteen days before the election.K
@therwise stated% #rivaldo contends that the fail"re of the Comelec to act on the petition for
dis'"ali!cation within the period of !fteen days prior to the election as provided by law is a $"risdictional
defect which renders the said Resol"tions n"ll and void.
+ss=es&
0. Aas the repatriation of #rivaldo valid and legalO f so% did it seasonably c"re his lac& of citizenship as to
'"alify him to be proclaimed and to hold the @Lce of HovernorO f not% may it be given retroactive e8ectO
f so% from whenO
,. s #rivaldoNs K$"dicially declaredK dis'"ali!cation for lac& of #ilipino citizenship a contin"ing bar to his
eligibility to r"n for% be elected to or hold the governorship of SorsogonO
;. 4id the respondent Comelec have $"risdiction over the initiatory petition in SPC Bo. >-*;0F considering
that said petition is not Ka pre*proclamation case% an election protest or a "uo warranto caseKO
?. Aas the proclamation of Mee% a r"nner*"p in the election% valid and legal in light of e2isting
$"rispr"denceO
-. 4id the respondent C@MEMEC e2ceed its $"risdiction in prom"lgating the assailed Resol"tions% all of
which prevented #rivaldo from ass"ming the governorship of Sorsogon% considering that they were not
rendered within the period referred to in Section FG of the @mnib"s Election Code% vi(.% Knot later than
!fteen days before the electionsKO
R,L+NG&
)7e '$rst +ss=e & 'r$valdo?s Repatr$at$on
(he validity and e8ectivity of #rivaldoNs repatriation is the lis mota% the threshold legal iss"e in this
case. All the other matters raised are secondary to this.
(he Mocal Hovernment Code of 0>>0 e2pressly re'"ires Philippine citizenship as a '"ali!cation for
elective local oLcials% incl"ding that of provincial governor% th"s7
Sec. ;>. )uali'cations. ** +a/ An elective local oLcial m"st be a citizen of the Philippines: a
registered voter in the barangay% m"nicipality% city% or province or% in the case of a member
of the sangg"niang panlalawigan% sangg"niang panl"ngsod% or sangg"niang bayan% the
district where he intends to be elected: a resident therein for at least one +0/ year
Page 19 of 98
immediately preceding the day of the election: and able to read and write #ilipino or any
other local lang"age or dialect.
+b/ Candidates for the position of governor% vice governor or member of the
sangg"niang panlalawigan% or mayor% vice mayor or member of the
sangg"niang panl"ngsod of highly "rbanized cities m"st be at least twenty*
three +,;/ years of age on election day.
nasm"ch as #rivaldo had been declared by this Co"rt as a non*citizen% it is therefore inc"mbent
"pon him to show that he has reac'"ired citizenship: in !ne% that he possesses the '"ali!cations
prescribed "nder the said stat"te +R.A. F0=1/.
Cnder Philippine law% citizenship may be reac'"ired by direct act of Congress% by nat"ralization or
by repatriation. #rivaldo told this Co"rt in H.R. Bo. 01?=-? and d"ring the oral arg"ment in this case that
he tried to res"me his citizenship by direct act of !ongress% b"t that the bill allowing him to do so Kfailed to
materialize% notwithstanding the endorsement of several members of the Ho"se of RepresentativesK d"e%
according to him% to the Kmane"vers of his political rivals.K n the same case% his attempt at naturali(ation
was re$ected by this Co"rt beca"se of $"risdictional% s"bstantial and proced"ral defects.
4espite his lac& of Philippine citizenship% #rivaldo was overwhelmingly elected governor by the
electorate of Sorsogon% with a margin of ,F%111 votes in the 0>GG elections% -F%111 in 0>>,% and ,1%111 in
0>>- over the same opponent Ra"l Mee. (wice% he was $"dicially declared a non*#ilipino and th"s twice
dis'"ali!ed from holding and discharging his pop"lar mandate. Bow% he comes to "s a third time% with a
fresh vote from the people of Sorsogon and a favorable decision from the C@MEMEC to boot. Moreover% he
now boasts of having s"ccessf"lly passed thro"gh the third and last mode of reac'"iring citizenship7 by
repatriation "nder P.4. Bo. F,-% with no less than the Solicitor Heneral himself% who was the prime
opposing co"nsel in the previo"s cases he lost% this time% as co"nsel for co*respondent Comelec% arg"ing
the validity of his ca"se +in addition to his able private co"nsel Si2to S. Erillantes% 3r./. (hat he too& his oath
of allegiance "nder the provisions of said 4ecree at ,711 p.m. on 3"ne ;1% 0>>- is not disp"ted. Hence% he
insists that he ** not Mee ** sho"ld have been proclaimed as the d"ly*elected governor of Sorsogon when
the Provincial Eoard of Canvassers met at G7;1 p.m. on the said date since% clearly and "n'"estionably% he
garnered the highest n"mber of votes in the elections and since at that time% he already reac'"ired his
citizenship.
*n contrario% Mee arg"es that #rivaldoNs repatriation is tainted with serio"s defects% which we shall
now disc"ss in seriatim.
#irst% Mee tells "s that P.4. Bo. F,- had Kbeen e8ectively repealedK% asserting that Kthen President
Corazon A'"ino e2ercising legislative powers "nder the (ransitory Provisions of the 0>GF Constit"tion%
forbade the grant of citizenship by Presidential 4ecree or E2ec"tive ss"ances as the same poses a serio"s
and contentio"s iss"e of policy which the present government% in the e2ercise of pr"dence and so"nd
discretion% sho"ld best leave to the $"dgment of the !rst Congress "nder the 0>GF Constit"tionK% adding
that in her memorand"m dated March ,F% 0>GF to the members of the Special Committee on
Bat"ralization constit"ted for p"rposes of P.4. F,-% President A'"ino directed them Kto cease and desist
from "nderta&ing any and all proceedings within yo"r f"nctional area of responsibility as de!ned "nder
Metter of nstr"ctions +M@/ Bo. ,F1 dated April 00% 0>F-% as amended.K

(his memorand"m dated March ,F% 0>GF

cannot by any stretch of legal hermene"tics be constr"ed
as a law sanctioning or a"thorizing a repeal of P.4. Bo. F,-. Maws are repealed only by s"bse'"ent ones
and a repeal may be e2press or implied. t is obvio"s that no e+press repeal was made beca"se then
President A'"ino in her memorand"m ** based on the copy f"rnished "s by Mee ** did not categorically
and<or impliedly state that P.4. F,- was being repealed or was being rendered witho"t any legal e8ect. n
fact% she did not even mention it speci!cally by its n"mber or te2t. @n the other hand% it is a basic r"le of
stat"tory constr"ction that repeals by implication are not favored. An implied repeal will not be allowed
K"nless it is convincingly and "nambig"o"sly demonstrated that the two laws are clearly rep"gnant and
patently inconsistent that they cannot co*e2istK.

Page ": of 98
(he memorand"m of then President A'"ino cannot even be regarded as a legislative enactment% for
not every prono"ncement of the Chief E2ec"tive even "nder the (ransitory Provisions of the 0>GF
Constit"tion can nor sho"ld be regarded as an e2ercise of her law*ma&ing powers. At best% it co"ld be
treated as an e2ec"tive policy addressed to the Special Committee to halt the acceptance and processing
of applications for repatriation pending whatever K$"dgment the !rst Congress "nder the 0>GF
Constit"tionK might ma&e. n other words% the former President did not repeal P.4. F,- b"t left it to the !rst
Congress ** once created ** to deal with the matter. f she had intended to repeal s"ch law% she sho"ld have
"ne'"ivocally said so instead of referring the matter to Congress. (he fact is she caref"lly co"ched her
presidential iss"ance in terms that clearly indicated the intention of Kthe present government% in the
e2ercise of pr"dence and so"nd discretionK to leave the matter of repeal to the new Congress. Any other
interpretation of the said Presidential Memorand"m% s"ch as is now being pro8ered to the Co"rt by Mee%
wo"ld visit "nmitigated violence not only "pon stat"tory constr"ction b"t on common sense as well.
Second% Mee also arg"es that Kserio"s congenital irreg"larities Pawed the repatriation proceedings%K
asserting that #rivaldoNs application therefor was K!led on 3"ne ,>% 0>>- and was approved in $"st one day
or on 3"ne ;1% 0>>- K% which Kprevented a $"dicio"s review and eval"ation of the merits thereof.K #rivaldo
co"nters that he !led his application for repatriation with the @Lce of the President in MalacaJang Palace
on A"g"st 0F% 0>>?. (his is con!rmed by the Solicitor Heneral. However% the Special Committee was
reactivated only on 3"ne G% 0>>-% when pres"mably the said Committee started processing his application.
@n 3"ne ,>% 0>>-% he !lled "p and re*s"bmitted the #@RM that the Committee re'"ired. Cnder these
circ"mstances% it co"ld not be said that there was Kindecent hasteK in the processing of his application.
Anent MeeNs charge that the Ks"dden reconstit"tion of the Special Committee on Bat"ralization was
intended solely for the personal interest of respondent%K the Solicitor Heneral e2plained d"ring the oral
arg"ment on March 0>% 0>>= that s"ch allegation is simply baseless as there were many others who
applied and were considered for repatriation% a list of whom was s"bmitted by him to this Co"rt% thro"gh a
Manifestation

!led on April ;% 0>>=.
@n the basis of the partiesN s"bmissions% we are convinced that the pres"mption of reg"larity in the
performance of oLcial d"ty and the pres"mption of legality in the repatriation of #rivaldo have not been
s"ccessf"lly reb"tted by Mee. (he mere fact that the proceedings were speeded "p is by itself not a gro"nd
to concl"de that s"ch proceedings were necessarily tainted. After all% the re'"irements of repatriation
"nder P.4. Bo. F,- are not diLc"lt to comply with% nor are they tedio"s and c"mbersome. n fact% P.4. F,-

itself re'"ires very little of an applicant% and even the r"les and reg"lations to implement the said decree
were left to the Special Committee to prom"lgate. (his is not "n"s"al since% "nli&e in nat"ralization where
an alien covets a 'rst$time entry into Philippine political life% in repatriation the applicant is a former
nat"ral*born #ilipino who is merely see&ing to reac'"ire his previo"s citizenship. n the case of #rivaldo% he
was "ndo"btedly a nat"ral*born citizen who openly and faithf"lly served his co"ntry and his province prior
to his nat"ralization in the Cnited States ** a nat"ralization he insists was made necessary only to escape
the iron cl"tches of a dictatorship he abhorred and co"ld not in conscience embrace ** and who% after the
fall of the dictator and the re*establishment of democratic space% wasted no time in ret"rning to his
co"ntry of birth to o8er once more his talent and services to his people.
So too% the fact that ten other persons% as certi!ed to by the Solicitor Heneral% were granted
repatriation arg"es convincingly and concl"sively against the e2istence of favoritism vehemently posited
by Ra"l Mee. At any rate% any contest on the legality of #rivaldoNs repatriation sho"ld have been p"rs"ed
before the Committee itself% and% failing there% in the @Lce of the President% p"rs"ant to the doctrine of
e2ha"stion of administrative remedies.
%hird% Mee f"rther contends that ass"ming the assailed repatriation to be valid% nevertheless it co"ld
only be e8ective as at ,711 p.m. of 3"ne ;1% 0>>- whereas the citizenship '"ali!cation prescribed by the
Mocal Hovernment Code Km"st e2ist on the date of his election% if not when the certi!cate of candidacy is
!led%K citing o"r decision in H.R. 01?=-? which held that Kboth the Mocal Hovernment Code and the
Constit"tion re'"ire that only Philippine citizens can run and be elected to public o,ce.K @bvio"sly%
however% this was a mere obiter as the only iss"e in said case was whether #rivaldoNs nat"ralization was
valid or not ** and B@( the e8ective date thereof. Since the Co"rt held his nat"ralization to be invalid% then
the iss"e of when an aspirant for p"blic oLce sho"ld be a citizen was B@( resolved at all by the Co"rt.
Ahich '"estion we shall now directly r"le on.
Page "1 of 98
Cnder Sec. ;> of the Mocal Hovernment Code% K+a/n elective local oLcial m"st be7
V a citizen of the Philippines:
V a registered voter in the barangay% m"nicipality% city% or province . . . where he intends to
be elected:
V a resident therein for at least one +0/ year immediately preceding the day of the election:
V able to read and write #ilipino or any other local lang"age or dialect.
V n addition% Kcandidates for the position of governor . . . m"st be at least twenty*three +,;/
years of age on election day.
#rom the above% it will be noted that the law does not specify any partic"lar date or time when the
candidate m"st possess citizenship% "nli&e that for residence +which m"st consist of at least one year-s
residency immediately preceding the day of election/ and age +at least twenty three years of age on
election day /.
Philippine citizenship is an indispensable re'"irement for holding an elective p"blic oLce%

and the
p"rpose of the citizenship '"ali!cation is none other than to ens"re that no alien% i.e .% no person owing
allegiance to another nation% shall govern o"r people and o"r co"ntry or a "nit of territory thereof. Bow% an
oLcial begins to govern or to discharge his f"nctions only "pon his proclamation and on the day the law
mandates his term of oLce to begin. Since #rivaldo re*ass"med his citizenship on 3"ne ;1% 0>>- ** the very
day

the term of oLce of governor +and other elective oLcials/ began ** he was therefore already '"ali!ed
to be proclaimed% to hold s"ch oLce and to discharge the f"nctions and responsibilities thereof as of said
date. n short% at that time% he was already '"ali!ed to govern his native Sorsogon. (his is the liberal
interpretation that sho"ld give spirit% life and meaning to o"r law on '"ali!cations consistent with the
p"rpose for which s"ch law was enacted. So too% even from a literal +as disting"ished from liberal/
constr"ction% it sho"ld be noted that Section ;> of the Mocal Hovernment Code spea&s of K )uali'cations K of
KEMEC(SE @##CAMSK% not of candidates. Ahy then sho"ld s"ch '"ali!cation be re'"ired at the time of
election or at the time of the !ling of the certi!cates of candidacies% as Mee insistsO Miterally% s"ch
'"ali!cations ** "nless otherwise e2pressly conditioned% as in the case of age and residence ** sho"ld th"s
be possessed when the Kelective Qor electedR oLcialK begins to govern% i.e.% at the time he is proclaimed
and at the start of his term ** in this case% on 3"ne ;1% 0>>-. Paraphrasing this Co"rtNs r"ling in .as"ue( vs.
/iap and Li Seng /iap 0 Sons% if the p"rpose of the citizenship re'"irement is to ens"re that o"r people
and co"ntry do not end "p being governed by aliens% i.e.% persons owing allegiance to another nation% that
aim or p"rpose wo"ld not be thwarted but instead achieved by constr"ing the citizenship '"ali!cation as
applying to the time of proclamation of the elected oLcial and at the start of his term.
E"t perhaps the more diLc"lt ob$ection was the one raised d"ring the oral arg"ment

to the e8ect
that the citizenship '"ali!cation sho"ld be possessed at the time the candidate +or for that matter the
elected oLcial/ registered as a voter. After all% Section ;>% apart from re'"iring the oLcial to be a citizen%
also speci!es as another item of '"ali!cation% that he be a Kregistered voterK. And% "nder the law a KvoterK
m"st be a citizen of the Philippines. So therefore% #rivaldo co"ld not have been a voter ** m"ch less a
validly registered one ** if he was not a citizen at the time of s"ch registration.
(he answer to this problem again lies in discerning the p"rpose of the re'"irement. f the law
intended the citi(enship '"ali!cation to be possessed prior to election consistent with the re'"irement of
being a registered voter% then it wo"ld not have made citizenship a SEPARA(E '"ali!cation. (he law abhors
a red"ndancy. t therefore stands to reason that the law intended C(WEBSHP to be a '"ali!cation distinct
from being a S@(ER% even if being a voter pres"mes being a citizen !rst. t also stands to reason that the
voter re'"irement was incl"ded as another '"ali!cation +aside from KcitizenshipK/% not to reiterate the
need for nationality b"t to re'"ire that the oLcial be registered as a voter B (HE AREA @R (ERR(@RI he
see&s to govern% i.e .% the law states7 Ka registered voter in the barangay% m"nicipality% city% or province . . .
where he intends to be elected.K t sho"ld be emphasized that the Mocal Hovernment Code re'"ires an
elective oLcial to be a registered voter . t does not re'"ire him to vote actually . Hence% registration ** not
Page "" of 98
the act"al voting ** is the core of this K'"ali!cationK. n other words% the lawNs p"rpose in this second
re'"irement is to ens"re that the prospective oLcial is act"ally registered in the area he see&s to govern **
and not anywhere else.
Eefore this Co"rt% #rivaldo has repeatedly emphasized ** and Mee has not disp"ted ** that he Kwas
and is a registered voter of Sorsogon% and his registration as a voter has been s"stained as valid by $"dicial
declaration. n fact% he cast his vote in his precinct on May G% 0>>-.K

So too% d"ring the oral arg"ment% his co"nsel steadfastly maintained that KMr. #rivaldo has always
been a registered voter of Sorsogon. He has voted in 0>GF% 0>GG% 0>>,% then he voted again in 0>>-. n
fact% his eligibility as a voter was '"estioned% b"t the co"rt dismissed his eligibility as a voter and he was
allowed to vote as in fact% he voted in all the previo"s elections incl"ding on May G% 0>>-.K
t is th"s clear that #rivaldo is a registered voter in the province where he intended to be elected.
(here is yet another reason why the prime iss"e of citi(enship sho"ld be rec&oned from the date of
proclamation% not necessarily the date of election or date of !ling of the certi!cate of candidacy. Section
,-; of the @mnib"s Election Code gives any voter% pres"mably incl"ding the defeated candidate% the
opport"nity to '"estion the EMHEM(I +or the disloyalty/ of a candidate. (his is the only provision of the
Code that a"thorizes a remedy on how to contest before the Comelec an inc"mbentNs ineligibility arising
from fail"re to meet the '"ali!cations en"merated "nder Sec. ;> of the Mocal Hovernment Code. S"ch
remedy of )uo 1arranto can be availed of Kwithin ten days after proclamationK of the winning candidate.
Hence% it is only at such time that the iss"e of ineligibility may be ta&en cognizance of by the Commission.
And since% at the very moment of MeeNs proclamation +G7;1 p.m.% 3"ne ;1% 0>>-/% 3"an H. #rivaldo was
already and ind"bitably a citizen% having ta&en his oath of allegiance earlier in the afternoon of the same
day% then he sho"ld have been the candidate proclaimed as he "n'"estionably garnered the highest
n"mber of votes in the immediately preceding elections and s"ch oath had already c"red his previo"s
K$"dicially*declaredK alienage. Hence% at s"ch time% he was no longer ineligible.
E"t to remove all do"bts on this important iss"e% we also hold that the repatriation of #rivaldo
RE(R@AC(E4 to the date of the !ling of his application on A"g"st 0F% 0>>?.
t is tr"e that "nder the Civil Code of the Philippines% Klaws shall have no retroactive e8ect% "nless
the contrary is provided.K E"t there are settled e2ceptions to this general r"le% s"ch as when the stat"te is
CCRA(SE or REME4AM in nat"re or when it CREA(ES BEA RHH(S.
According to (olentino% c"rative stat"tes are those which "nderta&e to c"re errors and irreg"larities%
thereby validating $"dicial or administrative proceedings% acts of p"blic oLcers% or private deeds and
contracts which otherwise would not produce their intended conse"uences by reason of some statutory
disability or failure to comply with some technical re"uirement . (hey operate on conditions already
e2isting% and are necessarily retroactive in operation. Agpalo% on the other hand% says that c"rative
stat"tes are Khealing acts c"ring defects and adding to the means of enforcing e2isting obligations and are
intended to s"pply defects% abridge s"perP"ities in e2isting laws% and c"rb certain evils. Ey their very
nat"re% c"rative stat"tes are retroactive and reach bac& to past events to correct errors or irreg"larities
and to render valid and e8ective attempted acts which wo"ld be otherwise ine8ective for the p"rpose the
parties intended.K
@n the other hand% remedial or proced"ral laws% i.e .% those stat"tes relating to remedies or modes
of proced"re% which do not create new or ta&e away vested rights% b"t only operate in f"rtherance of the
remedy or con!rmation of s"ch rights% ordinarily do not come within the legal meaning of a retrospective
law% nor within the general r"le against the retrospective operation of stat"tes.

A reading of P.4. F,- immediately shows that it creates a new right% and also provides for a new
remedy% thereby !lling certain voids in o"r laws. (h"s% in its preamble% P.4. F,- e2pressly recognizes the
plight of Kmany #ilipino women who had lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliensK and who
co"ld not% "nder the e2isting law +C.A. Bo. =;% as amended/ avail of repatriation "ntil Kafter the death of
their h"sbands or the termination of their marital stat"sK and who co"ld neither be bene!tted by the 0>F;
Page "/ of 98
Constit"tionNs new provision allowing Ka #ilipino woman who marries an alien to retain her Philippine
citizenship . . .K beca"se Ks"ch provision of the new Constit"tion does not apply to #ilipino women who had
married aliens before said constit"tion too& e8ect.K (h"s% P.4. F,- granted a new right to these women **
the right to re*ac'"ire #ilipino citizenship even d"ring their marital covert"re% which right did not e2ist prior
to P.4. F,-. @n the other hand% said stat"te also provided a new remedy and a new right in favor of other
Knat"ral born #ilipinos who +had/ lost their Philippine citizenship b"t now desire to re*ac'"ire Philippine
citizenshipK% beca"se prior to the prom"lgation of P.4. F,- s"ch former #ilipinos wo"ld have had to "ndergo
the tedio"s and c"mbersome process of nat"ralization% b"t with the advent of P.4. F,- they co"ld now re*
ac'"ire their Philippine citizenship "nder the simpli!ed proced"re of repatriation.
(he Solicitor Heneral arg"es7
Ey their very nat"re% c"rative stat"tes are retroactive% +4EP vs. CA% >= SCRA ;?,/% since they
are intended to s"pply defects% abridge s"perP"ities in e2isting laws +4el Castillo vs.
Sec"rities and E2change Commission% >= Phil. 00>/ and c"rb certain evils +Santos vs. 4"ata%
0? SCRA 01?0/.
n this case% P.4. Bo. F,- was enacted to c"re the defect in the e2isting nat"ralization law%
speci!cally C.A. Bo. =; wherein married #ilipino women are allowed to repatriate only "pon
the death of their h"sbands% and nat"ral*born #ilipinos who lost their citizenship by
nat"ralization and other ca"ses faced the diLc"lty of "ndergoing the rigid proced"res of
C.A. =; for reac'"isition of #ilipino citizenship by nat"ralization.
Presidential 4ecree Bo. F,- provided a remedy for the aforementioned legal aberrations and
th"s its provisions are considered essentially remedial and c"rative.
n light of the foregoing% and prescinding from the wording of the preamble% it is "narg"able that the
legislative intent was precisely to give the stat"te retroactive operation. KA retrospective operation is given
to a stat"te or amendment where the intent that it sho"ld so operate clearly appears from a consideration
of the act as a whole% or from the terms thereof.K

t is obvio"s to the Co"rt that the stat"te was meant to
Kreach bac&K to those persons% events and transactions not otherwise covered by prevailing law and
$"rispr"dence. And inasm"ch as it has been held that citizenship is a political and civil right e'"ally as
important as the freedom of speech% liberty of abode% the right against "nreasonable searches and
seiz"res and other g"arantees enshrined in the Eill of Rights% therefore the legislative intent to give
retrospective operation to P.4. F,- m"st be given the f"llest e8ect possible. Kt has been said that a
remedial statute must be so construed as to ma2e it e3ect the evident purpose for which it was enacted%
so that if the reason of the statute e+tends to past transactions% as well as to those in the f"t"re% then it
will be so applied altho"gh the stat"te does not in terms so direct% "nless to do so wo"ld impair some
vested right or violate some constit"tional g"aranty.K

(his is all the more tr"e of P.4. F,-% which did not
specify any restrictions on or delimit or '"alify the right of repatriation granted therein.
At this point% a valid '"estion may be raised7 Ho@ can t7e retroact$v$t< o6 P.-. 7"# !eneAt
'r$valdo cons$der$n8 t7at sa$d la@ @as enacted on %=ne #, 197#, @7$le 'r$valdo lost 7$s '$l$p$no
c$t$zens7$p =c7 later, on %an=ar< ":, 198/, and appl$ed 6or repatr$at$on even later, on (=8=st
17, 1990O
Ahile it is tr"e that the law was already in e8ect at the time that #rivaldo became an American
citizen% nevertheless% it is not only the law itself +P.4. F,-/ which is to be given retroactive e8ect% b"t even
the repatriation granted "nder said law to #rivaldo on 3"ne ;1% 0>>- is to be deemed to have retroacted to
the date of his application therefor% A"g"st 0F% 0>>?. (he reason for this is simply that if% as in this case% it
was the intent of the legislative a"thority that the law sho"ld apply to past events ** i.e .% sit"ations and
transactions e+isting even before the law came into being ** in order to bene!t the greatest n"mber of
former #ilipinos possible thereby enabling them to en$oy and e2ercise the constit"tionally g"aranteed right
of citizenship% and s"ch legislative intention is to be given the f"llest e8ect and e2pression% then there is
all the more reason to have the law apply in a retroactive or retrospective manner to situations, events
and transactions subse"uent to the passage of such law . (hat is% the repatriation granted to #rivaldo on
3"ne ;1% 0>>- can and sho"ld be made to ta&e e8ect as of date of his application. As earlier mentioned%
there is nothing in the law that wo"ld bar this or wo"ld show a contrary intention on the part of the
Page "0 of 98
legislative a"thority: and there is no showing that damage or pre$"dice to anyone% or anything "n$"st or
in$"rio"s wo"ld res"lt from giving retroactivity to his repatriation. Beither has Mee shown that there will
res"lt the impairment of any contract"al obligation% dist"rbance of any vested right or breach of some
constit"tional g"aranty.
Eeing a former #ilipino who has served the people repeatedly% #rivaldo deserves a liberal
interpretation of Philippine laws and whatever defects there were in his nationality sho"ld now be deemed
mooted by his repatriation.
Another arg"ment for retroactivity to the date of !ling is that it wo"ld prevent pre$"dice to
applicants. f P.4. F,- were not to be given retroactive e8ect% and the Special Committee decides not to
act% i.e.% to delay the processing of applications for any s"bstantial length of time% then the former #ilipinos
who may be stateless% as #rivaldo ** having already reno"nced his American citizenship ** was% may be
pre$"diced for ca"ses o"tside their control. (his sho"ld not be. n case of do"bt in the interpretation or
application of laws% it is to be pres"med that the law*ma&ing body intended right and $"stice to prevail.
And as e2perience will show% the Special Committee was able to process% act "pon and grant
applications for repatriation within relatively short spans of time after the same were !led.

(he fact that
s"ch interregna were relatively insigni!cant minimizes the li&elihood of pre$"dice to the government as a
res"lt of giving retroactivity to repatriation. Eesides% to the mind of the Co"rt% direct pre$"dice to the
government is possible only where a personNs repatriation has the e8ect of wiping o"t a liability of his to
the government arising in connection with or as a res"lt of his being an alien% and accr"ing only d"ring the
interregn"m between application and approval% a sit"ation that is not present in the instant case.
And it is b"t right and $"st that the mandate of the people% already twice fr"strated% sho"ld now
prevail. Cnder the circ"mstances% there is nothing "n$"st or ini'"ito"s in treating #rivaldoNs repatriation as
having become e8ective as of the date of his application% i.e.% on A"g"st 0F% 0>>?. (his being so% all
'"estions abo"t his possession of the nationality '"ali!cation ** whether at the date of proclamation +3"ne
;1% 0>>-/ or the date of election +May G% 0>>-/ or date of !ling his certi!cate of candidacy +March ,1%
0>>-/ wo"ld become moot.
Eased on the foregoing% any '"estion regarding #rivaldoNs stat"s as a registered voter wo"ld also be
deemed settled. nasm"ch as he is considered as having been repatriated ** i.e.% his #ilipino citizenship
restored ** as of A"g"st 0F% 0>>?% his previo"s registration as a voter is li&ewise deemed validated as of
said date.
t is not disp"ted that on 3an"ary ,1% 0>G; #rivaldo became an American. ;o=ld t7e retroact$v$t<
o6 7$s repatr$at$on not eBect$vel< 8$ve 7$ d=al c$t$zens7$p, @7$c7 =nder *ec. 0: o6 t7e Local
Governent Code @o=ld d$sC=al$6< 7$ D6ro r=nn$n8 6or an< elect$ve local pos$t$onEK Ae
answer this '"estion in the negative% as there is cogent reason to hold that #rivaldo was really S(A(EMESS
at the time he too& said oath of allegiance and even before that% when he ran for governor in 0>GG. n his
Comment% #rivaldo wrote that he Khad long reno"nced and had long abandoned his American citizenship **
long before May G% 0>>-. At best% #rivaldo was stateless in the interim ** when he abandoned and
reno"nced his CS citizenship b"t before he was repatriated to his #ilipino citizenship.K
@n this point% we '"ote from the assailed Resol"tion dated 4ecember 0>% 0>>-7
Ey the laws of the Cnited States% petitioner #rivaldo lost his American citizenship when he
too& his oath of allegiance to the Philippine Hovernment when he ran for Hovernor in 0>GG%
in 0>>,% and in 0>>-. Every certi!cate of candidacy contains an oath of allegiance to the
Philippine Hovernment.K
(hese fact"al !ndings that #rivaldo has lost his foreign nationality long before the elections of 0>>-
have not been e8ectively reb"tted by Mee. #"rthermore% it is basic that s"ch !ndings of the Commission
are concl"sive "pon this Co"rt% absent any showing of capricio"sness or arbitrariness or ab"se.
)7e *econd +ss=e & +s Lac9 o6 C$t$zens7$p a Cont$n=$n8 -$sC=al$Acat$onE
Page "# of 98
Ae do not agree.
t sho"ld be noted that o"r !rst r"ling in H.R. Bo. GF0>; dis'"alifying #rivaldo was rendered in
connection with the 0>GG elections while that in H.R. Bo. 01?=-? was in connection with the 0>>,
elections. (hat he was dis'"ali!ed for s"ch elections is !nal and can no longer be changed. n the words of
the respondent Commission +Second 4ivision/ in its assailed Resol"tion7

(he records show that the Honorable S"preme Co"rt had decided that #rivaldo was not a
#ilipino citizen and th"s dis'"ali!ed for the p"rpose of the 0>GG and 0>>, elections.
However% there is no record of any K!nal $"dgmentK of the dis'"ali!cation of #rivaldo as a
candidate for the May G% 0>>- elections. Ahat the Commission said in its @rder of 3"ne ,0%
0>>- +implemented on 4une 56, 7889/% directing the proclamation of Ra"l R. Mee% was that
#rivaldo was not a #ilipino citizen Khaving been declared by the Supreme !ourt in its :rder
dated March ;9, 7889, not a citi(en of the &hilippines.K (his declaration of the S"preme
Co"rt% however% was in connection with the 0>>, elections.
ndeed% decisions declaring the ac'"isition or denial of citizenship cannot govern a personNs f"t"re
stat"s with !nality. (his is beca"se a person may s"bse'"ently reac'"ire% or for that matter lose% his
citizenship "nder any of the modes recognized by law for the p"rpose. Hence% in Lee vs. !ommissioner of
<mmigration% we held7
Everytime the citizenship of a person is material or indispensable in a $"dicial or
administrative case% whatever the corresponding co"rt or administrative a"thority decides
therein as to s"ch citizenship is generally not considered res =udicata % hence it has to be
threshed o"t again and again% as the occasion demands.
>ote? on the %hird <ssue: !omelec-s 4urisdiction :ver %he &etition in S&! >o. 89$57@
Mee also avers that respondent Comelec had no $"risdiction to entertain the petition in SPC Bo. >-*
;0F beca"se the only Kpossible types of proceedings that may be entertained by the Comelec are a pre*
proclamation case% an election protest or a "uo warranto caseK. Again% Mee reminds "s that he was
proclaimed on 3"ne ;1% 0>>- b"t that #rivaldo !led SPC Bo. >-*;0F '"estioning his MeeNs proclamation only
on 3"ly =% 0>>- ** Kbeyond the -*day reglementary period.K Hence% according to him% #rivaldoNs Kreco"rse
was to !le either an election protest or a "uo warranto action.K
(his arg"ment is not meritorio"s. (he Constit"tion

has given the Comelec ample power to Ke2ercise
e2cl"sive original $"risdiction over all contests relating to the elections% ret"rns and '"ali!cations of all
elective . . . provincial . . . oLcials.K nstead of dwelling at length on the vario"s petitions that Comelec% in
the e2ercise of its constit"tional prerogatives% may entertain% s"Lce it to say that this Co"rt has invariably
recognized the CommissionNs a"thority to hear and decide petitions for ann"lment of proclamations ** of
which SPC Bo. >-*;0F obvio"sly is one. (h"s% in Mentang vs. !:M*L*!%

we r"led7
(he petitioner arg"es that after proclamation and ass"mption of oLce% a pre*proclamation
controversy is no longer viable. ndeed% we are aware of cases holding that pre*proclamation
controversies may no longer be entertained by the C@MEMEC after the winning candidate
has been proclaimed. +citing Hallardo vs. Rimando% 0GF SCRA ?=;: Salvacion vs. C@MEMEC%
0F1 SCRA -0;: Casimiro vs. C@MEMEC% 0F0 SCRA ?=G./ (his r"le% however% is premised on an
ass"mption that the proclamation is no proclamation at all and the proclaimed candidateNs
ass"mption of oLce cannot deprive the C@MEMEC of the power to ma&e s"ch declaration of
n"llity. +citing Ag"am vs. C@MEMEC% ,; SCRA GG;: Agbayani vs. C@MEMEC% 0G= SCRA ?G?./
(he Co"rt however ca"tioned that s"ch power to ann"l a proclamation m"st Kbe done within ten
+01/ days following the proclamation.K nasm"ch as #rivaldoNs petition was !led only si2 +=/ days after MeeNs
proclamation% there is no '"estion that the Comelec correctly ac'"ired $"risdiction over the same.
>ote on %he #ourth <ssue7 1as Lee-s &roclamation .alidA
Page "6 of 98
#irst. (o paraphrase this Co"rt in Labo vs. !:M*L*!%

Kthe fact remains that he +Mee/ was not the
choice of the sovereign will%K and in B"uino vs. !:M*L*!%

Mee is Ka second placer% . . . $"st that% a second
placer.K
n spite of this% Mee anchors his claim to the governorship on the prono"ncement of this Co"rt in the
aforesaid Mabo case% as follows7
(he r"le wo"ld have been di8erent if the electorate f"lly aware in fact and in law of a
candidateNs dis'"ali!cation so as to bring s"ch awareness within the realm of notoriety%
wo"ld nonetheless cast their votes in favor of the ineligible candidate. n s"ch case% the
electorate may be said to have waived the validity and eLcacy of their votes by notorio"sly
misapplying their franchise or throwing away their votes% in which case% the eligible
candidate obtaining the ne2t higher n"mber of votes may be deemed elected.
E"t s"ch holding is '"ali!ed by the ne2t paragraph% th"s7
E"t this is not the sit"ation obtaining in the instant disp"te. t has not been shown% and none
was alleged% that petitioner Mabo was notorio"sly &nown as an ineligible candidate% m"ch
less the electorate as having &nown of s"ch fact. @n the contrary% petitioner Mabo was even
allowed by no less than the Comelec itself in its resol"tion dated May 01% 0>>, to be voted
for the oLce of the city Payor as its resol"tion dated May >% 0>>, denying d"e co"rse to
petitioner MaboNs certi!cate of candidacy had not yet become !nal and s"b$ect to the !nal
o"tcome of this case.
(he last*'"oted paragraph in Labo% "nfort"nately for Mee% is the r"ling appropriate in this case
beca"se #rivaldo was in 0>>- in an identical sit"ation as Mabo was in 0>>, when the ComelecNs
cancellation of his certi!cate of candidacy was not yet !nal on election day as there was in both cases a
pending motion for reconsideration% for which reason Comelec iss"ed an +omnib"s/ resol"tion declaring
that #rivaldo +li&e Mabo in 0>>,/ and several others can still be voted for in the May G% 0>>- election% as in
fact% he was.
#"rthermore% there has been no s"Lcient evidence presented to show that the electorate of
Sorsogon was Kf"lly aware in fact and in lawK of #rivaldoNs alleged dis'"ali!cation as to Kbring s"ch
awareness within the realm of notoriety:K in other words% that the voters intentionally wasted their ballots
&nowing that% in spite of their voting for him% he was ineligible. f Labo has any relevance at all% it is that
the vice*governor ** and not Mee ** sho"ld be pro* claimed% since in losing the election% Mee was% to
paraphrase Labo again% Kobvio"sly not the choice of the peopleK of Sorsogon. (his is the emphatic teaching
of Labo7
(he r"le% therefore% is7 the ineligibility of a candidate receiving ma$ority votes does not
entitle the eligible candidate receiving the ne2t highest n"mber of votes to be declared
elected. A minority or defeated candidate cannot be deemed elected to the oLce.
Second. As we have earlier declared #rivaldo to have seasonably reac'"ired his citizenship and
inasm"ch as he obtained the highest n"mber of votes in the 0>>- elections% he ** not Mee ** sho"ld be
proclaimed. Hence% MeeNs proclamation was patently erroneo"s and sho"ld now be corrected.
>ote on %he #ifth <ssue7 <s Section @C of the *lection !ode MandatoryA
#rivaldo claims that the assailed Resol"tion of the Comelec +Second 4ivision/ dated May 0% 0>>-
and the con!rmatory en banc Resol"tion of May 00% 0>>- dis'"alifying him for want of citizenship sho"ld
be ann"lled beca"se they were rendered beyond the !fteen +0-/ day period prescribed by Section FG% of
the @mnib"s Election Code which reads as follows7
Sec. FG. &etition to deny due course or to cancel a certi'cate of candidacy. ** A veri!ed
petition see&ing to deny d"e co"rse or to cancel a certi!cate of candidacy may be !led by
any person e2cl"sively on the gro"nd that any material representation contained therein as
Page "7 of 98
re'"ired "nder Section F? hereof is false. (he petition may be !led at any time not later
than twenty*!ve days from the time of the !ling of the certi!cate of candidacy and shall be
decided after notice and hearing% not later than 'fteen days before the election. +Emphasis
s"pplied./
(his claim is now moot and academic inasm"ch as these resol"tions are deemed s"perseded by the
s"bse'"ent ones iss"ed by the Commission +#irst 4ivision/ on 4ecember 0>% 0>>-% aLrmed en banc on
#ebr"ary ,;% 0>>=: which both "pheld his election. At any rate% it is obvio"s that Section FG is merely
directory as Section = of R.A. Bo. ==?= a"thorizes the Commission to try and decide petitions for
dis'"ali!cations even after the elections% th"s7
Sec. =. *3ect of Dis"uali'cation !ase. ** Any candidate who has been declared by !nal
$"dgment to be dis'"ali!ed shall not be voted for% and the votes cast for him shall not be
co"nted. <f for any reason a candidate is not declared by 'nal =udgment before an election
to be dis"uali'ed and he is voted for and receives the winning number of votes in such
election, the !ourt or !ommission shall continue with the trial and hearing of the action,
in"uiry or protest and upon motion of the complainant or any intervenor, may during the
pendency thereof order the suspension of the proclamation of such candidate whenever the
evidence of his guilt is strong. +emphasis s"pplied/
>ote? Refutation of Mr. 4ustice Davide-s Dissent
n his dissenting opinion% the esteemed Mr. 3"stice Hilario H. 4avide% 3r. arg"es that President
A'"inoNs memorand"m dated March ,F% 0>GF sho"ld be viewed as a s"spension +not a repeal% as "rged by
Mee/ of P.4. F,-. E"t whether it decrees a s"spension or a repeal is a p"rely academic distinction beca"se
the said iss"ance is not a stat"te that can amend or abrogate an e2isting law.
(he e2istence and s"bsistence of P.4. F,- were recognized in the !rst #rivaldo case:

vi(.% K+"/nder
CA Bo. =; as amended by CA Bo. ?F; and &.D. >o. @;9% Philippine citizenship maybe reac'"ired by . . .
repatriationK. He also contends that by allowing #rivaldo to register and to remain as a registered voter% the
Comelec and in e8ect this Co"rt abetted a Kmoc&eryK of o"r two previo"s $"dgments declaring him a non*
citizen. Ae do not see s"ch abetting or moc&ery. (he retroactivity of his repatriation% as disc"ssed earlier%
legally c"red whatever defects there may have been in his registration as a voter for the p"rpose of the
0>>- elections. S"ch retroactivity did not change his dis'"ali!cations in 0>GG and 0>>,% which were the
s"b$ects of s"ch previo"s r"lings.
Mr. 3"stice 4avide also believes that )uo 1arranto is not the sole remedy to '"estion the
ineligibility of a candidate% citing the ComelecNs a"thority "nder Section FG of the @mnib"s Election Code
allowing the denial of a certi!cate of candidacy on the gro"nd of a false material representation therein as
re'"ired by Section F?. Citing Moong% he then states his disagreement with o"r holding that Section FG is
merely directory. Ae really have no '"arrel. @"r point is that #rivaldo was in error in his claim in H.R. Bo.
0,1,>- that the Comelec Resol"tions prom"lgated on May 0% 0>>- and May 00% 0>>- were invalid beca"se
they were iss"ed Knot later than !fteen days before the electionK as prescribed by Section FG. n dismissing
the petition in H.R. Bo. 0,1,>-% we hold that the Comelec did not commit grave ab"se of discretion
beca"se KSection = of R.A. ==?= a"thorizes the Comelec to try and decide dis'"ali!cations even after the
elections.K n spite of his disagreement with "s on this point% i.e .% that Section FG Kis merely directoryK% we
note that $"st li&e "s% Mr. 3"stice 4avide nonetheless votes to K4SMSS H.R. Bo. 0,1,>-K. @ne other point.
Loong % as '"oted in the dissent% teaches that a petition to deny d"e co"rse "nder Section FG m"st be 'led
within the ;9$day period prescribed therein. (he present case however deals with the period d"ring which
the Comelec may decide s"ch petition. And we hold that it may be decided even after the 'fteen day
period mentioned in Section FG. Here% we r"le that a decision promulgated by the Comelec even after the
elections is valid b"t Loong held that a petition 'led beyond the ,-*day period is o"t of time. (here is no
inconsistency nor conPict.
Mr. 3"stice 4avide also disagrees with the Co"rtNs holding that% given the "ni'"e fact"al
circ"mstances of #rivaldo% repatriation may be given retroactive e8ect. He arg"es that s"ch retroactivity
Kdil"tesK o"r holding in the !rst #rivaldo case. E"t the !rst +and even the second #rivaldo/ decision did not
directly involve repatriation as a mode of ac'"iring citizenship. f we may repeat% there is no '"estion that
Page "8 of 98
#rivaldo was not a #ilipino for p"rposes of determining his '"ali!cations in the 0>GG and 0>>, elections.
(hat is settled. E"t his s"pervening repatriation has changed his political stat"s ** not in 0>GG or 0>>,% b"t
only in the 0>>- elections.
@"r learned colleag"e also disp"tes o"r holding that #rivaldo was stateless prior to his repatriation%
saying that Kinformal ren"nciation or abandonment is not a gro"nd to lose American citizenshipK. Since o"r
co"rts are charged only with the d"ty of determining who are Philippine nationals% we cannot r"le on the
legal '"estion of who are or who are not Americans. +t $s !as$c $n $nternat$onal la@ t7at a *tate
deter$nes .NL2 t7ose @7o are $ts o@n c$t$zens -- not @7o are t7e c$t$zens o6 ot7er co=ntr$es.
(he iss"e here is7 the Comelec made a !nding of fact that #rivaldo was stateless and s"ch !nding has not
been shown by Mee to be arbitrary or whimsical. (h"s% following settled case law% s"ch !nding is binding
and !nal.
(he dissenting opinion also s"bmits that Mee who lost by chasmic margins to #rivaldo in all three
previo"s elections% sho"ld be declared winner beca"se K#rivaldoNs ineligibility for being an American was
p"blicly &nownK. #irst% there is absol"tely no empirical evidence for s"ch Kp"blicK &nowledge. Second% even
if there is% s"ch &nowledge can be tr"e post facto only of the last two previo"s elections. (hird% even the
Comelec and now this Co"rt were<are still deliberating on his nationality before% d"ring and after the 0>>-
elections. How then can there be s"ch Kp"blicK &nowledgeO
Mr. 3"stice 4avide s"bmits that Section ;> of the Mocal Hovernment Code refers to the '"ali!cations
of elective local oLcials% i.e.% candidates% and not elected oLcials% and that the citizenship '"ali!cation
Q"nder par. +a/ of that sectionR m"st be possessed by candidates% not merely at the commencement of the
term% b"t by election day at the latest. Ae see it di8erently. Section ;>% par. +a/ thereof spea&s of Kelective
local oLcialK while par. +b/ to +f/ refer to KcandidatesK. f the '"ali!cations "nder par. +a/ were intended to
apply to KcandidatesK and not elected oLcials% the legislat"re wo"ld have said so% instead of di8erentiating
par. +a/ from the rest of the paragraphs. Secondly% if Congress had meant that the citizenship '"ali!cation
sho"ld be possessed at election day or prior thereto% it wo"ld have speci!cally stated s"ch detail% the same
way it did in pars. +b/ to +f/ far other '"ali!cations of candidates for governor% mayor% etc.
Mr. 3"stice 4avide also '"estions the giving of retroactive e8ect to #rivaldoNs repatriation on the
gro"nd% among others% that the law speci!cally provides that it is only after ta&ing the oath of allegiance
that applicants shall be deemed to have reac'"ired Philippine citizenship. Ae do not '"estion what the
provision states. Ae hold however that the provision sho"ld be "nderstood th"s7 that after ta2ing the oath
of allegiance the applicant is deemed to have reac"uired &hilippine citi(enship, which reac"uisition Dor
repatriationE is deemed for all purposes and intents to have retroacted to the date of his application
therefor.
n any event% o"r Kso tooK arg"ment regarding the literal meaning of the word KelectiveK in
reference to Section ;> of the Mocal A"thority Code% as well as regarding Mr. 3"stice 4avideNs thesis that the
very wordings of P.4. F,- s"ggest non*retroactivity% were already ta&en "p rather e2tensively earlier in this
4ecision.
Mr. 3"stice 4avide caps his paper with a clarion call7 K(his Co"rt m"st be the !rst to "phold the R"le
of Maw.K Ae agree ** we m"st all follow the r"le of law. E"t that is B@( the iss"e here. (he iss"e is how
sho"ld the law be interpreted and applied in this case so it can be followed% so it can r"leX
At balance% the '"estion really boils down to a choice of philosophy and perception of how to
interpret and apply laws relating to elections7 literal or liberal: the letter or the spirit% the na&ed provision
or its "ltimate p"rpose: legal syllogism or s"bstantial $"stice: in isolation or in the conte2t of social
conditions: harshly against or gently in favor of the votersN obvio"s choice. n applying election laws% it
wo"ld be far better to err in favor of pop"lar sovereignty than to be right in comple2 b"t little "nderstood
legalisms. ndeed% to inPict a thrice re$ected candidate "pon the electorate of Sorsogon wo"ld constit"te
"nmitigated $"dicial tyranny and an "nacceptable assa"lt "pon this Co"rtNs conscience.
* & < L : / F *
Page "9 of 98
n s"m% we r"le t7at t7e c$t$zens7$p reC=$reent $n t7e Local Governent Code $s to !e
possessed !< an elect$ve oFc$al at t7e latest as o6 t7e t$e 7e $s procla$ed and at t7e start
o6 t7e ter o6 oFce to @7$c7 7e 7as !een elected. Ae f"rther hold P.-. No. 7"# to !e $n 6=ll 6orce
and eBect =p to t7e present, not 7av$n8 !een s=spended or repealed eGpressl< nor $pl$edl<
at an< t$e, and 'r$valdo?s repatr$at$on !< v$rt=e t7ereo6 to 7ave !een properl< 8ranted and
t7=s val$d and eBect$ve. Moreover% by reason of the remedial or c"rative nat"re of the law granting him
a new right to res"me his political stat"s and the legislative intent behind it% as well as his "ni'"e sit"ation
of having been forced to give "p his citizenship and political aspiration as his means of escaping a regime
he abhorred% his repatr$at$on $s to !e 8$ven retroact$ve eBect as o6 t7e date o6 7$s appl$cat$on
t7ere6or, d=r$n8 t7e pendenc< o6 @7$c7 7e @as stateless, 7e 7av$n8 8$ven =p 7$s ,.*.
nat$onal$t<. (h"s% in contemplation of law% he possessed the vital re'"irement of #ilipino citizenship as of
the start of the term of oLce of governor% and sho"ld have been proclaimed instead of Mee. #"rthermore%
s$nce 7$s reacC=$s$t$on o6 c$t$zens7$p retroacted to (=8=st 17, 1990, 7$s re8$strat$on as a voter
o6 *orso8on $s deeed to 7ave !een val$dated as o6 sa$d date as @ell. (he foregoing% of co"rse%
are precisely consistent with o"r holding that lac9 o6 t7e c$t$zens7$p reC=$reent $s not a cont$n=$n8
d$sa!$l$t< or d$sC=al$Acat$on to r=n 6or and 7old p=!l$c oFce. And once again% we emphasize herein
o"r previo"s r"lings reco8n$z$n8 t7e Coelec?s a=t7or$t< and >=r$sd$ct$on to 7ear and dec$de
pet$t$ons 6or ann=lent o6 proclaat$ons.
(his Co"rt has time and again liberally and e'"itably constr"ed the electoral laws of o"r co"ntry to
give f"llest e8ect to the manifest will of o"r people% for in case of do"bt% political laws m"st be interpreted
to give life and spirit to the pop"lar mandate freely e2pressed thro"gh the ballot. @therwise stated% legal
niceties and technicalities cannot stand in the way of the sovereign will. Consistently% we have held7
. . . Maws governing election contests m"st be liberally constr"ed to the end that the will of
the people in the choice of p"blic oLcials may not be defeated by mere technical ob$ections
+citations omitted/.
(he law and the co"rts m"st accord #rivaldo every possible protection% defense and ref"ge% in
deference to the pop"lar will. ndeed% this Co"rt has repeatedly stressed the importance of giving e8ect to
the sovereign will in order to ens"re the s"rvival of o"r democracy. n any action involving the possibility of
a reversal of the pop"lar electoral choice% this Co"rt m"st e2ert "tmost e8ort to resolve the iss"es in a
manner that wo"ld give e8ect to the will of the ma$ority% for it is merely so"nd p"blic policy to ca"se
elective oLces to be !lled by those who are the choice of the ma$ority. (o s"ccessf"lly challenge a winning
candidateNs '"ali!cations% the petitioner m"st clearly demonstrate that the ineligibility is so patently
antagonistic

to constit"tional and legal principles that overriding s"ch ineligibility and thereby giving e8ect
to the apparent will of the people% wo"ld "ltimately create greater pre$"dice to the very democratic
instit"tions and $"ristic traditions that o"r Constit"tion and laws so zealo"sly protect and promote. n this
"nderta&ing% Mee has miserably failed.
n #rivaldoNs case% it wo"ld have been technically easy to !nd fa"lt with his ca"se. (he Co"rt co"ld
have ref"sed to grant retroactivity to the e8ects of his repatriation and hold him still ineligible d"e to his
fail"re to show his citizenship at the time he registered as a voter before the 0>>- elections. @r% it co"ld
have disp"ted the fact"al !ndings of the Comelec that he was stateless at the time of repatriation and th"s
hold his conse'"ent d"al citizenship as a dis'"ali!cation Kfrom r"nning for any elective local position.K E"t
the real essence of $"stice does not emanate from '"ibblings over patchwor& legal technicality. t proceeds
from the spiritNs g"t conscio"sness of the dynamic role of law as a bric& in the "ltimate development of the
social edi!ce. (h"s% the Co"rt str"ggled against and eschewed the easy% legalistic% technical and
sometimes harsh anachronisms of the law in order to evo&e s"bstantial $"stice in the larger social conte2t
consistent with #rivaldoNs "ni'"e sit"ation appro2imating venerability in Philippine political life.
Concededly% he so"ght American citizenship only to escape the cl"tches of the dictatorship. At this stage%
we cannot serio"sly entertain any do"bt abo"t his loyalty and dedication to this co"ntry. At the !rst
opport"nity% he ret"rned to this land% and so"ght to serve his people once more. (he people of Sorsogon
overwhelmingly voted for him three times. He too& an oath of allegiance to this Rep"blic every time he
!led his certi!cate of candidacy and d"ring his failed nat"ralization bid. And let it not be overloo&ed% his
demonstrated tenacity and sheer determination to re*ass"me his nationality of birth despite several legal
set*bac&s spea& more lo"dly% in spirit% in fact and in tr"th than any legal technicality% of his cons"ming
intention and b"rning desire to re*embrace his native Philippines even now at the ripe old age of G0 years.
Page /: of 98
S"ch loyalty to and love of co"ntry as well as nobility of p"rpose cannot be lost on this Co"rt of $"stice and
e'"ity. Mortals of lesser mettle wo"ld have given "p. After all% #rivaldo was ass"red of a life of ease and
plenty as a citizen of the most powerf"l co"ntry in the world. E"t he opted% nay% single*mindedly insisted
on ret"rning to and serving once more his str"ggling b"t beloved land of birth. He therefore deserves
every liberal interpretation of the law which can be applied in his favor. And in the !nal analysis% over and
above #rivaldo himself% the indomitable people of Sorsogon most certainly deserve to be governed by a
leader of their overwhelming choice.
AHERE#@RE% in consideration of the foregoing7
+0/ (he petition in H.R. Bo. 0,;F-- is hereby 4SMSSE4. (he assailed Resol"tions of the respondent
Commission are A##RME4.
+,/ (he petition in H.R. Bo. 0,1,>- is also 4SMSSE4 for being moot and academic. n any event% it has no
merit.
Bo costs. S@ @R4ERE4.
P,N., J., conc"rring7
conc"r with the path*brea&ing ponencia of Mr. 3"stice Panganiban which is pro*people and pierces
the myopia of legalism. Cpholding the sovereign will of the people which is the be*all and the end*all of
rep"blicanism% it rests on a fo"ndation that will end"re time and its tempest.
(he sovereignty of o"r people is the primary postulate of the 0>GF Constit"tion. #or this reason% it
appears as the 'rst in o"r declaration of principles and state policies. (h"s% section 0 of Article of o"r
f"ndamental law proclaims that Kthe Philippines is a democratic and rep"blican State. Sovereignty resides
in the people and all government a"thority emanates from them.K (he same principle served as the
bedroc& of o"r 0>F; and 0>;- Constit"tions.

t is one of the few principles whose tr"th has been cherished
by the Americans as self*evident. Section ?% Article S of the C.S. Constit"tion ma&es it a d"ty of the
#ederal government to g"arantee to every state a Krep"blican form of government.K Aith "nderstandable
fervor% the American a"thorities imposed rep"blicanism as the cornerstone of o"r 0>;- Constit"tion then
being crafted by its #ilipino framers.

Eorne o"t of the 0>G= people power E4SA revol"tion% o"r 0>GF Constit"tion is more people*
oriented. (h"s% section ? of Article provides as a state policy that the prime d"ty of the Hovernment is
Kto serve and protect the people.K Section 0% Article Y also provides that K. . . p"blic oLcers . . . m"st at all
times be acco"ntable to the people . . .K Sections 0- and 0 of Article Y de!ne the role and rights of
peopleNs organizations. Section -+,/ of Article YS mandates that Kthe state shall strengthen the patriotic
spirit and nationalist conscio"sness of the military% and respect for peopleNs rights in the performance of
their d"ty.K And section , of Article YS provides that Kamendments to this Constit"tion may li&ewise be
directly proposed by the people thro"gh initiative . . .K All these provisions and more are intended to
breathe more life to the sovereignty of o"r people.
(o be s"re% the sovereignty of o"r people is not a &abalistic principle whose dimensions are b"ried
in mysticism. ts metes and bo"nds are familiar to the framers of o"r Constit"tions. (hey &new that in its
broadest sense% sovereignty is meant to be s"preme% the =us summi imperu% the absolute right to govern.


#ormer 4ean Sicente Sinco

states that an essential '"ality of sovereignty is legal omnipotence% vi(.7 KMegal
theory establishes certain essential '"alities inherent in the nat"re of sovereignty. (he !rst is legal
omnipotence. (his means that the sovereign is legally omnipotent and absol"te in relation to other legal
instit"tions. t has the power to determine e2cl"sively its legal competence. ts powers are original% not
derivative. <t is the sole =udge of what it should do at any given time.K Citing Ear&er%

he adds that a more
ampli!ed de!nition of sovereignty is that of Ka 'nal power of 'nal legal ad=ustment of all legal issues.K (he
C.S. S"preme Co"rt e2pressed the same tho"ght in the landmar& case of Gic2 1o v. op2ins%

where it held
that K. . . sovereignty itself is, of course, not sub=ect to law% for it is the a"thor and so"rce of law: b"t in o"r
system% while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government% sovereignty itself remains
with the people% by whom and for whom all government e2ists and acts.K
Page /1 of 98
n o"r Constit"tion% the people established a representative democracy as disting"ished from a p"re
democracy. 3"stice sagani Cr"z e2plains7

A rep"blic is a representative government% a government r"n by and for the people. t is not
a p"re democracy where the people govern themselves directly. (he essence of
rep"blicanism is representation and renovation% the selection by the citizenry of a corps of
p"blic f"nctionaries who derive their mandate from the people and act on their behalf%
serving for a limited period only% after which they are replaced or retained% at the option of
their principal. :bviously, a republican government is a responsible government whose
o,cials hold and discharge their position as a public trust and shall, according to the
!onstitution, Hat all times be accountable to the peopleH they are sworn to serve. %he
purpose of a republican government it is almost needless to state, is the promotion of the
common welfare according to the will of the people themselves.
appreciate the vigoro"s dissent of Mr. 3"stice 4avide. agree that sovereignty is indivisible b"t it
need not always be e+ercised by the people together% all the time.

#or this reason% the Constit"tion and o"r
laws provide when the entire electorate or only some of them can elect those who ma&e o"r laws and
those who e2ec"te o"r laws. (h"s% the entire electorate votes for o"r senators b"t only o"r district
electorates vote for o"r congressmen% only o"r provincial electorates vote for the members of o"r
provincial boards% only o"r city electorates vote for o"r city co"ncilors% and only o"r m"nicipal electorates
vote for o"r co"ncilors. Also% the entire electorate votes for o"r President and Sice*President b"t only o"r
provincial electorates vote for o"r governors% only o"r city electorates vote for o"r mayors% and only o"r
m"nicipal electorates vote for o"r mayors. Ey de!ning and delimiting the classes of voters who can
e2ercise the sovereignty of the people in a given election% it cannot be claimed that said sovereignty has
been fragmented.
t is my respectf"l s"bmission that the iss"e in the case at bar is not whether the people of
Sorsogon sho"ld be given the right to defy the law by allowing #rivaldo to sit as their governor. Rather% the
iss"e is7 whether the will of the voters of Sorsogon clearly choosing #rivaldo as governor o"ght to be given
a decisive value considering the uncertainty of the law on when a candidate o"ght to satisfy the
'"ali!cation of citizenship. (he "ncertainty of law and $"rispr"dence% both here and abroad% on this legal
iss"e cannot be denied. n the Cnited States% there are two +,/ principal schools of tho"ght on the matter.
@ne espo"ses the view that a candidate m"st possess the '"ali!cations for oLce at the time of his
election. (he other vent"res the view that the candidate sho"ld satisfy the '"ali!cations at the time he
ass"mes the powers of the oLce. am "naware of any Philippine decision that has s'"arely resolved this
diLc"lt '"estion of law. (he ponencia of Mr. 3"stice Panganiban adhered to the second school of tho"ght
while Mr. 3"stice 4avide dissents.
emphasize the honest*to*goodness di8erence in interpreting o"r law on the matter for this is vital
to dispel the fear of Mr. 3"stice 4avide that my opinion can bring abo"t ill e8ects to the State. Mr. 3"stice
4avideNs fear is based on the assumption that #rivaldo contin"es to be dis'"ali!ed and we cannot allow
him to sit as governor witho"t transgressing the law. do not concede this ass"mption for as stressed
above% co"rts have been sharply divided by this mind boggling iss"e. Hiven this schism% do not see how
we can derogate on the sovereignty of the people by according more weight to the votes of the people of
Sorsogon.
Mr. 3"stice 4avide warns that sho"ld the people of Eatanes stage a rebellion% we cannot prosec"te
them Kbeca"se of the doctrine of peopleNs sovereignty.K Aith d"e respect% the analogy is not appropriate.
n his hypothetical case% rebellion is concededly a crime% a violation of Article 0;? of the Revised Penal
Code% an o8ense against the sovereignty of o"r people. <n the case at bar, it cannot be held with certitude
that the people of Sorsogon violated the law by voting for #rivaldo as governor. #rivaldoNs name was in the
list of candidates allowed by C@MEMEC to r"n for governor. At that time too% #rivaldo was ta&ing all steps to
establish his #ilipino citizenship. And even o"r $"rispr"dence has not settled the iss"e when a candidate
sho"ld possess the '"ali!cation of citizenship. Since the meaning of the law is arg"able then and now%
cannot imagine how it will be disastro"s for the State if we tilt the balance in the case at bar in favor of the
people of Sorsogon.
Page /" of 98
n s"m% respectf"lly s"bmit that the sovereign will of o"r people sho"ld be resol"tory of the case
at bar which is one of its &ind% "nprecedented in o"r political history. #or three +;/ times% #rivaldo ran as
governor of the province of Sorsogon. #or two +,/ times% he was dis'"ali!ed on the gro"nd of citizenship.
(he people of Sorsogon voted for him as their governor despite his dis'"ali!cation. (he people never
waZed in their s"pport for #rivaldo. n 0>GG% they gave him a winning margin of ,F%111: in 0>>,% they
gave him a winning spread of -F%111: in 0>>-% he posted a margin of ,1%111. Clearly then% #rivaldo is the
overwhelming choice of the people of Sorsogon. n election cases% we sho"ld strive to align the will of the
legislat"re as e2pressed in its law with the will of the sovereign people as e2pressed in their ballots. #or
law to reign% it m"st respect the will of the people. #or in the elo'"ent prose of Mr. 3"stice Ma"rel% K. . . an
enfranchised citizen is a particle of pop"lar sovereignty and is the "ltimate so"rce of established
a"thority.K (he choice of the governed on who shall be their governor merits the highest consideration by
all agencies of government. n cases where the sovereignty of the people is at sta&e% we m"st not only be
legally right b"t also politically correct. Ae cannot fail by ma&ing the people s"cceed.
-(5+-E, %R., J., dissenting7

agree with petitioner Mee that #rivaldoNs repatriation was void% b"t not on the gro"nd that
President Corazon C. A'"inoNs ,F March 0>GF memorand"m Ke8ectively repealedK P.4. Bo. F,-. n my
view% the said memorand"m only suspended the implementation of the latter decree by divesting the
Special Committee on Bat"ralization of its a"thority to f"rther act on grants of citizenship "nder M@ Bo.
,F1% as amended% P.4. Bo. G;=% as amended: P.4. Bo. 0;F>: and Kany other related laws% orders% iss"ances
and r"les and reg"lations.K A reading of the last paragraph of the memorand"m can lead to no other
concl"sion% th"s7
n view of the foregoing% yo" as Chairman and members of the Special Committee on
Bat"ralization% are hereby directed to cease and desist from "nderta&ing any and all
proceedings within yo"r f"nctional area of responsibility% as de!ned in Metter of nstr"ction
Bo. ,F1 dated April 00% 0>F-% as amended% Presidential 4ecree Bo. G;= dated 4ecember ;%
0>F-% as amended% and Presidential 4ecree Bo. 0;F> dated May 0F% 0>FG% relative to the
grant of citizenship "nder the said laws% and any other related laws, orders, issuances and
rules and regulations. +emphasis s"pplied/
t is self*evident that the "nderscored cla"se can only refer to those related to M@ Bo. ,F1% P.4. Bo.
G;=% and P.4. Bo. 0;F>. (here is no do"bt in my mind that P.4. Bo. F,- is one s"ch Krelated lawK as it
involves the reac'"isition of Philippine citizenship by repatriation and designates the Special Committee on
Bat"ralization created "nder M@ Bo. ,F1 to receive and act on +i.e.% approve or disapprove/ applications
"nder the said decree. (he power of President A'"ino to s"spend these iss"ances by virt"e of the ,F
March 0>GF memorand"m is beyond '"estion considering that "nder Section =% Article YS of the 0>GF
Constit"tion% she e2ercised legislative power "ntil the Congress established therein convened on the fo"rth
Monday of 3"ly 0>GF.
disagree with the view e2pressed in the ponencia that the memorand"m of ,F March 0>GF was
merely a declaration of Ke2ec"tive policy%K and not an e2ercise of legislative power. M@ Bo. ,F1% P.4. Bo.
G;=% P.4. Bo. 0;F> and Kany other related laws%K s"ch as P.4. Bo. F,-% were iss"ed by President #erdinand
E. Marcos in the e2ercise of his legislative powers ** not e2ec"tive power. (hese laws relate to the
ac'"isition +by nat"ralization/ and reac'"isition +by repatriation/ of Philippine citizenship% and in light of
Sections 0+?/ and ;% Article S of the 0>GF Constit"tion +nat"ralization and reac'"isition of Philippine
citizenship shall be in accordance with law/% it is ind"bitable that these s"b$ects are a matter of legislative
prerogative. n the same vein% the creation of the Special Committee on Bat"ralization by M@ Bo. ,F1 and
the conferment of the power to accept and act on applications "nder P.4. Bo. F,- are clearly legislative
acts.
Accordingly% the revocation of the cease and desist order and the reactivation or revival of the
Committee can be done only by legislative !at% i.e.% by Congress% since the President had long lost his
a"thority to e2ercise Klegislative power.K Considering that Congress has not seen it !t to do so% the
President cannot% in the e2ercise of e2ec"tive power% lift the cease and desist order nor
Page // of 98
reactivate<reconstit"te<revive the Committee. A multo fortiori% the Committee cannot validly accept
#rivaldoNs application for repatriation and approve it.

Even ass"ming arguendo that #rivaldoNs repatriation is valid% it did not Kc"re his lac& of citizenship.K
depart from the view in the ponencia that Section ;> of the MHC of 0>>0 does not specify the time when
the citizenship re'"irement m"st be met% and that being the case% then it s"Lces that citizenship be
possessed "pon commencement of the term of the oLce involved: therefore% since #rivaldo Kre*ass"medK
his Philippine citizenship at ,711 p.m. on ;1 3"ne 0>>- and the term of oLce of Hovernor commenced at
0,711 noon of that day% he had% therefore% complied with the citizenship re'"irement.
n the !rst place% Section ;> act"ally prescribes the '"ali!cations of elective local oLcials and not
those of an elected local oLcial. (hese ad$ectives are not synonymo"s% as the ponencia seems to s"ggest.
(he !rst refers to the nat"re of the oLce% which re'"ires the process of voting by the electorate involved:
while the second refers to a victorio"s candidate for an elective oLce. (he section "n'"estionably refers to
elective ** not elected ** local oLcials. t falls "nder (itle (wo entitled *L*!%<.* :##<!<BLS : "nder Chapter 0
entitled )uali'cations and *lection : and paragraph +a/ thereof begins with the phrase KAn elective local
o,cial %K while paragraphs +b/ to +f/ thereof spea& of candidates. t reads as follows7
Sec. ;>. )uali'cations. ** +a/ An elective local o,cial m"st be a citizen of the Philippines: a
registered voter in the barangay% m"nicipality% city% or province or% in the case of a member
of the sangg"niang panlalawigan% sangg"niang panl"ngsod% or sangg"niang bayan% the
district where he intends to be elected: a resident therein for at least one +0/ year
immediately preceding the day of the election: and able to read and write #ilipino or any
other local lang"age or dialect.
+b/ !andidates for the position of governor% vice governor or member of the sangg"niang
panlalawigan% or mayor% vice mayor or member of the sangg"niang panl"ngsod of highly
"rbanized cities m"st be at least twenty*three +,;/ years of age on election day.
+c/ !andidates for the position of mayor or vice mayor of independent component cities%
component cities% or m"nicipalities m"st be at least twenty*one +,0/ years of age on election
day.
+d/ !andidates for the position of member of the sangg"niang panl"ngsod or sangg"niang
bayan m"st be at least eighteen +0G/ years of age on election day.
+e/ !andidates for the position of p"nong barangay or member of the sangg"niang barangay
m"st be at least eighteen +0G/ years of age on election day.
+f/ !andidates for the sangg"niang &abataan m"st be at least !fteen +0-/ years of age b"t
not more than twenty*one +,0/ years of age on election day +emphasis s"pplied/
t is th"s obvio"s that Section ;> refers to no other than the "uali'cations of candidates for
elective local o,ces and their election. Hence% in no way may the section be constr"ed to mean
that possession of '"ali!cations sho"ld be rec&oned from the commencement of the term of oLce
of the elected candidate.
#or another% it is not at all tr"e that Section ;> does not specify the time when the citizenship
re'"irement m"st be possessed. s"bmit that the re'"irement m"st be satis!ed% or that Philippine
citizenship m"st be possessed% not merely at the commencement of the term% b"t at an earlier time% the
latest being election day itself. Section ;> is not at all ambig"o"s nor "ncertain that it meant this to be% as
one basic '"ali!cation of an elective local oLcial is that he be KA REHS(ERE4 S@(ER B (HE EARABHAI%
MCBCPAM(I% C(I @R PR@SBCE . . . AHERE HE B(EB4S (@ S@(E.K (his simply means that he possesses
all the '"ali!cations to e2ercise the right of s"8rage. (he f"ndamental '"ali!cation for the e2ercise of this
Page /0 of 98
sovereign right is the possession of Philippine citizenship. Bo less than the Constit"tion ma&es it the !rst
'"ali!cation% as Section 0% Article S thereof provides7
Sec. 0. Su3rage may be e+ercised by all citi(ens of the &hilippines not otherwise dis'"ali!ed
by law% who are at least eighteen years of age% and who shall have resided in the Philippines
for at least one year and in the place wherein they propose to vote for at least si2 months
immediately preceding the election. . . . +emphasis s"pplied/
And Section 00F of the @mnib"s Election Code of the Philippines +E.P. Elg. GG0/ e2pressly provides
for the '"ali!cations of a voter. (h"s7
Sec. 00F )uali'cations of a voter. ** *very citi(en of the &hilippines% not otherwise
dis'"ali!ed by law% eighteen years of age or over% who shall have resided in the Philippines
for one year and in the city or m"nicipality wherein he proposes to vote for at least si2
months immediately preceding the election% may be a registered voter. +emphasis s"pplied/
t is "ndisp"ted that this Co"rt twice voided #rivaldoNs election as Hovernor in the 0>GG and 0>>,
elections on the gro"nd that for lac& of Philippine citizenship ** he being a nat"ralized citizen of the Cnited
States of America ** he was 4SUCAM#E4 to be elected as s"ch and to serve the position +#rivaldo vs.
Commission on Elections% 0F? SCRA ,?- Q0>G>R: Rep"blic of the Philippines vs. 4e la Rosa% ,;, SCRA FG-
Q0>>?R/. (his dis'"ali!cation ine2orably n"lli!ed #rivaldoNs registration as a voter and declared it void ab
initio. @"r $"dgments therein were self*e2ec"tory and no f"rther act% e.g.% a C@MEMEC order to cancel his
registration as a voter or the physical destr"ction of his voterNs certi!cate% was necessary for the
ine8ectivity. (h"s% he was never considered a registered voter for the elections of May 0>>,% and May
0>>-% as there is no showing that #rivaldo registered anew as a voter for the latter elections. Even if he did
** in obvio"s de!ance of his decreed dis'"ali!cation ** this did not ma&e him a #ilipino citizen% hence it was
e'"ally void ab initio. (hat he !led his certi!cate of candidacy for the 0>>- elections and was even allowed
to vote therein were of no moment. Beither act made him a #ilipino citizen nor n"lli!ed the $"dgments of
this Co"rt. @n the contrary% said acts made a moc&ery of o"r $"dgments. #or the Co"rt now to validate
#rivaldoNs registration as a voter despite the $"dgments of dis'"ali!cation is to modify the said $"dgments
by ma&ing their e8ectivity and enforceability dependent on a C@MEMEC order cancelling his registration as
a voter% or on the physical destr"ction of his certi!cate of registration as a voter which% of co"rse% was
never o"r intention. Moreover% to sanction #rivaldoNs registration as a voter wo"ld be to sacri!ce s"bstance
in favor of form% and abet the C@MEMECNs incompetence in failing to cancel #rivaldoNs registration and
allowing him to vote.
(he second reason in the ponencia as to why the citizenship dis'"ali!cation sho"ld be rec&oned not
from the date of the election nor the !ling of the certi!cate of candidacy% b"t from the date of
proclamation% is that the only available remedy to '"estion the ineligibility +or disloyalty/ of a candidate is
a petition for "uo warranto which% "nder Section ,-; of the @mnib"s Election Code% may be !led only
within ten days from proclamation and not earlier.
beg to di8er.
Clearly% "uo warranto is not the sole remedy available to '"estion a candidateNs ineligibility for
p"blic oLce. Section FG of the @mnib"s Election Code allows the !ling of a petition to deny d"e co"rse to
or cancel the certi!cate of candidacy on the gro"nd that any material representation contained therein% as
re'"ired by Section F?% is false. Section F?% in t"rn% re'"ires that the person !ling the certi!cate of
candidacy m"st state% inter alia % that he is eligible for the o,ce % which means that he has all the
'"ali!cations +incl"ding% of co"rse% f"l!lling the citizenship re'"irement/ and none of the dis'"ali!cations
as provided by law. (he petition "nder Section FG may be !led at any time not later than ;9 days from the
'ling of the certi'cate of candidacy. (he section reads in f"ll as follows7
Sec. FG. &etition to deny due course to or cancel a certi'cate of candidacy. ** A veri!ed
petition see&ing to deny d"e co"rse or to cancel a certi!cate of candidacy may be !led by
any person e2cl"sively on the gro"nd that any material representation contained therein as
re'"ired "nder Section F? hereof is false. (he petition may be !led at any time not later
Page /# of 98
than twenty*!ve days from the time of the !ling of the certi!cate of candidacy and shall be
decided% after d"e notice and hearing% not later than !fteen days before the election.
(his remedy was recognized in Loong vs. !ommission on *lections +,0= SCRA F=1% F=G Q0>>,R/%
where this Co"rt held7
(h"s% if a person '"ali!ed to !le a petition to dis'"alify a certain candidate fails to !le the
petition within the ,-*day period Section FG of the Code for whatever reasons% the election
laws do not leave him completely helpless as he has another chance to raise the
dis'"ali!cation of the candidate by !ling a petition for "uo warranto within ten +01/ days
from the proclamation of the res"lts of the election% as provided "nder Section ,-; of the
Code. Section 0% R"le ,0 of the Comelec R"les of Proced"re similarly provides that any voter
contesting the election of any regional% provincial or city oLcial on the gro"nd of ineligibility
or of disloyalty to the Rep"blic of the Philippines may !le a petition for "uo warranto with the
Electoral Contest Ad$"dication 4epartment. (he petition may be !led within ten +01/ days
from the date the respondent is proclaimed +Section ,/.
Mi&ewise% R"le ,- of the Revised C@MEMEC R"les of Proced"re allows the !ling of a petition for
dis'"ali!cation on the gro"nd of fail"re to possess all the '"ali!cations of a candidate as provided by the
Constit"tion or by e2isting laws% Kany day after the last day for !ling of certi!cates of candidacy b"t not
later than the date of proclamation.K Sections 0 and ; thereof provide7
R"le ,- ** 4is'"ali!cation of Candidates
Sec. 0. /rounds for Dis"uali'cation. Any candidate who does not possess all the
'"ali!cations of a candidate as provided for by the Constit"tion or by e2isting law or who
commits any act declared by law to be gro"nds for dis'"ali!cation may be dis'"ali!ed from
contin"ing as a candidate.
Sec. ;. &eriod to #ile &etition. (he petition shall be !led any day after the last day for !ling of
certi!cates of candidacy but not later than the date of proclamation.
Ahile the validity of this r"le insofar as it concerns petitions for dis'"ali!cation on the gro"nd of
lac& of all '"ali!cations may be do"btf"l% its invalidity is not in iss"e here.
n this connection% it wo"ld seem appropriate to ta&e "p the last iss"e grappled within the ponencia%
vi(.% is Section FG of the @mnib"s Election Code mandatoryO (he answer is provided in Loong.
Ae also do not !nd merit in the contention of respondent Commission that in the light of the
provisions of Sections = and F of Rep. Act Bo. ==?=% a petition to deny d"e co"rse to or
cancel a certi!cate of candidacy may be !led even beyond the ,-*day period prescribed by
Section FG of the Code% as long as it is !led within a reasonable time from the discovery of
the ineligibility.
Sections = and F of Rep. Act Bo. ==?= are here re*'"oted7
Sec. =. *3ect of Dis"uali'cation case. Any candidate who has been declared
by !nal $"dgment to be dis'"ali!ed shall not be voted for% and the votes cast
for him shall not be co"nted. f for any reason a candidate is not declared by
!nal $"dgment before an election to be dis'"ali!ed and he is voted for and
receives the winning n"mber of votes in s"ch election% the Co"rt or
Commission shall contin"e with the trial and hearing of the action% in'"iry or
protest and% "pon motion of the complainant or any intervenor% may d"ring
the pendency thereof order the s"spension of the proclamation of s"ch
candidate whenever the evidence of his g"ilt is strong.
Page /6 of 98
Sec. F. &etition to Deny Due !ourse %o or !ancel a !erti'cate of !andidacy.
(he proced"re hereinabove provided shall apply to petitions to deny d"e
co"rse to or cancel a certi!cate of candidacy as provided in Section FG of
Eatas Pambansa Elg. GG0.
t will be noted that nothing in Sections = or F modi!es or alters the ,-* day period
prescribed by Section FG of the Code for !ling the appropriate action to cancel a certi!cate
of candidacy on acco"nt of any false representation made therein. @n the contrary% said
Section F aLrms and reiterates Section FG of the Code.
Ae note that Section = refers only to the e3ects of a dis'"ali!cation case which may be
based on gro"nds other than that provided "nder Section FG of the Code. E"t Section F of
Rep. Act Bo. ==?= also ma&es the e8ects referred to in Section = applicable to
dis'"ali!cation cases !led "nder Section FG of the Code. Bowhere in Sections = and F of
Rep. Act Bo. ==?= is mention made of the period within which these dis'"ali!cation cases
may be !led. (his is beca"se there are provisions in the Code which s"pply the periods
within which a petition relating to dis'"ali!cation of candidates m"st be !led% s"ch as
Section FG% already disc"ssed% and Section ,-; on petitions for "uo warranto.
then disagree with the asseveration in the ponencia that Section FG is merely directory beca"se
Section = of R.A. Bo. ==?= a"thorizes the C@MEMEC to try and decide petitions for dis'"ali!cation even
after elections. s"bmit that Section = refers to dis'"ali!cations "nder Sections 0, and =G of the @mnib"s
Election Code and conse'"ently modi!es Section F, thereof. As s"ch% the proper co"rt or the C@MEMEC are
granted the a"thority to contin"e hearing the case after the election% and d"ring the pendency of the case%
s"spend the proclamation of the victorio"s candidate% if the evidence against him is strong. Sections 0,%
=G% and F, of the Code provide7
Sec. 0,. Dis"uali'cations. Any person who has been declared by competent a"thority insane
or incompetent% or has been sentenced by !nal $"dgment for s"bversion% ins"rrection%
rebellion or for any o8ense for which he has been sentenced to a penalty of more than
eighteen months or for a crime involving moral t"rpit"de% shall be dis'"ali!ed to be a
candidate and to hold any oLce% "nless he has been given plenary pardon or granted
amnesty.
(he dis'"ali!cations to be a candidate herein provided shall be deemed removed "pon
declaration by competent a"thority that said insanity or incompetence had been removed or
after the e2piration of a period of !ve years from his service of sentence% "nless within the
same period he again becomes dis'"ali!ed.
Sec. =G. Dis"uali'cations. Any candidate who% in an action or protest in which he is a party is
declared by !nal decision of a competent co"rt g"ilty of% or fo"nd by the Commission of
having +a/ given money or other material consideration to inP"ence% ind"ce or corr"pt the
voters or p"blic oLcials performing electoral f"nctions: +b/ committed acts of terrorism to
enhance his candidacy: +c/ spent in his election campaign an amo"nt in e2cess of that
allowed by this Code: +d/ solicited% received or made any contrib"tion prohibited "nder
Sections G>% >-% >=% >F and 01?: or +e/ violated any of Sections G1% G;% G-% G= and ,=0%
paragraphs d% e% &% v% and cc% s"b*paragraph =% shall be dis'"ali!ed from contin"ing as a
candidate% or if he has been elected% from holding the oLce. Any person who is a permanent
resident of or an immigrant to a foreign co"ntry shall not be '"ali!ed to r"n for any elective
oLce "nder this Code% "nless said person has waived his stat"s as permanent resident or
immigrant of a foreign co"ntry in accordance with the residence re'"irement provided for in
the election laws. +Sec. ,-% 0>F0 EC/
Sec. F,. *3ects of dis"uali'cation cases and priority. (he Commission and the co"rts shall
give priority to cases of dis'"ali!cation by reason of violation of this Act to the end that a
!nal decision shall be rendered not later than seven days before the election in which the
dis'"ali!cation is so"ght.
Page /7 of 98
Any candidate who has been declared by !nal $"dgment to be dis'"ali!ed shall not be voted
for% and the votes cast for him shall not be co"nted. Bevertheless% if for any reason% a
candidate is not declared by !nal $"dgment before an election to be dis'"ali!ed and he is
voted for and receives the winning n"mber of votes in s"ch election% his violation of the
provisions of the preceding sections shall not prevent his proclamation and ass"mption to
oLce.

Still ass"ming that the repatriation is valid% am not pers"aded by the arg"ments in s"pport of the
thesis that #rivaldoNs repatriation may be given retroactive e8ect% as s"ch goes against the spirit and letter
of P.4. Bo. F,-. (he spirit adheres to the principle that ac'"isition or re*ac'"isition of Philippine citizenship
is not a right% b"t a mere privilege. Eefore the advent of P.4. Bo. F,-% only the following co"ld apply for
repatriation7 +a/ Army% Bavy% or Air Corps deserters: and +b/ a woman who lost her citizenship by reason of
her marriage to an alien after the death of her spo"se +Section ,Q,R% C.A. Bo. =;/. P.4. B@. F,- e2panded
this to incl"de #ilipino women who lost their Philippine citizenship by marriage to aliens even before the
death of their alien h"sbands% or the termination of their marital stat"s and to nat"ral*born #ilipino citizens
who lost their Philippine citizenship b"t s"bse'"ently desired to reac'"ire the latter.
("rning now to the letter of the law% P.4. Bo. F,- e2pressly provides that repatriation ta&es e8ect
only after ta&ing the oath of allegiance to the Rep"blic of the Philippines% th"s7
. . . may reac'"ire Philippine citizenship . . . by applying with the Special Committee on
Bat"ralization created by Metter of nstr"ction Bo. ,F1% and, if their applications are
approved, ta2ing the necessary oath of allegiance to the Republic of the &hilippines% A#(ER
AHCH (HEI SHAMM EE 4EEME4 (@ HASE REACUCRE4 PHMPPBE C(WEBSHP.
Clearly then% the steps to reac'"ire Philippine citizenship by repatriation "nder the decree are7 +0/
!ling the application: +,/ action by the committee: and +;/ ta&ing of the oath of allegiance if the
application is approved. t is only CP@B (A[BH (HE @A(H @# AMMEHABCE that the applicant is
deemed ipso =ure to have reac'"ired Philippine citizenship. f the decree had intended the oath
ta&ing to retroact to the date of the !ling of the application% then it sho"ld not have e2plicitly
provided otherwise.
(his theory in the ponencia li&ewise dil"tes this Co"rtNs prono"ncement in the !rst #rivaldo case
that what reac'"isition of #ilipino citizenship re'"ires is an act Kformally re$ecting QtheR adopted state and
reaLrming . . . allegiance to the Philippines.K (hat act meant nothing less than ta&ing of the oath of
allegiance to the Rep"blic of the Philippines. f we now ta&e this revision of doctrine to its logical end% then
it wo"ld also mean that if #rivaldo had chosen and reac'"ired Philippine citizenship by nat"ralization or
thro"gh Congressional action% s"ch wo"ld retroact to the !ling of the petition for nat"ralization or the bill
granting him Philippine citizenship. (his is a proposition which both the !rst and second #rivaldo cases
so"ndly re$ected.
(he other reason add"ced in the ponencia in s"pport of the proposition that P.4. Bo. F,- can be
given retroactive e8ect is its alleged c"rative or remedial nat"re.
Again% disagree. n the !rst place% by no stretch of legal hermene"tics may P.4. Bo. F,- be
characterized as a c"rative or remedial stat"te7
C"rative or remedial stat"tes are healing acts. (hey are remedial by c"ring defects and
adding to the means of enforcing e2isting obligations. (he r"le in regard to c"rative stat"tes
is that if the thing omitted or failed to be done% and which constit"tes the defect so"ght to
be removed or made harmless% is something the legislat"re might have dispensed with by a
previo"s stat"te% it may do so by a s"bse'"ent one.
C"rative stat"tes are intended to s"pply defects% abridge s"perP"ities in e2isting laws% and
c"rb certain evils. (hey are intended to enable a person to carry into e8ect that which they
Page /8 of 98
have designed and intended% b"t has failed of e2pected legal conse'"ence by reason of
some stat"tory disability or irreg"larity in their own action. (hey ma&e valid that which%
before the enactment of the stat"te% was invalid. +RCEEB E. AHPAM@% Stat"tory Constr"ction%
Second ed. Q0>>1R% ,F1*,F0% citations omitted/.
P.4. Bo. F,- provides for the reac'"isition of Philippine citizenship lost thro"gh the marriage of a
#ilipina to an alien and thro"gh nat"ralization in a foreign co"ntry of nat"ral*born #ilipino citizens. t
involves then the s"bstantive% nay primordial% right of citizenship. (o those for whom it is intended% it
means% in reality% the ac'"isition of K a new right%K as the ponencia cannot b"t concede. (herefore% it may
not be said to merely remedy or c"re a defect considering that one who has lost Philippine citizenship does
not have the right to reac'"ire it. As earlier stated% the Constit"tion provides that citizenship% once lost%
may only be reac'"ired in the manner provided by law. Moreover% it has also been observed that7
(he idea is implicit from many of the cases that remedial statutes are statutes relating to
procedure and not substantive rights. +S"therland% Stat"tory Constr"ction% Sol. ;% (hird ed.
Q0>?;R% T-F1? at F?% citations omitted/.
f we grant for the sa&e of arg"ment% however% that P.4. Bo. F,- is c"rative or remedial stat"te% it
wo"ld be an ine2c"sable error to give it a retroactive e8ect since it e2plicitly provides the date of its
e8ectivity. (h"s7
%his Decree shall ta2e e3ect immediately.
4one in the city of Manila% this -th day of 3"ne% in the year of @"r Mord% 0>F-.
Bevertheless% if the retroactivity is to relate only to the reac'"isition of Philippine citizenship% then
nothing therein s"pports s"ch theory% for as the decree itself "ne'"ivocally provides% it is only after ta2ing
the oath of allegiance to the Republic of the &hilippines that the applicant is 4EEME4 (@ HASE
REACUCRE4 PHMPPBE C(WEBSHP.
S
Ass"ming yet again% for the sa&e of arg"ment% that ta&ing the oath of allegiance retroacted to the
date of #rivaldoNs application for repatriation% the same co"ld not be said insofar as it concerned the CSA%
of which he was a citizen. #or "nder the laws of the CSA% #rivaldo remained an American national "ntil he
reno"nced his citizenship and allegiance thereto at ,711 p.m. on ;1 3"ne 0>>-% when he too& his oath of
allegiance to the Rep"blic of the Philippines. Section ?10 of the Bationality Act of 0>?1 of the CSA provides
that a person who is a national of the CSA% whether by birth or nat"ralization% loses his nationality by% inter
alia% K+b/ (a&ing an oath or ma&ing an aLrmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign
stateK +S4BEI [ABSAS% C.S. mmigration E2cl"sion and 4eportation and Citizenship of the Cnited States of
America% (hird ed.% Q0>?GR ;?0*;?,/. t follows then that on election day and "ntil the ho"r of the
commencement of the term for which he was elected * noon of ;1 3"ne 0>>- as per Section ?; of the Mocal
Hovernment Code * #rivaldo possessed d"al citizenship% vi(.% +a/ as an American citizen: and +b/ as a
#ilipino citizen thro"gh the adoption of the theory that the e8ects of his ta&ing the oath of allegiance were
retrospective. Hence% he was dis'"ali!ed to r"n for Hovernor for yet another reason7 possession of d"al
citizenship% in accordance with Section ?1 +d/ of the Mocal Hovernment Code.
S
(he assertion in the ponencia that #rivaldo may be considered S(A(EMESS on the basis of his claim
that he Khad long reno"nced and had long abandoned his American citizenship * long before May G% 0>G-K
* is "ntenable% for the following reasons7 !rst% it is based on #rivaldoNs "nproven% self*serving allegation:
second% informal ren"nciation or abandonment is not a gro"nd to lose American citizenship: and third%
simply p"t% never did the stat"s of a S(A(EMESS person attach to #rivaldo.
*tatelessness a< !e e$t7er de jure , @7$c7 $s t7e stat=s o6 $nd$v$d=als str$pped o6 t7e$r
nat$onal$t< !< t7e$r 6orer 8overnent @$t7o=t 7av$n8 an opport=n$t< to acC=$re anot7erH or
Page /9 of 98
de facto , @7$c7 $s t7e stat=s o6 $nd$v$d=als possessed o6 a nat$onal$t< @7ose co=ntr< does not
8$ve t7e protect$on o=ts$de t7e$r o@n co=ntr<, and @7o are coonl<, al!e$t $prec$sel<,
re6erred to as re6=8ees +3@RHE R. C@UCA% et al.% ConPict of Maws Cases% Materials and Comments% 0>>-
ed.% ,>1/.
Speci!cally% "nder Chapter 0% Article 0 of the CB Convention Regarding the Stat"s of Stateless Persons
+Philippine (reaty Series% Compiled and Annotated by Haydee E. Iorac% vol. % ;=;/% a stateless person is
de!ned as Ka person who is not considered as a national by any State "nder the operation of its law.K
However% it has not been shown that the CSA ever ceased to consider #rivaldo its national at any time
before he too& his oath of allegiance to the Rep"blic of the Philippines on ;1 3"ne 0>>-.
S
#inally% !nd it in order to also e2press my view on the conc"rring opinion of Mr. 3"stice Reynato S.
P"no. am absol"tely happy to $oin him in his statement that Kthe sovereignty of o"r people is the primary
post"late of the 0>GF Constit"tionK and that the said Constit"tion is Kmore people*oriented%K Kborne as it is
o"t of the 0>G= people power E4SA revol"tion.K wo"ld even go f"rther by saying that this Constit"tion is
pro$/od +Preamble/% pro$people +Article % Sections 0% ;% ?% -% >% 0-% 0=: Article Y% Section 0% Article Y%
Sections 0% =: Article Y% Sections 0% 00% 0-% 0=% 0G: Article YS% Sections -+,/% =/% pro$#ilipino +Article Y%
Sections 0% ,% 01% 00% 0,% 0?: Article YS% Sections 0% ?+,/% 0;: Article YS% Section 00/% pro$poor +Article %
Sections >% 01% 0G% ,0: Article Y% Sections 0% ,+;/: Article Y% Sections 0% ;% ?% -% =% F% >% 01% 00% 0;/% pro$
life +Article % Section 0,/% and pro$family +Article % Section 0,: Article YS/.
Bevertheless% cannot be with him in carrying o"t the principle of sovereignty beyond what
perceive to be the reasonable constit"tional parameters. (he doctrine of peopleNs sovereignty is fo"nded
on the principles of democracy and rep"blicanism and refers e2cl"sively to the sovereignty of the people of
the Philippines. Section 0 of Article is '"ite clear on this% th"s7
Sec. 0. (he Philippines is a democratic and rep"blican State. Sovereignty resides in the
people and all government a"thority emanates from them.
And the Preamble ma&es it clear when it solemnly opens it with a cla"se KAe% the sovereign #ilipino
people . . .K (h"s% this sovereignty is an attrib"te of the #ilipino people as one people % one body.
(hat sovereign power of the #ilipino people cannot be fragmentized by loo&ing at it as the s"preme
a"thority of the people of any of the political s"bdivisions to determine their own destiny: neither can we
convert and treat every fragment as the whole. n s"ch a case% this Co"rt wo"ld provide the form"la for the
division and destr"ction of the State and render the Hovernment ine8ective and in"tile. (o ill"strate the
evil% we may consider the enforcement of laws or the p"rs"it of a national policy by the e2ec"tive branch
of the government% or the e2ec"tion of a $"dgment by the co"rts. f these are opposed by the
overwhelming ma$ority of the people of a certain province% or even a m"nicipality% it wo"ld necessarily
follow that the law% national policy% or $"dgment m"st not be enforced% implemented% or e2ec"ted in the
said province or m"nicipality. ndeed% the e2pansion of the doctrine of sovereignty by investing "pon the
people of a mere political s"bdivision that which the Constit"tion places in the entire #ilipino people% may
be disastro"s to the Bation.
So it is in this case if we follow the thesis in the conc"rring opinion. (h"s% simply beca"se #rivaldo
had obtained a margin of ,1%111 votes over his closest rival% Mee% i.e.% a vast ma$ority of the voters of
Sorsogon had e2pressed their sovereign will for the former% then this Co"rt m"st yield to that will and
m"st% therefore% allow to be set aside% for #rivaldo% not $"st the laws on '"ali!cations of candidates and
elective oLcials and nat"ralization and reac'"isition of Philippine citizenship% b"t even the !nal and
binding decisions of this Co"rt a8ecting him.
(his Co"rt m"st be the !rst to "phold the R"le of Maw. vote then to 4SMSS H.R. Bo. 0,1,>- and
HRAB( H.R. Bo. 0,;F--.
Page 0: of 98
Ga=denc$o M. Cordora vs. C.MELEC
G.R. No. 176907, 'e!r=ar< 19, "::9
Carp$o, %.&
'(C)*& Ha"dencio M. Cardora !led a complaint aLdavit before the C@MEMEC Maw 4epartment stating
that H"stavo S. (amb"nting made false assertions in his Certi!cate of Candidacy for the ,110 and ,11?
elections as (amb"nting was not eligible to r"n for local p"blic oLce beca"se (amb"nting lac&ed the
re'"ired citizenship and residency re'"irements. (o disprove (amb"nting)s claim of being a nat"ral*born
#ilipino citizen% Cordora presented a certi!cation from the E"rea" of mmigration which stated that% in two
instances% (amb"nting claimed that he is an American7 "pon arrival in the Philippines on 0= 4ecember
,111 and "pon depart"re from the Philippines on 0F 3"ne ,110. According to Cordora% these travel dates
con!rmed that (amb"nting ac'"ired American citizenship thro"gh nat"ralization in Honol"l"% Hawaii on ,
4ecember ,111. Hence% Cordora concl"ded that (amb"nting contrary to the provision of Sec. F? +@EC/7
Re7 C@B(EB(S @# CER(#CA(E @# CAB44ACI7 which re'"ires the declarant<aLant to state% among
others% =nder oat7% that he is a '$l$p$no +Bo. =/% Bo. >*res$dence re'"irement @7$c7 7e lost @7en Qhe
wasR nat"ralized as an (er$can C$t$zen on 4ecember ,% ,111 at Honol"l"% Hawaii% &nowingly and
willf"lly aFred and re$terated that he possesses the above !as$c reC=$reents "nder Bo. 0, \ t7at
7e $s $ndeed el$8$!le 6or t7e oFce to @7$c7 7e see9s to !e elected, when in tr"th and in fact% t7e
contrar< is ind"bitably established by 7$s o@n stateents before the Philippine E"rea" of mmigration.
(amb"nting% on the other hand% maintained that he did not ma&e any misrepresentation in his
certi!cates of candidacy. (o ref"te Cordora)s claim that (amb"nting is not a nat"ral*born #ilipino%
(amb"nting presented a copy of his birth certi!cate which showed that he was born of a #ilipino mother
and an American father. (amb"nting f"rther denied that he was nat"ralized as an American citizen. (he
certi!cate of citizenship conferred by the CS government after (amb"nting)s father petitioned him thro"gh
BS #orm *0;1 +Petition for Relative/ merely con!rmed (amb"nting)s citizenship which he ac'"ired at birth.
(amb"nting)s possession of an American passport did not mean that (amb"nting is not a #ilipino citizen.
(amb"nting also too& an oath of allegiance on 0G Bovember ,11; p"rs"ant to Rep"blic Act Bo. >,,- +R.A.
Bo. >,,-/% or the Citizenship Retention and Reac'"isition Act of ,11;. Moreover% he has resided in the
Philippines at birth% imbibed the #ilipino c"lt"re% has spo&en the #ilipino lang"age% and has been ed"cated
in #ilipino schools% and maintained that proof of his loyalty and devotion to the Philippines was shown by
his service as co"ncilor of ParaJa'"e. Also% he contended that residency re'"irement is not the same as
citizenship.
Page 01 of 98
(he C@MEMEC Maw 4epartment dismissed the complaint as Cordora failed to s"bstantiate his
charges against (amb"nting. (he C@MEMEC En Eanc aLrmed the decision stating that Cordora indeed
failed to s"pport his acc"sation against (amb"nting by s"Lcient and convincing evidence. Commissioner
Rene Sarmiento wrote a separate conc"rring opinion saying that (amb"nting can be considered as d"al
citizen. (he case reached the SC via R"le =-.
+**,E& Ahether or not (amb"nting is a d"al citizen.
HEL-& Ies. (amb"nting does not deny that he is born of a #ilipino mother and an American father. Beither
does he deny that he "nderwent the process involved in BS #orm *0;1 +Petition for Relative/ beca"se of
his father)s citizenship. (amb"nting claims that beca"se of his parents) di8ering citizenships% he is both
#ilipino and American by birth. Cordora% on the other hand% insists that (amb"nting is a nat"ralized
American citizen.
Ae agree with Commissioner Sarmiento)s observation that (amb"nting possesses d"al citizenship.
Eeca"se of the circ"mstances of his birth% it was no longer necessary for (amb"nting to "ndergo the
nat"ralization process to ac'"ire American citizenship. (he process involved in BS #orm *0;1 only served
to con!rm the American citizenship which (amb"nting ac'"ired at birth. (he certi!cation from the E"rea"
of mmigration which Cordora presented contained two trips where (amb"nting claimed that he is an
American. However% the same certi!cation showed nine other trips where (amb"nting claimed that he is
#ilipino. Clearly% (amb"nting possessed d"al citizenship prior to the !ling of his certi!cate of candidacy
before the ,110 elections. (he fact that (amb"nting had d"al citizenship did not dis'"alify him from
r"nning for p"blic oLce.
Ae deem it necessary to reiterate o"r previo"s r"ling in Mercado v. Man(ano% wherein we r"led that
d"al citizenship is not a gro"nd for dis'"ali!cation from r"nning for any elective local position.
(o begin with% d"al citizenship is di8erent from d"al allegiance. (he former arises when% as a res"lt
of the conc"rrent application of the di8erent laws of two or more states% a person is sim"ltaneo"sly
considered a national by the said states. #or instance% s"ch a sit"ation may arise when a person whose
parents are citizens of a state which adheres to the principle of =us sanguinis is born in a state which
follows the doctrine of =us soli . S"ch a person% ipso facto and witho"t any vol"ntary act on his part% is
conc"rrently considered a citizen of both states. Considering the citizenship cla"se +Art. S/ of o"r
Constit"tion% it is possible for the following classes o6 c$t$zens o6 t7e P7$l$pp$nes to possess d"al
citizenship7
+0/ (hose born of #ilipino fathers and<or mothers in foreign co"ntries which follow the principle
of =us soli :
+,/ (hose born in the Philippines of #ilipino mothers and alien fathers if by the laws of their fathers)
co"ntry s"ch children are citizens of that co"ntry:
+;/ (hose who marry aliens if by the laws of the latter)s co"ntry the former are considered citizens%
"nless by their act or omission they are deemed to have reno"nced Philippine citizenship.
(here may be other sit"ations in which a citizen of the Philippines may% witho"t performing any act%
be also a citizen of another state: b"t the above cases are clearly possible given the constit"tional
provisions on citizenship.
4"al allegiance% on the other hand% refers to the sit"ation in which a person sim"ltaneo"sly owes%
by some positive act% loyalty to two or more states. Ahile d"al citizenship is invol"ntary% d"al allegiance is
the res"lt of an individ"al)s volition.
n incl"ding Section - in Article S on citizenship% the concern of the Constit"tional Commission was
not with d"al citizens per se b"t with nat"ralized citizens who maintain their allegiance to their co"ntries of
origin even after their nat"ralization. Hence% the phrase Kd"al citizenshipK in R.A. Bo. F0=1% Section ?1+d/
and in R.A. Bo. FG-?% Section ,1 m"st be "nderstood as referring to Kd"al allegiance.K
Conse'"ently% persons @$t7 ere d=al c$t$zens7$p do not 6all =nder t7$s d$sC=al$Acat$on. ,nl$9e
Page 0" of 98
t7ose @$t7 d=al alle8$ance, @7o =st, t7ere6ore, !e s=!>ect to str$ct process @$t7 respect to
t7e ter$nat$on o6 t7e$r stat=s, 6or cand$dates @$t7 d=al c$t$zens7$p, $t s7o=ld s=Fce $6, =pon
t7e Al$n8 o6 t7e$r cert$Acates o6 cand$dac<, t7e< elect P7$l$pp$ne c$t$zens7$p to ter$nate t7e$r
stat=s as persons @$t7 d=al c$t$zens7$p cons$der$n8 t7at t7e$r cond$t$on $s t7e =navo$da!le
conseC=ence o6 conI$ct$n8 la@s o6 d$Berent states. As 3oa'"in H. Eernas% one of the most perceptive
members of the Constit"tional Commission% pointed o"t7 K4"al citizenship is $"st a reality imposed on "s
beca"se we have no control of the laws on citizenship of other co"ntries. Ae recognize a child of a #ilipino
mother. E"t whether or not she is considered a citizen of another co"ntry is something completely beyond
o"r control.K
Ey electing Philippine citizenship% s"ch candidates at the same time forswear allegiance to the
other co"ntry of which they are also citizens and thereby terminate their stat"s as d"al citizens. t may be
that% from the point of view of the foreign state and of its laws% s"ch an individ"al has not e8ectively
reno"nced his foreign citizenship. However% the view of the foreign state is not important as embodied in
the deliberation when Section ?1 of RA F0=1 is made.
Ae have to consider the present case in consonance with o"r r"lings in Mercado v. Man(ano, .alles
v. !:M*L*!, and BBS4S v. Datumanong. Mercado and .alles involve similar operative facts as the present
case. Manzano and Salles% li&e (amb"nting% possessed d"al citizenship by the circ"mstances of their birth.
Manzano was born to #ilipino parents in the Cnited States which follows the doctrine of =us soli. Salles was
born to an A"stralian mother and a #ilipino father in A"stralia. @"r r"lings in Man(ano and .alles stated
that d"al citizenship is di8erent from d"al allegiance both by ca"se and% for those desiring to r"n for p"blic
oLce% by e8ect. 4"al citizenship is invol"ntary and arises when% as a res"lt of the conc"rrent application of
the di8erent laws of two or more states% a person is sim"ltaneo"sly considered a national by the said
states. (h"s% li&e any other nat"ral*born #ilipino% it is eno"gh for a person with d"al citizenship who see&s
p"blic oLce to !le his certi!cate of candidacy and swear to the oath of allegiance contained therein. 4"al
allegiance% on the other hand% is bro"ght abo"t by the individ"al)s active participation in the nat"ralization
process. BBS4S states that% "nder R.A. Bo. >,,-% a #ilipino who becomes a nat"ralized citizen of another
co"ntry is allowed to retain his #ilipino citizenship by swearing to the s"preme a"thority of the Rep"blic of
the Philippines. (he act of ta&ing an oath of allegiance is an implicit ren"nciation of a nat"ralized citizen)s
foreign citizenship.
R.A. Bo. >,,-% or the Citizenship Retention and Reac'"isition Act of ,11;% was enacted years after
the prom"lgation of Man(ano and .alles. (he oath fo"nd in Section ; of R.A. Bo. >,,- reads as follows7
]]]]]]]]]] % solemnly swear +or aLrm/ that will s"pport and defend the Constit"tion of the Rep"blic of
the Philippines and obey the laws and legal orders prom"lgated by the d"ly constit"ted a"thorities of the
Philippines: and hereby declare that recognize and accept the s"preme a"thority of the Philippines and
will maintain tr"e faith and allegiance thereto: and that impose this obligation "pon myself vol"ntarily
witho"t mental reservation or p"rpose of evasion.
n Sections , and ; of R.A. Bo. >,,-% the framers were not concerned with d"al citizenship per se%
b"t with the stat"s of nat"ralized citizens who maintain their allegiance to their co"ntries of origin even
after their nat"ralization. Section -+;/ of R.A. Bo. >,,- states that nat"ralized citizens who reac'"ire
#ilipino citizenship and desire to r"n for elective p"blic oLce in the Philippines shall Kmeet the
'"ali!cations for holding s"ch p"blic oLce as re'"ired by the Constit"tion and e2isting laws and% at the
time of !ling the certi!cate of candidacy% ma&e a personal and sworn ren"nciation of any and all foreign
citizenship before any p"blic oLcer a"thorized to administer an oathK aside from the oath of allegiance
prescribed in Section ; of R.A. Bo. >,,-. (he twin re'"irements of swearing to an @ath of Allegiance and
e2ec"ting a Ren"nciation of #oreign Citizenship served as the bases for o"r recent r"lings in 4acot v. Dal
and !:M*L*! % .elasco v. !:M*L*! % and 4ap(on v. !:M*L*! % all of which involve nat"ral*born #ilipinos who
later became nat"ralized citizens of another co"ntry and thereafter ran for elective oLce in the
Philippines. n the present case% (amb"nting% a nat"ral*born #ilipino% did not s"bse'"ently become a
nat"ralized citizen of another co"ntry. Hence% the twin re'"irements in R.A. Bo. >,,- do not apply to him.
Cordora concl"ded that (amb"nting failed to meet the residency re'"irement beca"se of
(amb"nting)s nat"ralization as an American. Cordora)s reasoning fails beca"se (amb"nting is not a
nat"ralized American. Moreover% residency% for the p"rpose of election laws% incl"des the twin elements of
Page 0/ of 98
the fact of residing in a !2ed place and the intention to ret"rn there permanently% and is not dependent
"pon citizenship.
G.R. No. L-181" (=8=st "7, 1908
EREME* J..J..R+)CHJ+N, petitioner% vs. )HE *.L+C+).R GENER(L, oppositor.
PER'EC)., J.&
'(C)*& Eremes [oo&ooritch&in applies for Philippine citizenship nat"ralization "nder the provisions of
Commonwealth Act ?F;% as amended by Act -;-.
(he records shows that in A"g"st% 0>?0% he !led his petition for nat"ralization s"pported by the
aLdavits of e2*3"dge 3aime M. Reyes and 4r. Salvador Mariano% both residents of Camarines S"r. n 3"ly%
0>?1% he !led his declaration of intention to become a citizen of this co"ntry. Botice of the hearing was
p"blished as re'"ired by law.
Page 00 of 98
t was established at the hearing that the petitioner is a native*born R"ssian% born on Bovember ?%
0G>F in the old City of St. Petersb"rg% R"ssia. He grew "p as a citizen of the def"nct mperial R"ssian
Hovernment "nder the Czars. Aorld Aar fo"nd him in the military service of this Hovernment. n 0>0- he
vol"nteered for the mperial R"ssian navy and was sent to the Bavy Aviation School. He fo"ght with the
Allies in the Ealtic Sea% was later transferred to the eastern front in Poland% and m"ch later was sent as a
navy Pier to Asia Minor. n the latter part of the war% b"t before the R"ssian capit"lation% he was transferred
to the Eritish Air #orce "nder which he served for fo"rteen months. Ahen the revol"tion bro&e o"t in R"ssia
in 0>0F% he $oined the Ahite R"ssian Army at Sladivosto& and fo"ght against the Eolshevi&s "ntil 0>,,
when the Ahite R"ssian Army was overwhelmed by the Eolshevi&s. As he ref"sed to $oin the Eolshevi&
regime% he Ped by sea from Sladivosto& to Shanghai and from this Chinese port he fo"nd his way to
Manila% arriving at this port as a member of a gro"p of Ahite R"ssians "nder Admiral Star& in March% 0>,;.
He stayed in Manila for abo"t seven months% then moved to @longapo% Wambales% where he resided for
abo"t a year% and from this place he went to riga% Camarines S"r% where he established his permanent
residence since May% 0>,-. He has remained a resident of this m"nicipality% e2cept for a brief period from
0>?, to 3"ly% 0>?-% when by reason of his "ndergro"nd activities he roamed mo"ntains of Caramoan as a
g"errilla oLcer. After liberation he ret"rned to riga where again he resides "p to the present time.
(he applicant is married to a #ilipino by the name of Concepcion Segovia% with whom he has one
son named Ronald [oo&ooritch&in. He is at present st"dying in Saint Agnes Academy% at Megaspi% Albay% a
school d"ly recognized by the Hovernment.
(he applicant is shop s"perintendent of A. M. Ammen (ransportation Company% with abo"t eighty
#ilipino employees wor&ing "nder him. He receives an ann"al salary of P0;%,11 with free '"arters and
ho"se allowance. He also owns stoc&s and bonds of this and other companies.
(he applicant spea&s and writes English and the Eicol dialect. Socially he intermingles with the
#ilipinos% attending parties% dances and other social f"nctions with his wife. He has a good moral character
and believes in the principles "nderlying the Philippine Constit"tion. He has never been acc"sed of any
crime. @n the other hand% he has always cond"cted himself in a proper and irreproachable manner d"ring
his entire period of residence in Camarines S"r% in his relations with the constit"ted a"thorities as well as
with the comm"nity.
Altho"gh he co"ld have lived in ease by maintaining good relations with the enemy by reason of his
being R"ssian*born d"ring the years preceding the declaration of war by R"ssia against 3apan% the
applicant of his own volition chose to cast his lot with the g"errilla movement and fo"ght the enemy in
several enco"nters in the Province of Camarines S"r. He belonged to the g"errilla o"t!t of Colonel Pad"a
with ran& of ma$or. Cpon the arrival of the forces of liberation he was attached to the American Army from
April to 3"ne% 0>?-.
Altho"gh a R"ssian by birth he is not a citizen of Soviet R"ssia. He disclaims allegiance to the
present Comm"nist Hovernment of R"ssia. He is% therefore% a stateless ref"gee in this co"ntry% belonging
to no State% m"ch less to the present Hovernment of the land of his birth to which he is "ncompromisingly
opposed. He is not against organized government or aLliated with any association which "pholds and
teaches doctrine opposing all organized governments. He does not believe in the necessity or propriety of
violence% personal assa"lt or assassination for the s"ccess or predominance of his ideas. Beither is he a
polygamist or a believer in the practice of polygamy. He is not s"8ering from any mental alienation or
inc"rable contagio"s disease.
n A"g"st% 0>?0% appellee !led with the lower co"rt a petition for nat"ralization% accompanied with
s"pporting aLdavits of two citizens% copy of a declaration of intention sworn in 3"ly% 0>?1% and proper
notice of the hearing. (he petition was !nally set for hearing on 4ecember 0G% 0>?0% b"t it was not held on
that date beca"se the province was invaded by the 3apanese forces on 4ecember 0?% and the case
remained pending "ntil the records were destroyed d"ring the military operations for liberation in March%
0>?-. (he case was declared reconstit"ted on May 01% 0>?F% and the evidence was presented on A"g"st
,G and September ;1% 0>?F. @n the same day resol"tion was iss"ed granting the petition.
Altho"gh appellant +Sol Hen/ was represented at the hearing and cross*e2amined the witnesses for
the petitioner% he did not !le an opposition or presented any evidence.
Page 0# of 98
+**,Es7
. A@B the declaration of intention to become a #ilipino citizen is valid and s"Lcient basis for petition for
nat"ralization.
. A@B appellee has not established a legal residence in the Philippines% and that he cannot spea& and
write any of the principal Philippine lang"ages.
A@B applicant is stateless and is not dis'"ali!ed in applying for #ilipino citizenship.

Section - of the Revised Bat"ralization Maw7

Bo declaration shall be valid "ntil entry for permanent residence has been established and a
certi!cate showing the date% place and manner of his arrival has been iss"ed.
Appellant alleges that no doc"mentary or testimonial evidence was introd"ced to establish the fact
that appellee had lawf"lly been admitted into the Philippines for permanent residence.
n the reconstit"ted declaration the following can be read7
arrived at the Port of Manila on or abo"t the !rst day of March% 0>,;% as shown by the attached
certi!cate of arrival or landing certi!cate of residence.
(he records of the E"rea" of 3"stice% where the declarations of intention to become a #ilipino citizen
were !led% had been lost or destroyed d"ring the battle for the liberation of Manila% and the certi!cate
all"ded to has not been reconstit"ted.
AppellantNs contention that attachment of the certi!cate of arrival is essential to the validity of a
declaration !nds no s"pport in the wordings of the law% as the above*'"oted section - of Commonwealth
Act no. ?F; "ses the words Khas been iss"ed6.
Appellee s"ggests that we wo"ld not consider the '"estion here raised by appellant% the latter
having failed to raise it in lower co"rt and points o"t that there is testimonial evidence showing appelleeNs
arrival March% 0>,;% and that he was lawf"lly admitted for permanent residence% and the testimony of
petitioner has not been ref"ted. AppelleeNs alleges that the oLce of the President has certi!ed that it is a
matter of record that petitioner was one of the R"ssian ref"gees who entered the Philippines "nder the
command of Admiral Star&% the facts regarding arrival of the latter Peet being a matter of common
&nowledge% widely p"blicized in the newspapers at the time% of which this Co"rt may properly ta&e $"dicial
notice "nder section - of R"le 0,;. Ahen the Peet entered the Philippine waters% it was met by a Hovernor
Heneral Aood who% later% too& the matter "p with the a"thorities in Aashington in lengthy correspondence%
and the 0%,11 persons manning the Peet were allowed to land and to remain in the Philippines or proceed
to other co"ntries% e2cept abo"t G11 who were allowed to go to the Cnited States and given free
transportation on the naval transport KMerritt.K (he ships of the Peet were sold in the Philippines.
(he "ndisp"ted fact that the petitioner has been contin"o"sly residing in the Philippines for abo"t
,- years% witho"t having been molested by the a"thorities% who are pres"med to have been reg"larly
performing their d"ties and wo"ld have arrested petitioner if his residence is illegal% as rightly contended
by appellee% can be ta&en as evidence that he is en$oying permanent residence legally. (hat a certi!cate of
arrival has been iss"ed is a fact that sho"ld be accepted "pon the petitionerNs "ndisp"ted statement in his
declaration of 3"ly% 0>?1% that the certi!cate cannot be s"pposed that the receiving oLcial wo"ld have
accepted the declaration witho"t the certi!cate mentioned therein as attached thereto.
Page 06 of 98
Ae concl"de that petitionerNs declaration is valid "nder section - of the Bat"ralization Maw% fail"re
to reconstit"te the certi!cate of arrival notwithstanding. Ahat an "nreconstit"ted doc"ment intended to
prove may be shown by other competent evidence.

Per"sal of the testimonies on record leads to the concl"sion that petitioner has shown legal
residence in the Philippines for a contin"o"s period of not less than ten years as re'"ired by section , of
Commonwealth Act Bo. ?F;.
Appellant alleges that in the oral test at the hearing% it was demonstrated that petitioner has only a
smattering of Eicol% the #ilipino lang"age that petitioner alleges to &now% and he cannot spea& it as he was
not able to translate from English to Eicol '"estions as&ed by the co"rt and the provincial !scal% altho"gh%
in the contin"ation of the hearing on September ;1% 0>?F% Ks"rprisingly eno"gh% he s"cceeded answering
correctly in Eicol the '"estions propo"nded by his co"nsel% however% he f"mbled and failed to give the
translation of s"ch a common word as NloveN which the !scal as&ed of him.
(he lower co"rt made the !nding of fact that applicant spea&s and writes English and Eicol and
there seems to be no '"estion abo"t the competency of the $"dge who made the prono"ncement% beca"se
he has shown by the appealed resol"tion and by his '"estions propo"nded to appellee% that he has
command of both English and Eicol.
(he law has not set a speci!c standard of the principal Philippine lang"ages. A great n"mber of
standards can be set. (here are e2perts in English who say that Sha&espeare has "sed in his wor&s 0-%111
di8erent English words% and the [ingNs Eible abo"t 01%111% while abo"t -%111 are "sed by the better
ed"cated persons and abo"t ;%111 by the average individ"al. Ahile there may be persons ambitio"s
eno"gh to have a command of the abo"t =11%111 words recorded in the AebsterNs nternational 4ictionary%
there are a"thorities who wo"ld red"ce basic English to a few h"ndred words. Perhaps less than one
h"ndred well selected words will be eno"gh for the ordinary p"rposes of daily life.
(here is a reason to believe that the lower co"rtNs prono"ncement is well ta&en considering the fact
that% after he was liberated in 0>?, from the 3apanese in the Baga prison% petitioner $oined the g"errilla in
the Eicol region% too& part in enco"nters and s&irmishes against the 3apanese% and remained with the
g"errilla "ntil the Americans liberated the Eicol provinces. f appellee with his smattering of Eicol was able
to get along with his Eicol comrades in the hazardo"s life of the resistance movement% we believe that his
&nowledge of the lang"age satis!es the re'"irement of the law.
Appellant contends that there is no piece of positive evidence to s"pport petitionerNs allegation that
he can write too in the Eicol lang"age. (here% is% however% on record circ"mstantial evidence from which it
can be concl"ded that petitioner o"ght to &now also how to write Eicol. Ae &now that Eicol% as all the
important Philippine lang"ages% "ses the same alphabet "sed in English% and it is m"ch easier to write
Eicol than English% beca"se it is phonetic. Sowels and consonants have in them single and not
interchangeable phonetic val"es% while English words deviate very often from the basic so"nds of the
alphabet. (he ability to write cannot be denied to a person li&e petitioner% who has "ndergone the e2acting
technical training to be able to render services as Pier in the R"ssian Baval S'"adron in the Ealtic Sea and
in the Eritish Air #orces d"ring the !rst Aorld Aar. (he di8erence between the Cyrillic alphabet% as now
"sed by R"ssians% and o"r Roman alphabet% cannot weigh m"ch to deny petitioner the ability to "se the
latter. A person who has shown the command of English which can be seen in his testimony on record can
easily ma&e "se of an alphabet of twenty or more letters "niversally "sed in this co"ntry where he has
been residing contin"o"sly for ,- years.

Petitioner testi!ed categorically that he is not a R"ssian citizen and that he has no citizenship. His
testimony s"pports the lower co"rtNs prono"ncement that petitioner is a stateless ref"gee in this co"ntry.
Page 07 of 98
Appellant points o"t that petitioner stated in his petition for nat"ralization that he is citizen or
s"b$ect of the Empire of R"ssia% b"t the Empire of R"ssia has ceased to e2ist since the Czars were
overthrown in 0>0F by the Eolshevists% and the petitioner disclaims allegiance or connection with the
Soviet Hovernment established after the overthrow of the Czarist Hovernment.
Ae do not believe that the lower co"rt erred in prono"ncing appellee stateless. AppelleeNs
testimony% besides being "ncontradicted% is s"pported by the well*&nown fact that the r"thlessness of
modern dictatorship has scattered thro"gho"t the world a large n"mber of stateless ref"gees or displaced
persons% witho"t co"ntry and witho"t Pag. (he tyrannical intolerance of said dictatorships toward all
opposition ind"ced them to resort to beastly oppression% concentration camps and blood p"rges% and it is
only nat"ral that the not*so*fort"nate ones who were able to escape to foreign co"ntries sho"ld feel the
loss of all bonds of attachment to the hells which were formerly their fatherlandNs. Petitioner belongs to
that gro"p of stateless ref"gees.
[nowing% as all c"lt"red persons all over the world o"ght to &now% the history% nat"re and character
of the Soviet dictatorship% presently the greatest menace to h"manity and civilization% it wo"ld be
technically fastidio"s to re'"ire f"rther evidence of petitionerNs claim that he is stateless than his
testimony that he owes no allegiance to the R"ssian Comm"nist Hovernment and% is beca"se he has been
at war with it% he Ped from R"ssia to permanently reside in the Philippines. After !nding in this co"ntry
economic sec"rity in a rem"nerative $ob% establishing a family by marrying a #ilipina with whom he has a
son% and en$oying for ,- years the freedoms and blessings of o"r democratic way of life% and after showing
his resol"tion to retain the happiness he fo"nd in o"r political system to the e2tent of ref"sing to claim
R"ssian citizenship even to sec"re his release from the 3apanese and of casting his lot with that of o"r
people by $oining the fort"nes and misfort"nes of o"r g"errillas% it wo"ld be beyond comprehension to
s"pport that the petitioner co"ld feel any bond of attachment to the Soviet dictatorship.
(he appealed resol"tion is aLrmed.
Page 08 of 98
Mateo Caas$ vs. Co=rt o6 (ppeals
G.R. No. 888/1 K 80#:8, Nove!er 8, 199:
Gr$no-(C=$no, %.&
'(C)*& (hese two cases were consolidated beca"se they have the same ob$ective i.e. the dis'"ali!cation
"nder Section =G of the @mnib"s Election Code of the private respondent% Merito Mig"el for the position of
m"nicipal mayor of Eolinao% Pangasinan% to which he was elected in the local elections of 3an"ary 0G% 0>GG%
on the gro"nd that he is a green card holder% hence% a permanent resident of the Cnited States of America%
not of Eolinao.
n H.R. Bo. G?-1G involve a petition for certiorari assailing the decision of the C@MEMEC #irst
4ivision dismissing the three +;/ petitions of Anecito Cascante% Cederico Catabay% and 3ose!no C. Celeste%
for the dis'"ali!cation of Merito C. Mig"el !led prior to the local elections on 3an"ary 0G% 0>GG. (he
C@MEMEC #irst 4ivision reasoned that the possession of a green card by Mig"el does not s"Lciently
establish that he has abandoned his residence in the Philippines. Conversely% H.R. Bo. GGG;0 is a petition
for review of the decision dated 3"ne ,0% 0>G> of the Co"rt of Appeals dismissing the petition for "uo
warranto !led by Mateo Caasi% a rival candidate for the position of m"nicipal mayor of Eolinao% Pangasinan%
also to dis'"alify Merito Mig"el on acco"nt of his being a green card holder. (he CA ratiocinated that it is
pointless for the R(C is hear the '"o warranto as the C@MEMEC has already r"led that Mig"el meets the
very basic re'"irements of citizenship and residency.
n his answer to both petitions% Mig"el admitted that he holds a green card iss"ed to him by the CS
mmigration Service% b"t he denied that he is a permanent resident of the Cnited States. He allegedly
obtained the green card for convenience in order that he may freely enter the Cnited States for his
periodic medical e2amination and to visit his children there. He alleged that he is a permanent resident of
Eolinao% Pangasinan% that he voted in all previo"s elections% incl"ding the plebiscite on #ebr"ary ,%0>GF for
the rati!cation of the 0>GF Constit"tion% and the congressional elections on May 0G%0>GF.
+**,E& Ahether or not Mig"el is a permanent resident of the CS.
HEL-& Ies. Section 0G% Article Y of the 0>GF Constit"tion provides% 5P"blic oLcers and employees owe
the State and this Constit"tion allegiance at all times% and any p"blic oLcer or employee who see&s to
change his citizenship or ac'"ire the stat"s of an immigrant of another co"ntry during his tenure shall be
dealt with by law.6 Moreover% Section =G of the @mnib"s Election Code of the Philippines +E.P. Elg. GG0/
provides% 5Any person who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign co"ntry shall not be
'"ali!ed to r"n for any elective oLce "nder this Code% "nless said person has waived his stat"s as
permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign co"ntry in accordance with the residence re'"irement
provided for in the election laws.6
n the case of Merito Mig"el% the Co"rt deems it signi!cant that in the KApplication
for <mmigrant Sisa and Alien RegistrationK +@ptional #orm Bo. ,;1% 4epartment of State/ which Mig"el
!lled "p in his own handwriting and s"bmitted to the CS Embassy in Manila before his depart"re for the
Cnited States in 0>G?% Mig"elNs answer to U"estion Bo. ,0 therein regarding his KMength of intended stay
+if permanently% so state/%K Mig"elNs answer was% H&ermanently.H @n its face% the green card that was
s"bse'"ently iss"ed by the Cnited States 4epartment of 3"stice and mmigration and Registration Service
to the respondent Merito C. Mig"el identi!es him in clear bold letters as a RES4EB( AMEB. @n the bac& of
the card% the "pper portion% the following information is printed7 5Alien Registration Receipt Card. Person
identi!ed by this card is entitled to reside permanently and wor& in the Cnited States.6
Page 09 of 98
4espite his vigoro"s disclaimer% Mig"elNs immigration to the Cnited States in 0>G? constit"ted an
abandonment of his domicile and residence in the Philippines. #or he did not go to the Cnited States
merely to visit his children or his doctor there: he entered the limited States with the intention to have
there permanently as evidenced by his application for an immigrantNs +not a visitorNs or to"ristNs/ visa.
Eased on that application of his% he was iss"ed by the C.S. Hovernment the re'"isite green card or
a"thority to reside there permanently.
mmigration is the removing into one place from another: the act of immigrating and entering into a
co"ntry with the intention of residing in it. An immigrant is a person who removes into a co"ntry for the
p"rpose of permanent residence. As shown infra G?% however% stat"tes sometimes give a broader meaning
to the term Kimmigrant.K As a resident alien in the C.S.% Mig"el owes temporary and local allegiance to the
C.S.% the co"ntry in which he resides. (his is in ret"rn for the protection given to him d"ring the period of
his residence therein. Aliens residing in the limited States% while they are permitted to remain% are in
general entitled to the protection of the laws with regard to their rights of person and property and to their
civil and criminal responsibility. n general% aliens residing in the Cnited States% while they are permitted to
remain are entitled to the safeg"ards of the constit"tion with regard to their rights of person and property
and to their civil and criminal responsibility. (h"s resident alien friends are entitled to the bene!t of the
provision of the #o"rteenth Amendment to the federal constit"tion that no state shall deprive Kany personK
of life liberty% or property witho"t d"e process of law% or deny to any person the e'"al protection of the
law% and the protection of this amendment e2tends to the right to earn a livelihood by following the
ordinary occ"pations of life. So an alien is entitled to the protection of the provision of the #ifth
Amendment to the federal constit"tion that no person shall be deprived of life% liberty% or property witho"t
d"e process of law.
Section 0G% Article Y of the 0>GF Constit"tion is not applicable to Merito Mig"el for he ac'"ired the
stat"s of an immigrant of the Cnited States before he was elected to p"blic oLce% not Kd"ring his ten"reK
as mayor of Eolinao% Pangasinan. (he law applicable to him is Section =G of the @mnib"s Election Code
+E.P. Elg. GG0/.
(o be K'"ali!ed to r"n for elective oLceK in the Philippines% the law re'"ires that the candidate who
is a green card holder m"st have Kwaived his stat"s as a permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign
co"ntry.K (herefore% his act of !ling a certi!cate of candidacy for elective oLce in the Philippines% did not of
itself constit"te a waiver of his stat"s as a permanent resident or immigrant of the Cnited States. (he
waiver of his green card sho"ld be manifested by some act or acts independent of and done prior to !ling
his candidacy for elective oLce in this co"ntry. Aitho"t s"ch prior waiver% he was Kdis'"ali!ed to r"n for
any elective oLceK +Sec. =G% @mnib"s Election Code/. Mig"el admits that he holds a green card% which
proves that he is a permanent resident or immigrant of the Cnited States% b"t the records of this case are
star&ly bare of proof that he had waived his stat"s as s"ch before he ran for election as m"nicipal mayor of
Eolinao on 3an"ary 0G% 0>GG. Ae% therefore% hold that he was dis'"ali!ed to become a candidate for that
oLce.
(he reason for Section =G of the @mnib"s Election Code is not hard to !nd. Residence in the
m"nicipality where he intends to r"n for elective oLce for at least one +0/ year at the time of !ling his
certi!cate of candidacy% is one of the '"ali!cations that a candidate for elective p"blic oLce m"st possess
+Sec. ?,% Chap. 0% (itle ,% Mocal Hovernment Code/. Mig"el did not possess that '"ali!cation beca"se he
was a permanent resident of the Cnited States and he resided in Eolinao for a period of only three +;/
months +not one year/ after his ret"rn to the Philippines in Bovember 0>GF and before he ran for mayor of
that m"nicipality on 3an"ary 0G% 0>GG.
n banning from elective p"blic oLce Philippine citizens who are permanent residents or immigrants
of a foreign co"ntry% the @mnib"s Election Code has laid down a clear policy of e2cl"ding from the right to
hold elective p"blic oLce those Philippine citizens who possess d"al loyalties and allegiance. (he law has
reserved that privilege for its citizens who have cast their lot with o"r co"ntry Kwitho"t mental reservations
or p"rpose of evasion.K (he ass"mption is that those who are resident aliens of a foreign co"ntry are
incapable of s"ch entire devotion to the interest and welfare of their homeland for with one eye on their
p"blic d"ties here% they m"st &eep another eye on their d"ties "nder the laws of the foreign co"ntry of
their choice in order to preserve their stat"s as permanent residents thereof.
Page #: of 98
Mig"el insists that even tho"gh he applied for immigration and permanent residence in the Cnited
States% he never really intended to live there permanently% for all that he wanted was a green card to
enable him to come and go to the C.S. with ease. n other words% he wo"ld have this Co"rt believe that he
applied for immigration to the C.S. "nder false pretenses: that all this time he only had one foot in the
Cnited States b"t &ept his other foot in the Philippines. Even if that were tr"e% this Co"rt will not allow itself
to be a party to his d"plicity by permitting him to bene!t from it% and giving him the best of both worlds so
to spea&.
Mig"elNs application for immigrant stat"s and permanent residence in the C.S. and his possession of a
green card attesting to s"ch stat"s are concl"sive proof that he is a permanent resident of the C.S. despite
his occasional visits to the Philippines. (he waiver of s"ch immigrant stat"s sho"ld be as ind"bitable as his
application for it. Absent clear evidence that he made an irrevocable waiver of that stat"s or that he
s"rrendered his green card to the appropriate C.S. a"thorities before he ran for mayor of Eolinao in the
local elections on 3an"ary 0G% 0>GG% o"r concl"sion is that he was dis'"ali!ed to r"n for said p"blic oLce%
hence% his election thereto was n"ll and void.
G.R. No. L-6/79 *epte!er "9, 19#0
+n t7e atter o6 t7e pet$t$on o6 ;+L'RE- ,2)ENG*, to !e ad$tted a c$t$zen o6 t7e P7$l$pp$ne.
;+L'RE- ,2)ENG*,, petitioner*appellee%
vs.
REP,4L+C .' )HE PH+L+PP+NE*, oppositor*appellant.
C.NCEPC+.N, J.:
'(C)*7 (his is an appeal ta&en by the Solicitor Heneral from a decision of the C# of Ceb"% granting the
application of Ailfred Cytengs"% for nat"ralization as citizen of the Philippines.
Petitioner*appellee was born% of Chinese parents% in 4"mag"ete% Begros @riental on @ctober =%
0>,F. He began his primary ed"cation at the Saint (heresaNs College in said m"nicipality. S"bse'"ently% he
attended the Mittle #lower of 3es"s Academy% then the San Carlos College and% still later the Siliman
Cniversity D all in the same locality D where he completed the secondary co"rse. Early in 0>?=% he
st"died% for one semester% in the Map"a nstit"te of (echnology% in Manila. Soon after% he went to the
Cnited States% where% from 0>?F to 0>-1% he was enrolled in the Meland Stanford 3"nior Cniversity% in
California% and was grad"ated% in 0>-1% with the degree of Eachelor of Science. n April of the same year
he ret"rned to the Philippines for fo"r +?/ months vacation. (hen% on 3"ly 0-% 0>-1% his present application
for nat"ralization was !led. #orthwith% he ret"rned to the Cnited States and too& a post*grad"ate co"rse% in
chemical engineering% in another ed"cational instit"tion% in #ort Aayne% ndiana. He !nished this co"rse in
3"ly 0>-0: b"t did not ret"rn to the Philippines "ntil @ctober 0;% 0>-0. Hence% the hearing of the case%
originally sched"led to ta&e place on 3"ly 0,% 0>-0% had to be postponed on motion of co"nsel for the
petitioner.
+**,E7 A@B the application for nat"ralization may be granted% notwithstanding the fact that petitioner left
the Philippines immediately after the !ling of his petition and did not ret"rn "ntil several months after the
!rst date set for the hearing thereof.
R,L+NG7 Section F of Commonwealth Act Bo. ?F; reads as follows7
Any person desiring to ac'"ire Philippine citizenship shall !le with the competent co"rt% a petition in
triplicate% accompanied by two photographs of the petitioner% setting forth his name and s"rname%
Page #1 of 98
his present and former place of residence: his occ"pation: the place and date of his birth: whether
single or married and if the father of children% the name% age birthplace and residence of the wife
and of each of the children: the appro2imate date of his arrival in the Philippines% the name of the
port of debar&ation% and if he remembers it% the name of the ship on which he came: a declaration
that he has the '"ali!cations re'"ired by this Act% specifying the same% and that he is not
dis'"ali!ed for nat"ralization "nder the provision of this Act: that he has complied with the
re'"irements of section !ve of this Act% and that he will reside continuously in the &hilippines from
the date of the 'ling of the petition up to the time of his admission to &hilippine citi(enship ...K
n conformity with this provision% petitioner stated in paragraph 0; of his application7
. . . will reside contin"o"sly in the Philippine from the date of the !ling of my petition "p to the
time of my admission to Philippine citizenship.
Petitioner contends% and the lower co"rt held% that the word KresidenceK% as "sed in the aforesaid
provision of the Bat"ralization Maw% is synonymo"s with domicile% which% once ac'"ired% is not lost by
physical absence% "ntil another domicile is obtained% and that% from 0>?= to 0>-0% he contin"ed to be
domiciled in% and hence a resident of the Philippines% his p"rpose in staying in the Cnited States% at that
time% being merely to st"dy therein.
t sho"ld be noted that to become a citizen of the Philippines by nat"ralization% one m"st reside
therein for not less than 01 years% e2cept in some special cases% in which - years of residence is s"Lcient
+sections , and ;% Commonwealth Act Bo. ?F;/. P"rs"ant to the provision above '"oted% he m"st% also% !le
an application stating therein% among other things% that he Khas the '"ali!cations re'"iredK by law.
nasm"ch as these '"ali!cations incl"de the residence re'"irement already referred to% it follows that the
applicant m"st prove that he is a residence of the Philippines at the time% not only of the !ling of the
application% b"t% also% of its hearing. f the residence th"s re'"ired is the act"al or constr"ctive permanent
home% otherwise &nown as legal residence or domicile% then the applicant m"st be domiciled in the
Philippines on both dates. Conse'"ently% when section F of Commonwealth Act Bo. ?F; imposes "pon the
applicant the d"ty to state in his sworn application Kthat he will reside contin"o"sly in the PhilippinesK in
the intervening period% it can not refer merely to the need of an "ninterr"pted domicile or legal residence%
irrespective of act"al residence% for said legal residence or domicile is obligatory "nder the law% even in the
absence of the re'"irement contained in said cla"se% and% it is well settled that% whenever possible% a legal
provision m"st not be so constr"ed as to be a "seless s"rpl"sage% and% accordingly% meaningless% in the
sense of adding nothing to the law or having no e8ect whatsoever thereon. (his conse'"ences may be
avoided only by constr"ing the cla"se in '"estion as demanding act"al residence in the Philippines from
the !ling of the petition for nat"ralization to its determination by the co"rt.
ndeed% altho"gh the words KresidenceK and KdomicileK are often "sed interchangeably% each has% in
strict legal parlance% a meaning distinct and di8erent from that of the other.
. . . (here is a decided preponderance of a"thority to the e8ect that residence and domicile are not
synonymo"s in connection with citizenship% $"risdiction% limitations% school privileges% probate and
s"ccession.
. . . the greater or less degree of permanency contemplated or intended f"rnishes a cl"e to the
sometimes shadowy distinction between residence and domicile. (o be a resident one m"st be
physically present in that place for a longer or shorter period of time. K(he essential distinction
between residence and domicile is this7 the !rst involves the intent to leave when the p"rpose for
which he has ta&en "p his abode ceases: the other has no s"ch intent% the abiding is animo
manendi. @ne may see& a place for p"rposes of pleas"re% of b"siness% or of health. f his intent be
to remain it becomes his domicile: if his intent is to leave as soon as his p"rpose is accomplished% it
is his residence. &erhaps the most satisfactory de'nition is that one is a resident of a place from
which his departure is in inde'nite as to time, de'nite as to purpose: and for this p"rpose he has
made the place his temporary home.
Page #" of 98
#or many legal p"rposes there is a clear distinction between KresidenceK and KdomicileK. A person
may hold an oLce or may have b"siness or employment or other a8air which re'"ires him to reside
at a partic"lar place. His intention is to remain there while the oLce or b"siness or employment or
other concern contin"es: b"t he has no p"rpose to remain beyond the time the interest e2ists which
determines his place of abode. 4omicile is characterized by the animus manendi . . . . .
Residence and domicile are not to be held synonymo"s. Residence is an act. 4omicile is an act
co"pled with an intent. B man may have a residence in one state or country and his domicile in
another % and he may be a nonresident of the date of his domicile in the sense that his place of
act"al residence is not there. Hence the great weight of a"thorities. D rightly so% as we thin& D that
a debtor, although his legal domicile is in the state, may reside or remain out of it for so long a time
and "nder s"ch circ"mstances as to ac'"ire so to spea&% an act"al nonresidence within the
meaning of the attachment stat"te.
4omicile is a m"ch broader term than residence. B man may have his domicile in one state and
actually reside in another, or in a foreign country . f he has once had a residence in a partic"lar
place and removed to another% b"t with the intention of ret"rning after a certain time% however long
that may be% his domicile is at the former residence and his residence at the place of his temporary
habitation . Residence and habitation are generally regarded as synonymo"s. A resident and an
inhabitant mean the same thing. A person resident is de!ned to be one Kdwelling and having his
abode in any place%K Kan inhabitant%K Kone that resides in a place.K %he "uestion of domicile is not
involved in determining whether a person is a resident of a state or country . (he compatability of
domicile in one state with act"al residence in another has been asserted and acted "pon in the law
of attachment by the Co"rts of Bew Ior&% Bew 3ersey% Maryland% Borth Carolina% Mississippi and
Aisconsin.
Residence indicates permanency of occupation, distinct from lodging or boarding, or temporary
occupation . t does not incl"de as m"ch as domicile% which re'"ires intention combined with
residence.K ... Kone may see& a place for p"rposes of pleas"re% of b"siness% or of health. f his intent
be to remain% it becomes his domicile: if his intent be to leave as soon as his purpose is
accomplished % it is his residence.K
(he derivation of the two words KresidenceK and KdomicileK fairly ill"strates the distinction in their
meaning. A home +dom"s/ is something more than a temporary place of remaining +residendi/
however long s"ch stay may contin"e.
KAhile% generally spea&ing% domicile and residence mean one and the same thing% residence
combined with intention to remain% constit"tes domicile while an established abode% !2ed
permanently for a time QXR for business or other purposes, constitutes a residence% tho"gh there
may be an intent% e2isting all the while% to ret"rn to the tr"e domicile.K
(here is a di8erence between domicile and residence. KResidenceK is "sed to indicate the place of
abode% whether permanent or temporary: KdomicileK denotes a !2ed permanent residence to which%
when absent% one has the intention of ret"rning. A man may have a residence in one place and a
domicile in another.K KResidence is not domicile% b"t domicile is residence co"pled with intention to
remain for an "nlimited time. A man can have b"t one domicile for one and the same p"rpose at
any time% b"t he may have n"mero"s places of residence. His place of residence generally is his
place of domicile% b"t is not by any means necessarily as% since no length of residence witho"t
intention of remaining will constit"te domicile. +[ennan on Residence and 4omicile/
S"ch distinction was% in e8ect% applied by this Co"rt in the case of 4omingo 4y% alias 1illiam Dy
!hinco vs. Republic of the &hilippines. (he '"estion arose whether% having been domiciled in the
Philippines for over ;1 years% he co"ld be nat"ralized as a citizen of the Philippines% witho"t a previo"s
declaration of intention% in view of section = of Commonwealth Act Bo. ?F; +as amended by
Commonwealth Act Bo. -;-/% e2empting from s"ch re'"irement Kthose who have resided in the Philippines
contin"o"sly for a period of thirty years or more% before !ling their application.K (his Co"rt decided the
'"estion in the negative% "pon that gro"nd that Kact"al and s"bstantial residence within the Philippines%
not legal residenceK% or Kdomicile%K alone% is essential to the en$oyment of the bene!ts of said e2emption.
Page #/ of 98
f said act"al and s"bstantial residence D not merely legal residence D is necessary to dispense
with the !ling of a declaration of intention% it is even more necessary d"ring the period intervening from
the !ling of the petition for nat"ralization to the date of the hearing thereof. n this connection% it sho"ld be
remembered that% "pon the !ling of said petition% the cler& of co"rt is ordained by law to p"blish it with a
notice of the date of the hearing% which p"rs"ant to section F of Act Bo. ,>,F% shall not be less than =1
days from the date of the last p"blication. (his period was e2tended to two +,/ months% by section F of
Commonwealth Act Bo. ?F;% and then to si2 +=/ months% by Rep"blic Act Bo. -;1. (he p"rpose of said
period% partic"larly the e2tensions thereof D of ma&ing a declaration of intention at least one +0/ year prior
to the !ling of the application D is not diLc"lt to determine. t is nothing b"t to give the government
s"Lcient time to chec& the tr"th of the statements made in said declaration of intention% if any% and in the
application for nat"ralization% especially the allegations therein relative to the possession of the
'"ali!cations and none of the dis'"ali!cations provided by law. Altho"gh data pertinent to said
'"ali!cations and dis'"ali!cations co"ld generally be obtained from persons familiar with the applicant% it
is to be e2pected that the information th"s sec"red wo"ld consist% mainly% of concl"sions and opinions of
said individ"als. ndeed% what else can they be e2pected to say on whether the applicant has a good moral
character: or whether he believes in the principles "nderlying o"r Constit"tion: or whether his cond"ct has
been proper and irreproachable: or whether he is s"8ering from mental alienation or inc"rable contagio"s
diseases% or has not mingled socially with the #ilipinos% or has not evinced a sincere desire to learn and
embrace the c"stoms% traditions and ideals of the #ilipinosO @bvio"sly% the Hovernment wo"ld be in a
better position to draw its own concl"sions on these matters if its oLcers co"ld personally observe the
behavior of the applicant and confer with him if necessary.
n the case at bar% the Hovernment has not had any chance whatsoever to th"s &eep a watchf"l eye
on petitioner herein. mmediately after the !ling of his application D and notwithstanding the e2plicit
promise therein made by him% "nder oath% to the e8ect that he wo"ld reside contin"o"sly in the Philippines
Kfrom the date of the !ling of his petition "p to the time of his admission to Philippine citizenshipK D he
ret"rned to the Cnited States% where he stayed% contin"o"sly% "ntil @ctober 0;% 0>-0. #or this reason% when
this case was called for hearing% for the !rst time% on 3"ly 0,% 0>-0% his co"nsel had to move for
contin"ance. (he adverse e8ect of s"ch absence "pon the opport"nity needed by the Hovernment to
observe petitioner herein was enhanced by the fact that% having been born in the Philippines% where he
!nished his primary and secondary ed"cation% petitioner did not have to !le% and did not !le% a declaration
of intention prior to the !ling of his petition for nat"ralization. (h"s% the Hovernment had no previo"s
notice of his intention to apply for nat"ralization "ntil the !ling of his petition and co"ld not ma&e the
re'"isite investigation prior thereto.
Moreover% considering that petitioner had stayed in the Cnited States% practically witho"t
interr"ption% from early in 0>?F to late in 0>-0% or for almost !ve +-/ years% over three years and a half of
which preceded the !ling of the application% it may be said that he resided D as disting"ished from
domiciled D in the Cnited States at that time and for over a year s"bse'"ently thereto. n fact% "nder o"r
laws% residence for si2 +=/ months s"Lces to entitle a person to e2ercise the right of s"8rage in a given
m"nicipality +section >G/% Rep"blic Act Bo. 0G1/: residence for one +0/ year% to r"n for a seat in the Ho"se
of Representatives +sec. F% Art. S% of the Constit"tion/: and residence for two +,/ years% to r"n for the
Senate +sec. ?% Art. S% of the Constit"tion/. n some states of the Cnited States% a residence of several
wee&s or months is eno"gh to establish a domicile for p"rposes of divorce. Altho"gh in these cases the
word KresidenceK has been constr"ed% generally% to mean KdomicileK D that it to say% act"al residence%
co"pled with the intention to stay permanently% at least at the time of the ac'"isition of said domicile D it
wo"ld seem apparent from the foregoing that the length of petitionerNs habitation in the Cnited States
amply $"sti!es the concl"sion that he was residing abroad when his application for nat"ralization was !led
and for !fteen +0-/ months thereafter% and that this is precisely the sit"ation so"ght to be forestalled by
the law in en$oining the applicant to Kreside contin"o"sly in the Philippines from the date of the !ling of the
petition "p to the time of his admission to Philippine citizenship%K "nless this legal mandate D which did
not e2ist "nder Act Bo. ,>,F% and was advisedly inserted% therefore% by section F of Commonwealth Act Bo.
?F; D were to be regarded as p"re verbiage% devoid% not only% of any force or e8ect% b"t% also% of any
intent or p"rpose% as it wo"ld% to o"r mind% t"rn o"t to be% were we to adopt petitionerNs pretense.
n short% we are of the opinion that petitioner herein has not complied with the re'"irements of
section F of Commonwealth Act Bo. ?F;% and with the aforementioned promise made by him in his
application% and% accordingly% is not entitled% in the present proceedings% to a $"dgment in his favor.
Page #0 of 98
Aherefore% the decision appealed from is hereby reversed% and the case dismissed% with costs against the
petitioner% b"t witho"t pre$"dice to the !ling of another application% if he so desires% in conformity with law.
t is so ordered.
+elda Ro=aldez-Marcos vs. C.MELEC
"08 *CR( /::, *epte!er 18, 199#
Jap=nan, %&
'(C)*&Petitioner melda Marcos !led her certi!cate of candidacy for the position of Representative of the
#irst district of Meyte indicating in the section LRes$dence $n const$t=enc< @7ere + see9 to !e elected
$ed$atel< preced$n8 t7e elect$on& seven ont7s.M (here"pon% private respondent Cirilo Roy
Monte$o who is her opponent and inc"mbent Representative of the #irst district of Meyte% !led a petition for
dis'"ali!cation and cancellation of certi!cate of candidacy of Marcos for fail"re to meet the constit"tional
re'"irement of residency. Petitioner then !led his amended<corrected certi!cate of candidacy to the head
oLce of C@MEMEC after being re$ected by the provincial election s"pervisor of Meyte contending that she
made an honest misinterpretation of the section and th"s she wo"ld li&e to rectify the same by adding the
Page ## of 98
word 5since childhood6. C@MEMEC% however% granted private respondent)s petition for dis'"ali!cation%
hence% petitioner)s amended certi!cate of candidacy were stri&e o8 on the gro"nd that it was !led after
the lapse of deadline. n r"ling th"s% C@MEMEC contends that when petitioner chose to stay in locos and
later on in Manila% co"pled with her intention to stay there by registering as a voter there% together with
her h"sband #erdinand Marcos% and e2pressly declaring that she is a resident of that place% she is deemed
to have abandoned (acloban City% where she spent her childhood and school days% as her place of
domicile. Her motion for reconsideration was denied. @n a resol"tion% C@MEMEC ordered that the
petitioner)s proclamation as Representative be s"spended in the event that she obtains the highest
n"mber of votes. @n acco"nt of the resol"tions dis'"alifying her from r"nning for the congressional seat
and on the C@MEMEC)s resol"tion s"spending her proclamation% petitioner comes to the S"preme Co"rt for
relief.
+**,E& Ahether or not (acloban% Meyte is petitioner)s domicile.
HEL-& Ies. A per"sal of the Resol"tion of the C@MEMECNs Second 4ivision reveals a startling conf"sion in
the application of settled concepts of K4omicileK and KResidenceK in election law. Ahile the C@MEMEC
seems to be in agreement with the general proposition that for the p"rposes of election law% residence is
synonymo"s with domicile% the Resol"tion reveals a tendency to s"bstit"te or mista&e the concept of
domicile for act"al residence% a conception not intended for the p"rpose of determining a candidateNs
'"ali!cations for election to the Ho"se of Representatives as re'"ired by the 0>GF Constit"tion. As it were%
residence% for the p"rpose of meeting the '"ali!cation for an elective position% has a settled meaning in
o"r $"risdiction.
Article -1 of the Civil Code decrees that Kfor the e2ercise of civil rights and the f"l!llment of civil
obligations% the domicile of nat"ral persons is their place of habit"al residence.K n :ng vs . Republic this
co"rt too& the concept of domicile to mean an individ"alNs Kpermanent homeK% Ka place to which% whenever
absent for b"siness or for pleas"re% one intends to ret"rn% and depends on facts and circ"mstances in the
sense that they disclose intent.K Eased on the foregoing% domicile incl"des the twin elements of Kthe fact
of residing or physical presence in a !2ed placeK and animus manendi % or the intention of ret"rning there
permanently.
Res$dence vs. -o$c$le. Residence% in its ordinary conception% implies the fact"al relationship of
an individ"al to a certain place. t is the physical presence of a person in a given area% comm"nity or
co"ntry. (he essential distinction between residence and domicile in law is that residence involves the
intent to leave when the p"rpose for which the resident has ta&en "p his abode ends. @ne may see& a
place for p"rposes s"ch as pleas"re% b"siness% or health. f a personNs intent be to remain% it becomes his
domicile: if his intent is to leave as soon as his p"rpose is established it is residence. t is th"s% '"ite
perfectly normal for an individ"al to have di8erent residences in vario"s places. However% a person can
only have a single domicile% "nless% for vario"s reasons% he s"ccessf"lly abandons his domicile in favor of
another domicile of choice.
Res$dence vs. -o$c$le. n Fytengsu vs. Republic% we laid this distinction '"ite clearly7 5(here is
a di8erence between domicile and residence. KResidenceK is "sed to indicate a place of abode% whether
permanent or temporary: KdomicileK denotes a !2ed permanent residence to which% when absent% one has
the intention of ret"rning. A man may have a residence in one place and a domicile in another. Residence
is not domicile% b"t domicile is residence co"pled with the intention to remain for an "nlimited time. A man
can have b"t one domicile for the same p"rpose at any time% b"t he may have n"mero"s places of
residence. His place of residence is generally his place of domicile% b"t it is not by any means necessarily
so since no length of residence witho"t intention of remaining will constit"te domicile.6
#or political p"rposes the concepts of residence and domicile are dictated by the pec"liar criteria of
political laws. As these concepts have evolved in o"r election law% what has clearly and "ne'"ivocally
emerged is the fact that residence for election p"rposes is "sed synonymo"sly with domicile.
n >uval vs. /uray% the Co"rt held that Kthe term residence. . . is synonymo"s with domicile which
imports not only intention to reside in a !2ed place% b"t also personal presence in that place% co"pled with
cond"ct indicative of s"ch intention.K Larena vs. %eves reiterated the same doctrine in a case involving the
'"ali!cations of the respondent therein to the post of M"nicipal President of 4"mag"ete% Begros
@riental. #aypon vs. )uirino% held that the absence from residence to p"rs"e st"dies or practice a
profession or registration as a voter other than in the place where one is elected does not constit"te loss of
Page #6 of 98
residence. So settled is the concept +of domicile/ in o"r election law that in these and other election law
cases% this Co"rt has stated that the mere absence of an individ"al from his permanent residence witho"t
the intention to abandon it does not res"lt in a loss or change of domicile.
(he deliberations of the 0>GF Constit"tion on the residence '"ali!cation for certain elective
positions have placed beyond do"bt the principle that when the Constit"tion spea&s of KresidenceK in
election law% it act"ally means only KdomicileK. n !o vs. *lectoral %ribunal of the ouse of
Representatives% this Co"rt concl"ded that the framers of the 0>GF Constit"tion obvio"sly adhered to the
de!nition given to the term residence in election law% regarding it as having the same meaning as
domicile.
t is the fact of residence% not a statement in a certi!cate of candidacy which o"ght to be decisive in
determining whether or not an individ"al has satis!ed the constit"tionNs residency '"ali!cation
re'"irement. (he said statement becomes material only when there is or appears to be a deliberate
attempt to mislead% misinform% or hide a fact which wo"ld otherwise render a candidate ineligible. t wo"ld
be plainly ridic"lo"s for a candidate to deliberately and &nowingly ma&e a statement in a certi!cate of
candidacy which wo"ld lead to his or her dis'"ali!cation.
t stands to reason therefore% that petitioner merely committed an honest mista&e in $otting the
word KsevenK in the space provided for the residency '"ali!cation re'"irement. (he circ"mstances leading
to her !ling the '"estioned entry obvio"sly res"lted in the s"bse'"ent conf"sion which prompted
petitioner to write down the period of her act"al stay in (olosa% Meyte instead of her period of residence in
the #irst district% which was Ksince childhoodK in the space provided. (hese circ"mstances and events are
amply detailed in the C@MEMECNs Second 4ivisionNs '"estioned resol"tion% albeit with a di8erent
interpretation. #or instance% when herein petitioner anno"nced that she wo"ld be registering in (acloban
City to ma&e her eligible to r"n in the #irst 4istrict% private respondent Monte$o opposed the same%
claiming that petitioner was a resident of (olosa% not (acloban City. Petitioner then registered in her place
of act"al residence in the #irst 4istrict% which is (olosa% Meyte% a fact which she s"bse'"ently noted down in
her Certi!cate of Candidacy. A close loo& at said certi!cate wo"ld reveal the possible so"rce of the
conf"sion7 the entry for residence +tem Bo. F/ is followed immediately by the entry for residence in the
constit"ency where a candidate see&s election.
Having been forced by private respondent to register in her place of act"al residence in Meyte
instead of petitionerNs claimed domicile% it appears that petitioner had $otted down her period of stay in her
legal residence or domicile. (he $"2taposition of entries in tem F and tem G D the !rst re'"iring act"al
residence and the second re'"iring domicile D co"pled with the circ"mstances s"rro"nding petitionerNs
registration as a voter in (olosa obvio"sly led to her writing down an "nintended entry for which she co"ld
be dis'"ali!ed. (his honest mista&e sho"ld not% however% be allowed to negate the fact of residence in the
#irst 4istrict if s"ch fact were established by means more convincing than a mere entry on a piece of
paper.
n s"pport of its asseveration that petitionerNs domicile co"ld not possibly be in the #irst 4istrict of
Meyte% the Second 4ivision of the C@MEMEC% in its assailed Resol"tion of April ,?%0>>- maintains that
Ke2cept for the time when +petitioner/ st"died and wor&ed for some years after grad"ation in (acloban City%
she contin"o"sly lived in Manila.K (he Resol"tion additionally cites certain facts as indicative of the fact
that petitionerNs domicile o"ght to be any place where she lived in the last few decades e2cept (acloban%
Meyte. #irst% according to the Resol"tion% petitioner% in 0>->% resided in San 3"an% Metro Manila where she
was also registered voter. (hen% in 0>=-% following the election of her h"sband to the Philippine presidency%
she lived in San Mig"el% Manila where she as a voter. n 0>FG and thereafter% she served as a member of
the Eatasang Pambansa and Hovernor of Metro Manila. KShe co"ld not% have served these positions if she
had not been a resident of Metro Manila%K the C@MEMEC stressed. Here is where the conf"sion lies.
Ae have stated% many times in the past% that an individ"al does not lose his domicile even if he has
lived and maintained residences in di8erent places. Residence% it bears repeating% implies a fact"al
relationship to a given place for vario"s p"rposes. (he absence from legal residence or domicile to p"rs"e
a profession% to st"dy or to do other things of a temporary or semi*permanent nat"re does not constit"te
loss of residence. (h"s% the assertion by the C@MEMEC that Kshe co"ld not have been a resident of
(acloban City since childhood "p to the time she !led her certi!cate of candidacy beca"se she became a
Page #7 of 98
resident of many placesK Pies in the face of settled $"rispr"dence in which this Co"rt caref"lly made
distinctions between +act"al/ residence and domicile for election law p"rposes.
n Larena vs. %eves% we stressed7 5(his co"rt is of the opinion and so holds that a person who has
his own ho"se wherein he lives with his family in a m"nicipality witho"t having ever had the intention of
abandoning it% and witho"t having lived either alone or with his family in another m"nicipality% has his
residence in the former m"nicipality% notwithstanding his having registered as an elector in the other
m"nicipality in '"estion and having been a candidate for vario"s ins"lar and provincial positions% stating
every time that he is a resident of the latter m"nicipality.6
More signi!cantly% in #aypon vs. )uirino% Ae e2plained that7 5A citizen may leave the place of his
birth to loo& for Kgreener past"res%K as the saying goes% to improve his lot% and that% of co"rse incl"des
st"dy in other places% practice of his avocation% or engaging in b"siness. Ahen an election is to be held%
the citizen who left his birthplace to improve his lot may desire to ret"rn to his native town to cast his
ballot b"t for professional or b"siness reasons% or for any other reason% he may not absent himself from his
professional or b"siness activities: so there he registers himself as voter as he has the '"ali!cations to be
one and is not willing to give "p or lose the opport"nity to choose the oLcials who are to r"n the
government especially in national elections. 4espite s"ch registration% the animus revertendi to his home%
to his domicile or residence of origin has not forsa&en him. (his may be the e2planation why the
registration of a voter in a place other than his residence of origin has not been deemed s"Lcient to
constit"te abandonment or loss of s"ch residence. t !nds $"sti!cation in the nat"ral desire and longing of
every person to ret"rn to his place of birth. (his strong feeling of attachment to the place of oneNs birth
m"st be overcome by positive proof of abandonment for another.6
#rom the foregoing% it can be concl"ded that in its above*cited statements s"pporting its proposition
that petitioner was ineligible to r"n for the position of Representative of the #irst 4istrict of Meyte% the
C@MEMEC was obvio"sly referring to petitionerNs vario"s places of +act"al/ residence% not her domicile. n
doing so% it not only ignored settled $"rispr"dence on residence in election law and the deliberations of the
constit"tional commission b"t also the provisions of the @mnib"s Election Code +E.P. GG0/.
Ahat is "ndeniable% however% are the following set of facts which establish the fact of petitionerNs
domicile% which we lift verbatim from the C@MEMECNs Second 4ivisionNs assailed Resol"tion7 5n or abo"t
0>;G when respondent was a little over G years old% she established her domicile in (acloban% Meyte
+(acloban City/. She st"died in the Holy nfant Academy in (acloban from 0>;G to 0>?> when she
grad"ated from high school. She p"rs"ed her college st"dies in St. Pa"lNs College% now 4ivine Aord
Cniversity in (acloban% where she earned her degree in Ed"cation. (hereafter% she ta"ght in the Meyte
Chinese School% still in (acloban City. n 0>-, she went to Manila to wor& with her co"sin% the late spea&er
4aniel W. Rom"aldez in his oLce in the Ho"se of Representatives. n 0>-?% she married e2*President
#erdinand E. Marcos when he was still a congressman of locos Borte and registered there as a voter. Ahen
her h"sband was elected Senator of the Rep"blic in 0>->% she and her h"sband lived together in San 3"an%
Rizal where she registered as a voter. n 0>=-% when her h"sband was elected President of the Rep"blic of
the Philippines% she lived with him in Malacanang Palace and registered as a voter in San Mig"el% Manila.
n #ebr"ary 0>G= +she claimed that/ she and her family were abd"cted and &idnapped to Honol"l"% Hawaii.
n Bovember 0>>0% she came home to Manila. n 0>>,% respondent ran for election as President of the
Philippines and !led her Certi!cate of Candidacy wherein she indicated that she is a resident and
registered voter of San 3"an% Metro Manila.6
Applying the principles disc"ssed to the facts fo"nd by C@MEMEC% what is inescapable is that
petitioner held vario"s residences for di8erent p"rposes d"ring the last fo"r decades. Bone of these
p"rposes "ne'"ivocally point to an intention to abandon her domicile of origin in (acloban% Meyte.
Moreover% while petitioner was born in Manila% as a minor she nat"rally followed the domicile of her
parents. She grew "p in (acloban% reached her ad"lthood there and event"ally established residence in
di8erent parts of the co"ntry for vario"s reasons. Even d"ring her h"sbandNs presidency% at the height of
the Marcos RegimeNs powers% petitioner &ept her close ties to her domicile of origin by establishing
residences in (acloban% celebrating her birthdays and other important personal milestones in her home
province% instit"ting well*p"blicized pro$ects for the bene!t of her province and hometown% and
establishing a political power base where her siblings and close relatives held positions of power either
thro"gh the ballot or by appointment% always with either her inP"ence or consent. (hese well*p"blicized
ties to her domicile of origin are part of the history and lore of the '"arter cent"ry of Marcos power in o"r
Page #8 of 98
co"ntry. Either they were entirely ignored in the C@MEMECNS Resol"tions% or the ma$ority of the C@MEMEC
did not &now what the rest of the co"ntry always &new7 the fact of petitionerNs domicile in (acloban% Meyte.
Monte$o)s contends that (acloban was not petitionerNs domicile of origin beca"se she did not live
there "ntil she was eight years old. He avers that after leaving the place in 0>-,% she Kabandoned her
residency +sic/ therein for many years and . . . +co"ld not/ re*establish her domicile in said place by merely
e2pressing her intention to live there again.K S"ch contention is not tenable.
#irst% minor follows the domicile of his parents. As domicile% once ac'"ired is retained "ntil a new
one is gained% it follows that in spite of the fact of petitionerNs being born in Manila% (acloban% Meyte was
her domicile of origin by operation of law. (his domicile was not established only when her father bro"ght
his family bac& to Meyte contrary to private respondentNs averments.
Second% domicile of origin is not easily lost. (o s"ccessf"lly e8ect a change of domicile% one m"st
demonstrate7 +0./ An act"al removal or an act"al change of domicile: +,./ A bona 'de intention of
abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one: and +;./ Acts which correspond with
the p"rpose.
n the absence of clear and positive proof based on these criteria% the residence of origin sho"ld be
deemed to contin"e. @nly with evidence showing conc"rrence of all three re'"irements can the
pres"mption of contin"ity or residence be reb"tted% for a change of residence re'"ires an act"al and
deliberate abandonment% and one cannot have two legal residences at the same time.
/8
n the case at
bench% the evidence add"ced by private respondent plainly lac&s the degree of pers"asiveness re'"ired to
convince this co"rt that an abandonment of domicile of origin in favor of a domicile of choice indeed
occ"rred. (o e8ect an abandonment re'"ires the vol"ntary act of relin'"ishing petitionerNs former domicile
with an intent to s"pplant the former domicile with one of her own choosing +domicilium voluntarium/.
n this connection% it cannot be correctly arg"ed that petitioner lost her domicile of origin by
operation of law as a res"lt of her marriage to the late President #erdinand E. Marcos in 0>-,. #or there is a
clearly established distinction between the Civil Code concepts of KdomicileK and Kresidence.K (he
pres"mption that the wife a"tomatically gains the h"sbandNs domicile by operation of law "pon marriage
cannot be inferred from the "se of the term KresidenceK in Article 001 of the Civil Code beca"se the Civil
Code is one area where the two concepts are well delineated. 4r. Art"ro (olentino% writing on this speci!c
area e2plains7 5n the Civil Code% there is an obvio"s di8erence between domicile and residence. Eoth
terms imply relations between a person and a place: b"t in residence% the relation is one of fact while in
domicile it is legal or $"ridical% independent of the necessity of physical presence.6
Article 001 of the Civil Code provides7 5(he h"sband shall !2 the residence of the family. E"t the
co"rt may e2empt the wife from living with the h"sband if he sho"ld live abroad "nless in the service of
the Rep"blic.6 A s"rvey of $"rispr"dence relating to Article 001 or to the concepts of domicile or residence
as they a8ect the female spo"se "pon marriage yields nothing which wo"ld s"ggest that the female
spo"se a"tomatically loses her domicile of origin in favor of the h"sbandNs choice of residence "pon
marriage.
Article 001 is a virt"al restatement of Article -G of the Spanish Civil Code of 0GG>. Bote the "se of
the phrase Kdonde "uiera su '=e de residenciaK in Article -G% which means wherever +the h"sband/ wishes
to establish residence. (his part of the article clearly contemplates only act"al residence beca"se it refers
to a positive act of !2ing a family home or residence. Moreover% this interpretation is f"rther strengthened
by the phrase Kcuando el marido translade su residenciaK in the same provision which means% Kwhen the
h"sband shall transfer his residence%K referring to another positive act of relocating the family to another
home or place of act"al residence. (he article obvio"sly cannot be "nderstood to refer to domicile which is
a !2ed%
fairly*permanent concept when it plainly connotes the possibility of transferring from one place to another
not only once% b"t as often as the h"sband may deem !t to move his family% a circ"mstance more
consistent with the concept of act"al residence.
(he right of the h"sband to !2 the act"al residence is in harmony with the intention of the law to
strengthen and "nify the family% recognizing the fact that the h"sband and the wife bring into the marriage
di8erent domiciles +of origin/. (his di8erence co"ld% for the sa&e of family "nity% be reconciled only by
Page #9 of 98
allowing the h"sband to !2 a single place of act"al residence. Sery signi!cantly% Article 001 of the Civil
Code is fo"nd "nder (itle S "nder the heading7 RHH(S AB4 @EMHA(@BS EE(AEEB HCSEAB4 AB4 A#E.
mmediately preceding Article 001 is Article 01> which obliges the h"sband and wife to live together.
(he d"ty to live together can only be f"l!lled if the h"sband and wife are physically together. (his
ta&es into acco"nt the sit"ations where the co"ple has many residences +as in the case of the petitioner/. f
the h"sband has to stay in or transfer to any one of their residences% the wife sho"ld necessarily be with
him in order that they may Klive together.K Hence% it is illogical to concl"de that Art. 001 refers to
KdomicileK and not to Kresidence.K @therwise% we shall be faced with a sit"ation where the wife is left in the
domicile while the h"sband% for professional or other reasons% stays in one of their +vario"s/ residences. As
4r. (olentino f"rther e2plains7 5Residence and 4omicile D Ahether the word KresidenceK as "sed with
reference to partic"lar matters is synonymo"s with KdomicileK is a '"estion of some diLc"lty% and the
"ltimate decision m"st be made from a consideration of the p"rpose and intent with which the word is
"sed. Sometimes they are "sed synonymo"sly% at other times they are disting"ished from one another.
Residence in the civil law is a material fact% referring to the physical presence of a person in a place. A
person can have two or more residences% s"ch as a co"ntry residence and a city residence. Residence is
ac'"ired by living in place: on the other hand% domicile can e2ist witho"t act"ally living in the place. (he
important thing for domicile is that% once residence has been established in one place% there be an
intention to stay there permanently% even if residence is also established in some other
place.6
n fact% even the matter of a common residence between the h"sband and the wife d"ring the
marriage is not an iron*clad principle: n cases applying the Civil Code on the '"estion of a common
matrimonial residence% o"r $"rispr"dence has recognized certain sit"ations where the spo"ses co"ld not be
compelled to live with each other s"ch that the wife is either allowed to maintain a residence di8erent from
that of her h"sband or% for obvio"sly practical reasons% revert to her original domicile +apart from being
allowed to opt for a new one/. n De la .ina vs . .illareal this Co"rt held that KQaR married woman may
ac'"ire a residence or domicile separate from that of her h"sband d"ring the e2istence of the marriage
where the h"sband has given ca"se for divorce.K Bote that the Co"rt allowed the wife either to obtain new
residence or to choose a new domicile in s"ch an event. n instances where the wife act"ally opts% ."nder
the Civil Code% to live separately from her h"sband either by ta&ing new residence or reverting to her
domicile of origin% the Co"rt has held that the wife co"ld not be compelled to live with her h"sband on pain
of contempt.
Parenthetically when Petitioner was married to then Congressman Marcos% in 0>-?% petitioner was
obliged D by virt"e of Article 001 of the Civil Code D to follow her h"sbandNs act"al place of residence
!2ed by him. (he problem here is that at that time% Mr. Marcos had several places of residence% among
which were San 3"an% Rizal and Eatac% locos Borte. (here is no showing which of these places Mr. Marcos
did !2 as his familyNs residence. E"t ass"ming that Mr. Marcos had !2ed any of these places as the
con$"gal residence% what petitioner gained "pon marriage was act"al residence. She did not lose her
domicile of origin.
@n the other hand% the common law concept of Kmatrimonial domicileK appears to have been
incorporated% as a res"lt of o"r $"rispr"dential e2periences after the drafting of the Civil Code of 0>-1% into
the Bew #amily Code. (o "nderscore the di8erence between the intentions of the Civil Code and the #amily
Code drafters% the term residence has been s"pplanted by the term domicile in an entirely new provision
+Art. =>/ distinctly di8erent in meaning and spirit from that fo"nd in Article 001. (he provision recognizes
revol"tionary changes in the concept of womenNs rights in the intervening years by ma&ing the choice of
domicile a prod"ct of m"t"al agreement between the spo"ses.
Aitho"t as m"ch belaboring the point% the term residence may mean one thing in civil law +or "nder
the Civil Code/ and '"ite another thing in political law. Ahat stands clear is that insofar as the Civil Code is
concerned*a8ecting the rights and obligations of h"sband and wife D the term residence sho"ld only be
interpreted to mean Kact"al residence.K (he inescapable concl"sion derived from this "nambig"o"s civil
law delineation therefore% is that when petitioner married the former President in 0>-?% she &ept her
domicile of origin and merely gained a new home% not a domicilium necessarium.
Even ass"ming for the sa&e of arg"ment that petitioner gained a new KdomicileK after her marriage
and only ac'"ired a right to choose a new one after her h"sband died% petitionerNs acts following her ret"rn
Page 6: of 98
to the co"ntry clearly indicate that she not only impliedly b"t e2pressly chose her domicile of origin
+ass"ming this was lost by operation of law/ as her domicile. (his KchoiceK was "ne'"ivocally e2pressed in
her letters to the Chairman of the PCHH when petitioner so"ght the PCHHNs permission to Krehabilitate
+o"r/ ancestral ho"se in (acloban and #arm in @lot% Meyte. . . to ma&e them livable for the Marcos family to
have a home in o"r homeland.K
07
#"rthermore% petitioner obtained her residence certi!cate in 0>>, in
(acloban% Meyte% while living in her brotherNs ho"se% an act which s"pports the domiciliary intention clearly
manifested in her letters to the PCHH Chairman. She co"ld not have gone straight to her home in San 3"an%
as it was in a state of disrepair% having been previo"sly looted by vandals. Her KhomesK and KresidencesK
following her arrival in vario"s parts of Metro Manila merely '"ali!ed as temporary or Kact"al residences%K
not domicile. Moreover% and proceeding from o"r disc"ssion pointing o"t speci!c sit"ations where the
female spo"se either reverts to her domicile of origin or chooses a new one d"ring the s"bsistence of the
marriage% it wo"ld be highly illogical for "s to ass"me that she cannot regain her original domicile "pon the
death of her h"sband absent a positive act of selecting a new one where sit"ations e2ist within the
s"bsistence of the marriage itself where the wife gains a domicile di8erent from her h"sband.
N.)E*& Article S% Sec. =. Bo person shall be a member of the Ho"se of Representatives "nless he is a
nat"ral*born citizen of the Philippines and% on the day of the election% is at least ,- years of age% able to
read and write% and e2cept the party*list representative% a registered voter in the district in which he shall
be elected % and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of
the election.
Pad$lla, %& -$ssent$n8 .p$n$on& (o my mind% the one year residence period is cr"cial regardless
of whether or not the term KresidenceK is to be synonymo"s with Kdomicile.K n other words% the
candidateNs intent and act"al presence in one district m"st in allsit"ations satisfy the length of time
prescribed by the f"ndamental law. And this% beca"se of a de!nite Constit"tional p"rpose. He m"st be
familiar with the environment and problems of a district he intends to represent in Congress and the one*
year residence in said district wo"ld be the minim"m period to ac'"ire s"ch familiarity% if not versatility.
t stands to reason that Section = of RA ==?= does not ma&e the second placer the winner simply
beca"se a Kwinning candidate is dis'"ali!ed%K b"t that the law considers him as the candidate who had
obtained the highest n"mber of votes as a res"lt of the votes cast for the dis'"ali!ed candidate not being
co"nted or considered. As this law clearly rePects the legislative policy on the matter% then there is no
reason why this Co"rt sho"ld not re*e2amine and conse'"ently abandon the doctrine in the 3"n Mabo case.
t has been stated that Kthe '"ali!cations prescribed for elective oLce cannot be erased by the electorate
alone. (he will of the people as e2pressed thro"gh the ballot cannot c"re the vice of ineligibilityK most
especially when it is mandated by no less than the Constit"tion.
Re8alado, %.& -$ssent$n8 .p$n$on& (h"s% the American r"le is li&ewise to the e8ect that while
after the h"sbandNs death the wife has the right to elect her own domicile%
9
she nevertheless retains the
last domicile of her deceased h"sband "ntil she ma&es an act"al change.
1:
n the absence of aLrmative
evidence% to the contrary% the pres"mption is that a wifeNs domicile or legal residence follows that of her
h"sband and will contin"e after his death.
-av$de, %r.& -$ssent$n8 .p$n$on& (he ma$ority opinion also disregards a basic r"le in evidence
that he who asserts a fact or the aLrmative of an iss"e has the b"rden of proving it. Having admitted
marriage to the then Congressman Marcos% the petitioner co"ld not deny the legal conse'"ence thereof on
the change of her domicile to that of her h"sband. (he ma$ority opinion r"les or at least concl"des that
KQbRy operation of law +domicilium necesarium/% her legal domicile at the time of her marriage
a"tomatically became Eatac% locos Borte.K (hat concl"sion is consistent with Article 001 of the Civil Code.
Since she is pres"med to retain her deceased h"sbandNs domicile "ntil she e2ercises her revived power to
ac'"ire her own domicile% the b"rden is "pon her to prove that she has e2ercised her right to ac'"ire her
own domicile. She miserably failed to discharge that b"rden.
5$t=8, %.& *eparate .p$n$on& (he C@MEMECNs $"risdiction% in the case of congressional elections%
ends when the $"risdiction of the Electoral (rib"nal concerned begins. t signi!es that the protestee m"st
have theretofore been d"ly proclaimed and has since become a KmemberK of the Senate or the Ho"se of
Representatives. (he '"estion can be as&ed on whether or not the proclamation of a candidate is $"st a
ministerial f"nction of the Commission on Elections dictated solely on the n"mber of votes cast in an
election e2ercise. believe% it is not. A ministerial d"ty is an obligation the performance of which% being
ade'"ately de!ned% does not allow the "se of f"rther $"dgment or discretion. (he C@MEMEC% in its
Page 61 of 98
partic"lar case% is tas&ed with the f"ll responsibility of ascertaining all the facts and conditions s"ch as may
be re'"ired by law before a proclamation is properly done.
(he Co"rt% on its part% sho"ld% in my view at least% refrain from any "nd"e encroachment on the
"ltimate e2ercise of a"thority by the Electoral (rib"nals on matters which% by no less than a constit"tional
!at% are e2plicitly within their e2cl"sive domain. (he nagging '"estion% if it were otherwise% wo"ld be the
e8ect of the Co"rtNs peremptory prono"ncement on the ability of the Electoral (rib"nal to later come "p
with its own $"dgment in a contest Krelating to the election% ret"rns and '"ali!cationK of its members.
Mendoza, %.& *eparate .p$n$on& n my view the iss"e in this case is whether the Commission on
Elections has the power to dis'"alify candidates on the gro"nd that they lac& eligibility for the oLce to
which they see& to be elected. thin& that it has none and that the '"ali!cations of candidates may be
'"estioned only in the event they are elected% by !ling a petition for "uo warranto or an election protest in
the appropriate for"m% not necessarily in the C@MEMEC b"t% as in this case% in the Ho"se of
Representatives Electoral (rib"nal. (hat the parties in this case too& part in the proceedings in the
C@MEMEC is of no moment. S"ch proceedings were "na"thorized and were not rendered valid by their
agreement to s"bmit their disp"te to that body.
Ey providing in T ,-; for the remedy of "uo warranto for determining an elected oLcialNs
'"ali!cations after the res"lts of elections are proclaimed% while being conspic"o"sly silent abo"t a pre*
proclamation remedy based on the same gro"nd% the @mnib"s Election Code% or @EC% by its silence
"nderscores the policy of not a"thorizing any in'"iry into the '"ali!cations of candidates "nless they have
been elected.
Apparently realizing the lac& of an a"thorized proceeding for declaring the ineligibility of
candidates% the C@MEMEC amended its r"les on #ebr"ary 0-% 0>>; so as to provide in R"le ,-% T 0 the
following7 5/rounds for dis"uali'cation. D Any candidate who does not possess all the '"ali!cations of a
candidate as provided for by the Constit"tion or by e2isting law or who commits any act declared by law to
be gro"nds for dis'"ali!cation may be dis'"ali!ed from contin"ing as a candidate.6 (he lac& of provision
for declaring the ineligibility of candidates% however% cannot be s"pplied by a mere r"le. S"ch an act is
e'"ivalent to the creation of a ca"se of action which is a s"bstantive matter which the C@MEMEC% in the
e2ercise of its r"lema&ing power "nder Art. Y% A% T = of the Constit"tion% cannot do. t is noteworthy that
the Constit"tion withholds from the C@MEMEC even the power to decide cases involving the right to vote%
which essentially involves an in'"iry into "uali'cations based on age, residence and citi(enship of voters.
+Art. Y% C% T ,+;//
(he assimilation in R"le ,- of the C@MEMEC r"les of gro"nds for ineligibility into gro"nds for
dis'"ali!cation is contrary to the evident intention of the law. #or not only in their gro"nds b"t also in their
conse'"ences are proceedings for Kdis'"ali!cationK di8erent from those for a declaration of Kineligibility.K
K4is'"ali!cationK proceedings% as already stated% are based on gro"nds speci!ed in TT 0, and =G of the
@mnib"s Election Code and in T ?1 of the Mocal Hovernment Code and are for the p"rpose of barring an
individ"al from becoming a candidate or from continuing as a candidate for p"blic oLce. n a word% their
p"rpose is to eliminate a candidate from the raceeither from the start or d"ring its progress. Kneligibility%K
on the other hand% refers to the lac& of the '"ali!cations prescribed in the Constit"tion or the stat"tes for
holding public o,ce and the p"rpose of the proceedings for declaration of ineligibility is to remove the
incumbent from o,ce.
Roero, %.& *eparate .p$n$on& s"bmit that a widow% li&e the petitioner and others similarly
sit"ated% can no longer be bo"nd by the domicile of the departed h"sband% if at all she was before. Beither
does she a"tomatically revert to her domicile of origin% b"t e2ercising free will% she may opt to reestablish
her domicile of origin. n ret"rning to (acloban and s"bse'"ently% to Earangay @lot% (olosa% both of which
are located in the #irst 4istrict of Meyte% petitioner amply demonstrated by overt acts% her election of a
domicile of choice% in this case% a reversion to her domicile of origin. Added together% the time when she
set "p her domicile in the two places s"Lced to meet the one*year re'"irement to r"n as Representative
of the #irst 4istrict of Meyte.
P=no, %.& Conc=rr$n8 .p$n$on& t is not% therefore% the mere fact of marriage b"t the deliberate choice of a
di8erent domicile by the h"sband that will change the domicile of a wife from what it was prior to their marriage. (he
domiciliary decision made by the h"sband in the e2ercise of the right conferred by Article 001 of the Civil Code binds
Page 6" of 98
the wife. Any and all acts of a wife d"ring her covert"re contrary to the domiciliary choice of the h"sband cannot
change in any way the domicile legally !2ed by the h"sband. (hese acts are void not only beca"se the wife lac&s the
capacity to choose her domicile b"t also beca"se they are contrary to law and p"blic policy.
n light of the #amily Code which abrogated the ine'"ality between h"sband and wife as started and
perpet"ated by the common law% there is no reason in espousing the anomalous rule that the wife still retains the
domicile of her dead husband. Article 001 of the Civil Code which provides the stat"tory s"pport for this stance has
been repealed by Article => of the #amily Code. Ey its repeal% it becomes a dead*letter law% and we are not free to
res"rrect it by giving it f"rther e8ect in any way or manner s"ch as by r"ling that the petitioner is still bo"nd by the
domiciliary determination of her dead h"sband.
Aside from rec&oning with the #amily Code% we have to consider o"r Constit"tion and its !rm g"arantees of
d"e process and e'"al protection of law.

<t can hardly be doubted that the common law imposition on a married
woman of her dead husband-s domicile even beyond his grave is patently discriminatory to women. t is a gender*
based discrimination and is not rationally related to the ob$ective of promoting family solidarity. t cannot s"rvive a
constit"tional challenge.
Prescinding from these premises% respectf"lly s"bmit that the better stance is to rule that petitioner
reac"uired her %acloban domicile upon the death of her husband in 78C8. (his is the necessary conse'"ence of the
view that petitionerNs Eatac dictated domicile did not contin"e after her h"sbandNs death: otherwise% she wo"ld have
no domicile and that will violate the "niversal r"le that no person can be witho"t a domicile at any point of time. (his
stance also restores the right of petitioner to choose her domicile before it was ta&en away by Article 001 of the Civil
Code% a right now recognized by the #amily Code and protected by the Constit"tion.
All these attempts to mis"se o"r laws and legal processes are forms of ran& harassments and invidio"s
discriminations against petitioner to deny her e'"al access to a p"blic oLce. Ae cannot commit any hermene"tic
violence to the Constit"tion by tort"ring the meaning of e'"ality% the end res"lt of which will allow the harassment and
discrimination of petitioner who has lived a controversial life% a past of alternating light and shadow. (here is b"t one
Constit"tion for all #ilipinos. Petitioner cannot be ad$"dged by a Kdi8erentK Constit"tion% and the worst way to interpret
the Constit"tion is to in$ect in its interpretation% bile and bitterness.
'ranc$sco, %.& Conc=rr$n8 .p$n$on& (acloban% Meyte% is petitionerNs domicile of origin which was
invol"ntarily s"pplanted with another% i.e.% Eatac% locos Borte% "pon her marriage in 0>-? with then Congressman
Marcos. Ey legal !ction she followed the domicile of her h"sband. n my view% the reason for the law is for the spo"ses
to f"lly and e8ectively perform their marital d"ties and obligations to one another.
1
(he '"estion of domicile% however%
is not a8ected by the fact that it was the legal or moral d"ty of the individ"al to reside in a given place. (h"s% while the
wife retains her marital domicile so long as the marriage s"bsists% she a"tomatically loses it "pon the latterNs
termination% for the reason behind the law then ceases. @therwise% petitioner% after her marriage was ended by the
death of her h"sband% wo"ld be placed in a '"ite abs"rd and "nfair sit"ation of having been freed from all wifely
obligations yet made to hold on to one which no longer serves any meaningf"l p"rpose.
t is my view therefore that petitioner reverted to her original domicile of (acloban% Meyte "pon her h"sbandNs
death witho"t even signifying her intention to that e8ect. t is for the private respondent to prove% not for petitioner to
disprove% that petitioner has e8ectively abandoned (acloban% Meyte for Eatac% locos Borte or for some other place<s.
G.R. No. L-1#:8: (pr$l "#, 196"
+N )HE M())ER .' )HE (-.P)+.N .' )HE M+N.R N.RM( LEE C(4ER, R+C(R-. R. C(R(4(LL.,
petitioner*appellee%
vs. REP,4L+C .' )HE PH+L+PP+NE*, opponent*appellant.
P(-+LL(, J.:
#AC(S7 n a veri!ed petition !led on ,= September 0>-G in the C# of Pampanga% Ricardo R. Caraballo% an
American citizen enlisted in the Cnited States Air #orce as sta8 sergeant detailed in Clar& #ield% Angeles%
Pampanga% where he and his wife Hraciela H. Caraballo live% alleges that he and his wife have no
legitimate% legitimated% ac&nowledged nat"ral children% nat"ral children by legal !ction or any other
descendant: that with his wifeNs written consent he desires to adopt as his child Borma Mee Caber% a !ve*
day old nat"ral da"ghter of Mercedes 3. Caber begotten by an "n&nown father% who gave her consent to
the adoption in a sworn statement: that since the day following her birth Borma Mee Caber has been reared
and cared for by him and his wife who have developed love and a8ection for her: that he never has been
Page 6/ of 98
convicted of any crime involving moral t"rpit"de: that !nancially and morally he is able to s"pport% bring
"p and ed"cate the child: and prays that after notice% p"blication and hearing Borma Mee Caber be
declared his child for all intents and p"rposes% free from any obligation of obedience and maintenance with
respect to her nat"ral mother Mercedes 3. Caber.
@n ,= September 0>-G the Co"rt ordered the veri!ed petition !led by Ricardo R. Caraballo to be
p"blished and was p"blished in the Daily Mirror once a wee& for three consec"tive wee&s setting the
petition for hearing on 0G @ctober 0>-G. As at the hearing nobody appeared to ob$ect to the petition for
adoption% petitionerNs co"nsel prayed for an order of defa"lt% which was entered against all interested
parties% e2cept the Solicitor Heneral or Provincial #iscal who% according to the Co"rt m"st appear in
adoption cases.
@n ,F @ctober 0>-G the Provincial and Assistant Provincial #iscal of Pampanga moved for the
dismissal of the petition for adoption on the gro"nd that it states no ca"se of action and that the
petitioner% being a non*resident alien% is not '"ali!ed to adopt. (he Co"rt granted the petitioner ten days
within which to !le an answer to the motion to dismiss and s"bmit a memorand"m of a"thorities% and the
!scal the same n"mber of days to reply. Petitioner !led an answer or ob$ection to the motion to dismiss% to
which the Provincial #iscal replied. (he Co"rt denied the motion to dismiss.
After hearing% the Co"rt fo"nd the following7
... Petitioner is ;, years old while the child so"ght to be adopted is three months old% having been
born on September ,1% 0>-G. (he petitioner has been residing at Clar& Air Ease for the last ,-
months. He has had the child% Borma Mee Caber% in his ho"sehold as a da"ghter since the day
following that of her birth and has developed a fondness for her and intends to bring her "p and
ed"cate her as his own to the best of his ability. He has never had any children% either with his wife%
Hraciela H. Caraballo% with whom he has been married for 0, years% or with any other woman.
He is a sta8 sergeant in the Cnited States Air #orce and receives appro2imately 9?=-.11 a month%
incl"ding allowances. He e2pects to retire as a master sergeant after = years and ; months% and as
s"ch% he wo"ld receive a monthly pension of abo"t 90F-.11 to 90>1.11 for the rest of his life. He
has an allotment chec& made o"t to a ban& for 9G?.11 a month. He has two ins"rance policies with
an aggregate val"e of P0-%111.11 and has a savings of 9=%111.11 to 9F%111.11 which he has been
acc"m"lating for the last 0- to ,1 years. After retirement% he intends to settle down permanently in
the Philippines where he will engage in the to"rist b"siness by p"tting "p a hotel.
t also appears that petitioner has never been convicted of any crime whatsoever and rendered a
decree as follows7 .
PREMSES C@BS4ERE4% the Co"rt believes that it wo"ld be to the best interest of the child to be
placed "nder the care and c"stody of petitioner who is materially and morally able to ed"cate and
bring her "p properly and ade'"ately% and% therefore% ad$"dges that henceforth Borma Mee Caber
shall be% for all legitimate intents and p"rposes% the child of Ricardo R. Caraballo and shall be freed
from all legal obligations of obedience and maintenance with respect to her nat"ral mother%
Mercedes Caber% and that her s"rname shall be changed to that of petitioner% and p"rs"ant to
Article ;?= of the Civil Code of the Philippines% this decision shall be recorded in the local civil
registry of Angeles% Pampanga% and the name and s"rname of the said minor shall thereafter be
Borma Mee Caraballo.
+**,E7 A@B Caraballo is '"ali!ed to adopt the minor.
R,L+NG7 (he provisions of article ;;- of the Civil Code provides7
(he following cannot adopt D
+0/ (hose who have legitimate% legitimated% ac&nowledged nat"ral children% or nat"ral children by
legal !ction:
Page 60 of 98
+,/ (he g"ardian% with respect to the ward% before the !nal approval of his acco"nts:
+;/ A married person% witho"t the consent of the other spo"se:
+?/ Non-res$dent al$ens:
+-/ Resident aliens with whose government the Rep"blic of the Philippines has bro&en diplomatic
relations:
+=/ Any person who has been convicted of a crime involving moral t"rpit"de% when the penalty
imposed was si2 monthsN imprisonment or more.
A person is deemed a resident of a place in a co"ntry or state where he has his abode and lives
there permanently. t is a place chosen by him freely and vol"ntarily% altho"gh he may later on change his
mind and live elsewhere. A place in a co"ntry or state where he lives and stays permanently and to which
he intends to ret"rn after a temporary absence% no matter how long% is his domicile. A so$o"rn s"ch as a
to"rist tho"gh act"ally present at a place of his free choice cannot be deemed a resident of that place. A
foreigner who has a b"siness or interest therein or property located in a co"ntry or state and goes and
stays in that co"ntry or state to loo& after his b"siness or property or to chec& "p the manner or way his
b"siness or property is being cond"cted or r"n by his manager b"t does not intend to remain in the
co"ntry inde!nitely cannot be deemed a resident of s"ch co"ntry. Act"al or physical presence or stay of a
person in a place% not of his free and vol"ntary choice and witho"t intent to remain there inde!nitely% does
not ma&e him a resident of the place. Moo&ing after the welfare of a minor to be adopted the law has
s"rro"nded him with safeg"ards to achieve and ins"re s"ch welfare. t cannot be gainsaid that an adopted
minor may be removed from the co"ntry by the adopter% who is not a resident of the Philippines% and
placed beyond the reach and protection of the co"ntry of his birth.
Ricardo R. Caraballo% the petitioner% an American citizen who now lives in Clar& #ield% m"nicipality of
Angeles% province of Pampanga% Rep"blic of the Philippines% beca"se of his assignment as sta8 sergeant in
the Cnited States Air #orce D his stay in the Philippines then being temporary D is a non*resident alien
who% p"rs"ant to cla"se ? of the above '"oted article of the Civil Code% is dis'"ali!ed to adopt a child in
the Philippines.
(he decree appealed from is set aside and the petition dismissed% witho"t prono"ncement as to costs.
%=an L. (lcantara vs. *ecretar< o6 +nter$or
G.R. No. L-0/#9", Ma< 17, 19/#
Goddard, %.&
Page 6# of 98
'(C)*& 3"an Alcantara et al. instit"ted an action to the SC for the iss"ance of a writ of mandam"s to
compel nterior Secretary et al. to register and inscribe Alcantara et al. as '"ali!ed electors at the electoral
precinct at Ealala% C"lion% Palawan% in order that they can vote in the plebiscite to be held on May 0?% 0>;-
on the vital '"estion of the acceptance or re$ection of the Constit"tion for the Commonwealth of the
Philippine slands.
Alcantara et al. allege that they are '"ali!ed voters residing at C"lion Meper Colony% C"lion%
Palawan% having voted in previo"s elections in the Philippine slands: that in a p"blic mass meeting held on
April -% 0>;-% they adopted a resol"tion demanding the right to vote in the plebiscite and re'"esting that
electoral precincts be established within the radi"s of the C"lion Meper Colony in order that the '"ali!ed
voters therein co"ld register% which resol"tion was sent to his E2cellency% the Hovernor*Heneral% who
referred it to the Honorable% the Secretary of the nterior: that the 4epartment of the nterior% thro"gh its
legal division% r"led that no new electoral precincts co"ld be created at C"lion Meper Colony inasm"ch as
the plebiscite is treated as and considered as a special election: that in view of this r"ling Alcantara et al.
re'"ested% by telegram% the nterior 4epartment to a"thorize the Ealala Electoral Eoard of nspectors%
C"lion% Palawan% to register the '"ali!ed voters of C"lion Meper Colony: that this re'"est was ref"sed "pon
the gro"nd that Alcantara et al. were not bona 'de residents of C"lion% Palawan: that on April ,;% 0>;-% the
petitioners 3"an M. Alcantara% Mig"el Saldes% Adolfo Almeda and 4ionisio PaJgilinan% accompanied by
Attorney Martin Miras% appeared before the chairman of the Ealala Electoral Eoard of nspectors and
re'"ested him to register and inscribe them in the oLcial list of '"ali!ed voters in order that they might
vote on May 0?% 0>;-% and that their re'"est was denied on the gro"nd that no speci!c instr"ctions to
register them had been received from the 4epartment of the nterior.
According to nterior Secretary et al.% Alcantara et al. are not '"ali!ed voters% beca"se they shall
not have been residents of C"lion for si2 months ne2t preceding the day of voting% for they have not
ac'"ired residence in C"lion as they are con!ned therein as lepers against their will% and they have no
intention to permanently reside there +sections ?;1*?;0 of the Administrative Code as !nally amended by
Acts Bos. ;;GF% sec. 0% and ?00,% secs. 0 to ;/.
+**,E& Ahether or not Alcantara et al. are '"ali!ed voters.
HEL-& n the Cnited States the right of s"8rage is derived from the states "nder the state constit"tions%
s"b$ect to the #ifteenth Amendment to the Bational Constit"tion which limits the right of the states to
discriminate against persons by reason of their race% color or previo"s condition of servit"de. (his being so
it follows that% when a state constit"tion en"merates and !2es the '"ali!cations of those who may e2ercise
the right of s"8rage% the legislat"re cannot ta&e from nor add to said '"ali!cations "nless the power to do
so is conferred "pon it by the constit"tion itself.
At present the nearest approach to a constit"tion that we have in the Philippines in o"r @rganic Act%
the 3ones Maw% enacted A"g"st ,>% 0>0=% by the Congress of the Cnited States. K(he organic law +or Act/ of
a territory ta&es the place of a constit"tion as the f"ndamental law of the local government.K (he only
provisions contained in that law as to the '"ali!cation of voters reads as follows7
SEC. 0-. (hat at the !rst election held p"rs"ant to this Act% the '"ali!ed electors shall be those
having the '"ali!cations of voters "nder the present law: thereafter and "ntil otherwise provided by
the Philippine Megislat"re herein provided for the '"ali!cations of voters for Senators and
Representatives in the Philippines and all oLcers elected by the people shall be as follows7
Every male person who is not a citizen or s"b$ect of a foreign power twenty*one years of age or
over +e2cept insane and feeble*minded persons and those convicted in a co"rt of competent
$"risdiction of an infamo"s o8ense since the thirteenth day of A"g"st% eighteen h"ndred and ninety*
eight/% who shall have been a resident of the Philippines for one year and of the m"nicipality in
which he shall o8er to voter for si2 months ne2t preceding the day of voting% and who is comprised
within one of the following classes7
+a/ (hose who "nder e2isting law are legal voters and have e2ercised the right of s"8rage.
+b/ (hose who own real property to the val"e of -11 pesos% or who ann"ally pay ;1 pesos or more
of the established ta2es.
+c/ (hose who are able to read and write either Spanish% English% or a native lang"age.
Page 66 of 98
Cnder the a"thority conferred "pon it by the above '"oted section the Philippine Megislat"re has
prescribed the '"ali!cations and dis'"ali!cations of voters in sections ?;0 and ?;, of the Revised
Administrative Code% which read as follows7
SEC. ?;0. )uali'cations prescribed for voters. D Every male or female person who is not a citizen
or s"b$ect of a foreign power% twenty*one years of age or over% who shall have been a resident of
the Philippines for one year and of the m"nicipality in which he shall o8er to vote for si2 months
ne2t preceding the day of voting is entitled to vote in all elections if comprised within either of the
following three classes7
+a/ (hose who% "nder the laws in force in the Philippine slands "pon the twenty*eight day of
A"g"st% nineteen h"ndred and si2teen% were legal voters and had e2ercised the right of s"8rage.
+b/ Male persons who own real property to the val"e of !ve h"ndred pesos% declared in their name
for ta2ation p"rposes for a period of not less than one year prior to the date of the election% or who
ann"ally pay thirty pesos or more of the established ta2es.
+c/ (hose who are able to read and write either Spanish% or English% or a native lang"age.
SEC. ?;,. Dis"uali'cations. D (he following persons shall be dis'"ali!ed from voting7
+a/ Any person who% since the thirteenth day of A"g"st% eighteen h"ndred and ninety*eight% has
been sentenced by !nal $"dgment to s"8er not less than eighteen months of imprisonment% s"ch
disability not having been removed by plenary pardon.
+b/ Any persons who has violated an oath of allegiance ta&en by him to the Cnited States.
+c/ nsane or feeble*minded persons.
+d/ 4eaf*m"tes who cannot read and write.
+e/ Electors registered "nder s"bsection +c/ of the ne2t preceding section who% after failing to ma&e
sworn statement to the satisfaction of the board of inspectors at any of its two meetings for
registration and revision% that they are incapacitated for preparing their ballots d"e to
permanent physical disability% present themselves at the ho"r of voting as incapacitated%
irrespective of whether s"ch incapacity be real or feigned.
(here is no hard and fast r"le by which to determine where a person act"ally resides. KEach case
m"st depend on its partic"lar facts or circ"mstances. (hree r"les are% however% well established7 !rst% that
a man m"st have a residence or domicile somewhere: second% that where once established it remains "ntil
a new one is ac'"ired: and third% a man can have b"t one domicile at a time.K
n order to arrive at a correct sol"tion of the '"estion raised by nterior Secretary et al. in this case%
one m"st not be misled by the decisions of the co"rts in states where there are constit"tional provisions as
to residence for voting p"rposes% vastly di8erent from those of the 3ones Maw and the Revised
Administrative Code.
n some of the states% there is a constit"tional provision to the e8ect that for the p"rpose of voting
no person shall be deemed to have gained or lost a residence while a st"dent at any seminary of learning.
Cnder s"ch a provision it has been held Kthat a st"dent does not ac'"ire a residence for voting p"rposes
merely by attending s"ch an instit"tion.K n addition to s"ch provisions as to st"dents% constit"tions of
some states provide that K#or the p"rpose of voting% no person shall be deemed to have gained or lost a
residence by reason shall be deemed to have gained or lost a residence by reason of his presence or
absence while ... &ept at any almsho"se or other asyl"m at p"blic e2pense: ... .K Cnder s"ch a provision the
r"le in some $"risdictions is Kthat inmates of soldiersN homes% by going to and residing in s"ch home%
neither lose their old% nor gain a new% residence% tho"gh they intend to reside in the home permanently.
Hence they are not entitled to vote e2cept at their place of residence before becoming s"ch inmates.
n other $"risdictions% however% a contrary concl"sion has been reached% "pon the theory that "nder
s"ch a constit"tional provision an inmate s"ch an instit"tion may ac'"ire a residence at the home. n the
absence of s"ch a constit"tional prohibition the r"le is that a permanent member of a soldiersN home has a
residence at s"ch home for the p"rpose of voting.
Page 67 of 98
(here being no s"ch provisions or prohibitions in the 3ones Maw nor in the sections of the Revised
Administrative Code% '"oted above% we see no reason for applying in this $"risdiction the legal doctrine of
the co"rts of the states which have adopted s"ch% or similar% constit"tional provisions.
(here are a large n"mber of people con!ned in the C"lion Meper Colony. (hey are not permitted to
ret"rn to their former homes to vote. (hey are not allowed to visit their former homes even tho"gh they
have been separated from near and dear relatives who are not aZicted as they are. Ahy split hairs over
the meaning of residence for voting p"rposes "nder s"ch circ"mstancesO Ass"ming that the petitioners
intend to ret"rn to their former homes if at some f"t"re time they are c"red% this intention does not
necessarily defeat their residence before they act"ally do ret"rn if they have been residents Kof the
Philippine slands for one year and of the m"nicipality in which they o8er to vote for si2 months ne2t
preceding the day of voting.K S"rely a mere intention to ret"rn to their former homes% a cons"mmation
every h"mane person desires for them% not realized and which may never be realized sho"ld not prevent
them% "nder the circ"mstances% from ac'"iring a residence for voting p"rposes.
(his co"rt is of the opinion that% "nder o"r liberal law% s"ch of the petitioners as have been
residents of the Philippine slands for one year and residents for si2 months in the m"nicipality in which
they desire to vote and have the other '"ali!cations prescribed for voters in section ?;0 of the Revised
Administrative Code and who have none of the dis'"ali!cations prescribed in section ?;, of the same
Code were entitled to register and vote in the plebiscite of May 0?% 0>;-. Having reached this concl"sion
and being "nable to determine from the record whether the Alcantara et al. have the prescribed
'"ali!cations for voters and none of the prescribed dis'"ali!cations the SC on May 00% 0>;- sent a
telegram to nterior Secretary et al. granting the mandam"s and commanded the lather to register and
inscribe s"ch of the therein petitioners as have the '"ali!cations prescribed for voters provided in section
?;0 and none of the dis'"ali!cations prescribed in section ?;, of the Revised Administrative Code in order
that they may vote in the plebiscite on May 0?% 0>;-.
Page 68 of 98
G.R. No. L-0//10 -ece!er 19, 19/#
(.L. 5EL+LL(, ad$n$strator o6 t7e estate o6 (rt7=r Gra<don Mood<, plainti8 *appellant% vs.
%,(N P.*(-(*, %R., Collector o6 +nternal Reven=e, defendant*appellee.
4,))E, J.:
(his is an appeal from a $"dgment of the C# manila in an action to recover from the defendant*
appellee as CR the s"m of PFF%10G.;> as inheritance ta2es and P0;%110.?0 as income ta2es assessed
against the estate of Arth"r H. Moody.
'(C)*7
Arth"r Hraydon Moody% an American citizen% came to the Philippine slands in 0>1, or 0>1; and
engaged actively in b"siness in these slands "p to the time of his death in Calc"tta% ndia% on #ebr"ary 0G%
0>;0. He had no b"siness elsewhere. He e2ec"ted in the Philippine slands a will where he be'"eathed all
his property to his only sister% da M. Palmer% who then was and still is a citizen and resident of the State of
Bew Ior&% CSA.
@n #ebr"ary ,?%0>;0% a petition for appointment of special administrator of the estate of the
deceased Arth"r Hraydon Moody was !led by A. Ma2well (heba"t with the C# of Manila. S"bse'"ently or
on April 01% 0>;0% a petition for probate of the will of the deceased Arth"r Hraydon Moody was !led% and
the same was% after hearing% d"ly probated by the co"rt in a decree dated May -% 0>;0.
@n 3"ly 0?% 0>;0% da M. Palmer was declared to be the sole and only heiress of the deceased Arth"r
Hraydon Moody by virt"e of an order iss"ed by the co"rt in said case: and that d"ring the hearing for the
declaration of heirs% da M. Palmer presented as evidence a letter dated #ebr"ary ,G% 0>,-% and addressed
to her by Arth"r Hraydon Moody.
(he property left by the late Arth"r Hraydon Moody consisted principally of bonds and shares of
stoc& of corporations organized "nder the laws of the Philippine slands% ban& deposits and other personal
properties% as are more f"lly shown in the inventory of April 0F% 0>;0% !led by the special administrator
with the co"rt in said case Bo. ;>00;. (his stip"lation does not% however% cover the respective val"es of
said properties for the p"rpose of the inheritance ta2.
(he ER prepared for the estate of the late Arth"r Hraydon Moody an inheritance ta2 ret"rn. An
income ta2 ret"rn for the fractional period from 3an"ary 0% 0>;0 to 3"ne ;1% 0>;0% was also prepared by the
ER for the estate of the said deceased Arth"r Hraydon Moody. @n 4ecember ;% 0>;0% the committee on
claims and appraisals !led with the co"rt its report.
@n September 0-% 0>;0% the ER addressed to the attorney for the administratri2 da M. Palmer a
letter. @n @ctober 0-% 0>;0% the attorney for da M. Palmer answered the letter of the CR
(he ER addressed to the attorney for da M. Palmer another letter. (he attorney for da M. Palmer
again replied in a letter.
(he estate of the late Arth"r Hraydon Moody paid "nder protest the s"m of P-1%111 on 3"ly ,,%
0>;0% and the other s"m of P?1%10>.F- on 3an"ary 0>% 0>;,% ma&ing assessment for inheritance ta2 and
the s"m of P0;%110.?0 covers the assessment for income ta2 against said estate. (he CR overr"led the
protest made by da M. Palmer thro"gh her attorney.
Page 69 of 98
(he s"bstance of the plainti8Ns ca"se of action is as follows7
(hat there is no valid law or reg"lation of the Hovernment of the Philippine slands "nder or
by virt"e of which any inheritance ta2 may be levied% assessed or collected "pon transfer% by
death and s"ccession% of intangible personal properties of a person not domiciled in the
Philippine slands% and the levy and collection by defendant of inheritance ta2 comp"ted
"pon the val"e of said stoc&s% bonds% credits and other intangible properties as aforesaid
constit"ted and constit"tes the ta&ing and deprivation of property witho"t d"e process of
law contrary to the Eill of Rights and organic law of the Philippine slands.
Section 0-;= of the Revised Administrative Code +as amended/ provides as follows7
SEC. 0-;=. !onditions and rate of ta+ation. D Every transmission by virt"e of inheritance%
devise% be'"est% gift mortis causa or advance in anticipation of inheritance. devise% or
be'"est of real property located in the Philippine slands and real rights in s"ch property: of
any franchise which m"st be e2ercised in the Philippine slands% of any shares% obligations%
or bonds iss"ed by any corporation or sociedad anonima organized or constit"ted in the
Philippine slands in accordance with its laws: of any shares or rights in any partnership%
b"siness or any personal property located in the Philippine slands shall be s"b$ect to the
following ta27 2222 2222 2222
+**,E7 Ahere was the legal domicile of Arth"r H. Moody at the time of his deathO
R,L+NG7 (he Solicitor*Heneral raises a preliminary ob$ection to the consideration of any evidence that
MoodyNs domicile was elsewhere than in Manila at the time of his death based on the proposition that as no
s"ch ob$ection was made before the CR as one of the gro"nds of the protest against the payment of the
ta2% this ob$ection cannot be considered in a s"it against the Collector to recover the ta2es paid "nder
protest. He relies "pon the decision in the case of A.C. ("c&er vs. A.C. Ale2ander% Collector. Ae call
attention% however% to the fact that this decision was reversed in ,F- C.S.% ,;,: F, Maw. ed.% ,-=% and the
case remanded for trial on the merits on the gro"nd that the re'"irement that the action shall be based
"pon the same gro"nds% and only s"ch% as were presented in the protest had been waived by the collector.
n the case before "s no copy of the ta2payerNs protest is incl"ded in the record and we have no means of
&nowing its contents. Ae thin&% therefore% the preliminary ob$ection made on behalf of the appellee does
not lie.
Ae proceed% therefore% to the consideration of the '"estion on the merits as to whether Arth"r H.
Moody was legally domiciled in the Philippine slands on the day of his death. Moody was never married
and there is no do"bt that he had his legal domicile in the Philippine slands from 0>1, or 0>1; forward
d"ring which time he acc"m"lated a fort"ne from his b"siness in the Philippine slands. He lived in the
El&sN Cl"b in Manila for many years and was living there "p to the date he left Manila the latter part of
#ebr"ary% 0>,G% "nder the following circ"mstances7 He was aZicted with leprosy in an advanced stage and
been informed by 4r. Aade that he wo"ld be reported to the Philippine a"thorities for con!nement in the
C"lion Meper Colony as re'"ired by the law. 4istressed at the tho"ght of being th"s segregated and in
violation of his promise to 4r. Aade that he wo"ld vol"ntarily go to C"lion% he s"rreptitio"sly left the
slands the latter part of #ebr"ary% 0>,G% "nder cover of night% on a freighter% witho"t tic&et% passport or
ta2 clearance certi!cate. (he record does not show where Moody was d"ring the remainder of the year
0>,G. He lived with a friend in Paris% #rance% d"ring the months of March and April of the year 0>,> where
he was receiving treatment for leprosy at the Paste"r nstit"te. (he record does not show where Moody
was in the interval between April% 0>,>% and Bovember ,=% 0>;1% on which latter date he wrote a letter to
Harry Aendt of Manila% o8ering to sell him his interest in the Camera S"pply Company% a Philippine
corporation% in which Moody owned ->> o"t of =1; shares. n this letter% among other things% he states7
KCertainly Nll never ret"rn there to live or enter b"siness again.K n this same letter he says7
wish to &now as soon as now +as to the p"rchase/ for have very recently decided either to sell or
p"t in a line of school or oLce s"pplies ... before go to the necessary investments placing any side lines%
concl"ded to get yo"r de!nite reply to this ... have given o"r Bew Ior& b"ying agent a conditional order
not to be e2ec"ted "ntil March and this will give yo" plenty of time ... anything that &ills a b"siness is to
have it peddled aro"nd as being for sale and this is what wish to avoid. He wrote letters dated 4ecember
Page 7: of 98
0,% 0>;1% and 3an"ary ;% 0>;0% along the same line to Aendt. As Moody died of leprosy less than two
months after these letters were written% there can be no do"bt that he wo"ld have been immediately
segregated in the C"lion Meper Colony had he ret"rned to the Philippine slands. He was% therefore% a
f"gitive% not from $"stice% b"t from con!nement in the C"lion Meper Colony in accordance with the law of
the Philippine slands.
(here is no statement of Moody% oral or written% in the record that he had adopted a new domicile
while he was absent from Manila. (ho"gh he was physically present for some months in Calc"tta prior to
the date of his death there% the appellant does not claim that Moody had a domicile there altho"gh it was
precisely from Calc"tta that he wrote and cabled that he wished to sell his b"siness in Manila and that he
had no intention to live there again. M"ch less pla"sible% it seems to "s% is the claim that he established a
legal domicile in Paris in #ebr"ary% 0>,>. (he record contains no writing whatever of Moody from Paris.
(here is no evidence as to where in Paris he had any !2ed abode that he intended to be his permanent
home. (here is no evidence that he ac'"ired any property in Paris or engaged in any settled b"siness on
his own acco"nt there. (here is no evidence of any aLrmative factors that prove the establishment of a
legal domicile there. (he negative evidence that he told Cooley that he did not intend to ret"rn to Manila
does not prove that he had established a domicile in Paris. His short stay of three months in Paris is
entirely consistent with the view that he was a transient in Paris for the p"rpose of receiving treatments at
the Paste"r nstit"te. (he evidence in the record indicates clearly that MoodyNs contin"ed absence from his
legal domicile in the Philippines was d"e to and reasonably acco"nted for by the same motive that ca"sed
his s"rreptitio"s depart"re% namely% to evade con!nement in the C"llion Meper Colony for he do"btless
&new that on his ret"rn he wo"ld be immediately con!ned% beca"se his aZiction became graver to "s
while he was absent than it was on the day of his precipito"s depart"re and he co"ld not conceal himself in
the Philippines where he was well &nown% as he might do in foreign parts.
@"r Civil Code +art. ?1/ de!nes the do$c$le o6 nat=ral persons as Dt7e place o6 t7e$r =s=al
res$denceK. (he record before "s leaves no do"bt in o"r minds that the K"s"al residenceK of this
"nfort"nate man% whom appellant describes as a Kf"gitiveK and Ko"tcastK% was in Manila where he had
lived and toiled for more than a '"arter of a cent"ry% rather than in any foreign co"ntry he visited d"ring
his wanderings "p to the date of his death in Calc"tta. )o eBect t7e a!andonent o6 one?s do$c$le,
t7ere =st !e a del$!erate and prova!le c7o$ce o6 a ne@ do$c$le, co=pled @$t7 act=al
res$dence $n t7e place c7osen, @$t7 a declared or prova!le $ntent t7at $t s7o=ld !e one?s AGed
and peranent place o6 a!ode, one?s 7oe. (here is a complete dearth of evidence in the record that
Moody ever established a new domicile in a foreign co"ntry.
Bote7 on CR)s assessment. (he gro"nds for this assessment% stated by the CR in his letter appear to "s to
be so"nd. (hat the amo"nt of P->%>G=.=> was received by the estate of Moody as dividends declared o"t
of s"rpl"s by the Camera S"pply Company is clearly established by the evidence. (he appellant contends
that this assessment in ta2ation7 #irst% beca"se the corporation paid income ta2 on the same amo"nt
d"ring the years it was acc"m"lated as s"rpl"s: second% that an inheritance ta2 on the same amo"nt was
assessed against the estate% and third% the same amo"nt is assessed as income of the estate. As to the
!rst% it appears from the collectorNs assessment to the collector allowed the estate a ded"ction of the
normal income ta2 on said amo"nt beca"se it had already been paid at the so"rce by the Camera S"pply
Company. (he only income ta2 assessed against the estate was the additional ta2 or s"rta2 that had not
been paid by the Camera S"pply Company for which the estate% having act"ally received the income% is
clearly liable. As to the second alleged do"ble ta2ation% it is clear that the inheritance ta2 and the
additional income ta2 in '"estion are entirely distinct. (hey are assessed "nder di8erent stat"tes and we
are not convinced by the appellantNs arg"ment that the estate which received these dividends sho"ld not
be held liable for the payment of the income ta2 thereon beca"se the operation was simply the conversion
of the s"rpl"s of the corporation into the property of the individ"al stoc&holders. +Cf. C.S. vs. Phellis% ,-F
C.S.% 0F0% and (aft vs. Eowers% ,FG C.S.% ?=1./ Section ? of Act Bo. ,G;; as amended% which is relied on by
the appellant% plainly provides that the income from e2empt property shall be incl"ded as income s"b$ect
to ta2.
#inding no merit in any of the assignments of error of the appellant% we aLrm the $"dgment of the
trial co"rt% !rst% beca"se the property in the estate of Arth"r H. Moody at the time of his death was located
and had its sit"s within the Philippine slands and% second% beca"se his legal domicile "p to the time of his
death was within the Philippine slands. Costs against the appellant.
Page 71 of 98
Malcolm, .illa$Real, and <mperial, 44., concur.
G.--(R-, J., conc"rring7
conc"r in the res"lt. thin& the evidence clearly establishes that Moody had permanently abandoned his
residence in the Philippine slands. E"t even so% his estate wo"ld be liable for the ta&es which the plainti8*
appellant see&s to recover in this action. Section 0-;= of the Revised Administrative Code ma&es no
distinction between the estates of residents and of non*residents of the Philippine slands. (he case of #irst
Bational Ean& of Eoston vs. State of Maine +,G? C.S.% ;0,: F= Maw. ed.% ;0;/% relied on by the appellant is
not in point beca"se in that case the estate of the deceased was act"ally ta2ed in both the state of his
domicile% Massach"settes% and in the state where the shares of stoc& had their sit"s% namely% the State of
Maine. E"t in the case before "s there is no evidence whatever that the estate of Moody had been ta2ed
anywhere b"t in the Philippines. +Cf. E"rnet. Commissioner% vs. Eroo&s% ,GG C.S.% ;FG./
Pedro Galle8o vs. 5$cente 5erra
G.R. No. L-08601, Nove!er "0, 1901
.zaeta, %.& Pedro Hallego was the elected m"nicipal mayor of Ab"yog% Meyte d"ring the 4ecember 0>?1
elections. However% his "ns"ccessf"l opponent% Sicente Serra !led an action in the C# of Meyte to o"st him
from the oLce on the gro"nd that he did have the residence '"ali!cation. (he lower co"rt r"led in favor of
Serra which r"ling was aLrmed by CA.
(he material facts pertinent to Hallego)s residence are as follow7 Pedro Hallego is a native of
Ab"yog% Meyte. After st"dying in the Catarman Agric"lt"ral School in the province of Samar% he was
employed as a school teacher in the m"nicipality of Catarman% Samar% as well as in the m"nicipalities of
E"rawen% 4"lag% and Ab"yog% province of Meyte% and school teacher of Ab"yog% Meyte% and presented his
candidacy for m"nicipal mayor of his home town% b"t was defeated. After his defeat in that election%
!nding himself in debt and "nemployed% he went to Mindanao in search of a $ob. He !rst went to @riental
Misamis% b"t !nding no wor& there he proceeded to the sitio of [aato*an% m"nicipality of Malaybalay%
E"&idnon% whereat he arrived on 3"ne ,1% 0>;G% and immediately fo"nd employment as n"rseryman in the
chichona plantation of the E"rea" of #orestry. @n 3"ly ;1 of the same year he ret"rned to Ab"yog beca"se
he had been o8ered an employment as teacher in the p"blic school of the barrio of Cnion% m"nicipality of
Sogod% Meyte: b"t as he did not accept the o8er he ret"rned to [aato*an on A"g"st ,;% 0>;G% and res"med
his employment there as n"rseryman of the E"rea" of #orestry. He stayed in the chinchona plantation "ntil
he resigned in September 0>?1. E"t d"ring the period of his stay% there% his wife and children remained in
Ab"yog% and he visited them in the month of A"g"st of the years 0>;G% and 0>?1. Altho"gh the
Hovernment o8ered him a free ho"se in the chinchona plantation% he never too& his family there. Beither
did he avail himself of the o8er of the Hovernment of a parcel of the hectares of land within the reservation
of the chinchona plantation. He and his wife own real property in Ab"yog% part of which he ac'"ired d"ring
his stay in Malaybalay.
Bevertheless% @n @ctober 0% 0>;G he registered himself as an elector in precinct Bo. 0? of
Mantapan% m"nicipality of Malaybalay% E"&idnon% and voted there in the election for assemblymen held in
4ecember% 0>;G. (he trial co"rt noted that in his voterNs aLdavit that he did not !ll the blan& space
corresponding to the length of time he had resided in Malaybalay. @n 3an"ary ,1% 0>?1% he obtained and
Page 7" of 98
paid for his residence certi!cate from the m"nicipal treas"rer of Malaybalay% in which certi!cate it was
stated that he had resided in said m"nicipality for one year and a half.
(he salient points in Hallego)s fact"al circ"mstances i.e. +0/ registration as a voter% +,/ his having
act"ally voted in Malaybalay in the 0>;G election for assemblymen% and +;/ his residence certi!cate for
0>?1% the trial co"rt and the CA declared that Pedro Hallego had ac'"ired a residence or domicile of origin
in the m"nicipality of Malaybalay% E"&idnon% and had lost his domicile of origin in the m"nicipality of
Ab"yog% Meyte% at the time he was elected mayor of the latter m"nicipality% and% that% therefore% his
election was void% following the decisions of this Co"rt in the cases of %anseco vs. Brteche and >uval vs.
/utay.
+**,E& Ahether or not Hallego possess the residence '"ali!cation.
HEL-& Ies. (he term KresidenceK as "sed in the election law is synonymo"s with KdomicileK which imports
not only intention to reside in a !2ed place b"t also personal presence in that place% co"pled with cond"ct
indicative of s"ch intention +B"val vs. H"ray/. n order to ac'"ire a domicile by choice% there m"st conc"r
+0/ residence or bodily presence in the new locality% +,/ an intention to remain there% and +;/ an intention
to abandon the old domicile. n other words% there m"st be an animus non revertendi and an animus
manendi. (he p"rpose to remain in or at the domicile of choice m"st be for an inde!nite period of time.
(he acts of the person m"st conform with his p"rpose. (he change of residence m"st be vol"ntary: the
residence at the place chosen for the domicile m"st be act"al: and to the fact of residence there m"st be
added the animus manendi.
n the light of these principles% we are pers"aded that the facts of this case weigh heavily against
the theory that the petitioner had lost his residence or domicile in Ab"yog. Ae believe he did not reside in
Malaybalay with the intention of remaining there inde!nitely and of not ret"rning to Ab"yog. He is a native
of Ab"yog. Botwithstanding his periodic absences from there previo"s to 0>;F% when he was employed as
teacher in Samar% Ag"san% and other m"nicipalities of Meyte% he always ret"rned there. n the year 0>;F he
resigned as a school teacher and presented his candidacy for the oLce of mayor of said m"nicipality. His
depart"re therefrom after his defeat in that election was temporary and only for p"rpose of loo&ing for
employment to ma&e "p for the !nancial drawbac& he had s"8ered as a res"lt of his defeat at the polls.
After he had fo"nd employment in Malaybalay% he did ta&e his wife and children thereto. He bo"ght the
o8er of a free ho"se by the government. He bo"ght a piece of land in Ab"yog and did not avail himself of
the o8er of the Hovernment of ten hectares of land within the chichona reservation in Malaybalay% where
he wor&ed as a n"rseryman. 4"ring the short period of abo"t two years he stayed in Malaybalay as a
government employee% he visited his home town and his family no less than three times notwithstanding
the great distance between the two places.
(he facts of this case are more analogo"s to those of Marena vs. (eves% Ira vs. AbaJo% and Sivero
vs. M"rillo than to those of B"val vs. H"ray and (anseco vs. Arteche.
Applying the foregoing prono"ncements in Marena vs. (eves% Ira vs. AbaJo% and Sivero vs. M"rillo to
the facts of present case% we !nd s"Lcient gro"nd for the revocation of the $"dgment appealed from.
Hallego also contends that even ass"ming that he had lost his residence or domicile in Ab"yog% he
reac'"ired it more than one year prior to 4ecember 01% 0>?1. n s"pport of that contention he invo&es his
letter or note addressed to KSarelK+Saleriano ("pa/% vice*president of the political faction to which petitioner
belongs% in which note he anno"nced his intention to la"nch his candidacy again for m"nicipal mayor of
Ab"yog as early as the month of May% 0>;>. E"t we do not deem it necessary to pass "pon said contention
in view of the concl"sion we have reached that the petitioner did not lose his domicile of origin.
Ae might add that the manifest intent of the law in !2ing a residence '"ali!cation is to e2cl"de a
stranger or newcomer% "nac'"ainted with the conditions and needs of a comm"nity and not identi!ed with
the latter% from an elective oLce to serve that comm"nity: and when the evidence on the alleged lac& of
residence '"ali!cation is wea& or inconcl"sive and it clearly appears% as in the instant case% that the
p"rpose of the law wo"ld not be thwarted by "pholding the right to the oLce% the will of the electorate
sho"ld be respected. Petitioner is a native of Ab"yog% had r"n for the same oLce of m"nicipal mayor of
said town in the election preceding the one in '"estion% had only been absent therefrom for abo"t two
years witho"t losing contact with his townspeople and witho"t intention of remaining and residing
inde!nitely in the place of his employment: and he was elected with an overwhelming ma$ority of nearly
Page 7/ of 98
G11 votes in a third*class m"nicipality. (hese considerations we cannot disregard witho"t doing violence to
the will of the people of said town.
N.)E*& A glimpse of Marena vs. (eves. n this case the respondent*appellant% Pedro (eves% from the year
0>1? has had his own ho"se in the m"nicipality of 4"mag"ete% @riental Begros% wherein he has constantly
been living with his family and he has never had any ho"se in which he lived either alone or with his family
in the m"nicipality of Eacong of said province. All that he has done in the latter m"nicipality was to
register as elector in 0>0>% thro"gh an aLdavit stating that he was a resident of said m"nicipality: r"n for
representative for the second district of the province of @riental Begros and vote in said m"nicipality in
said year: r"n again for reelection in the year 0>,,: la"nch his candidacy for member of the provincial
board of said province 0>,-% stating "nder oath in all his certi!cates of candidacy that he was a resident of
said m"nicipality of Eacong. (he aLdavit made by him "pon registering as elector in the m"nicipality of
Eacong in the year 0>0>% stating that he was a resident of said m"nicipality: his two certi!cates of
candidacy for the oLce of representative for the second district of the Province of @riental Begros% which
were !led% the former in the year 0>0> and the latter in the year 0>,,% and the certi!cate of candidacy for
the oLce of member of the provincial board !led by him in the year 0>,- in every one of which he stated
that he was a resident of the m"nicipality of Eacong% are at most a prima facie evidence of the fact of his
residence in the m"nicipality of Eacong% which is re'"ired by law in order that the corresponding oLcials
co"ld register him as an elector and candidate% and not concl"sive% and may be attac&ed in a
corresponding $"dicial proceeding. f% according to the r"ling laid down in the case of .ivero vs.
Maurillo cited above% mere registration in a m"nicipality in order to be an elector therein does not ma&e
one a resident of said m"nicipality: if% according to constant r"lings the word KresidenceK is synonymo"s
with KhomeK or KdomicileK and denotes a permanent dwelling place% to which an absent person intends to
ret"rn: if the right to vote in a m"nicipality re'"ires the conc"rrence of two things% the act of residing
co"pled with the intention to do so: and if the herein respondent*appellant% Pedro (eves% has always lived
with his family in the m"nicipality of 4"mag"ete and never in that of Eacong% he has never lost his
residence in 4"mag"ete. (he fact that his registration as elector in the m"nicipality of Eacong was
cancelled only on April -% 0>;?% "pon his petition% did not dis'"alify him to be a candidate for the oLce of
m"nicipal president of said m"nicipality of 4"mag"ete on the gro"nd that% as has been stated in the case
ofGra vs. BbaIo cited above% registration in the list of voters is not one of the conditions prescribed by
section ?;0 of the Election Maw in order to be an elector: neither does fail"re to register as s"ch constit"te
one of the dis'"ali!cations prescribed in section ?;, of said law.
G.R. No. L-166/ Marc7 /1, 1908
'L.RE)+N( 5+LL(HERM.*(, petitioner*appellant% vs.
)HE C.MM+**+.NER .' +MM+GR()+.N, respondent*appellee.
4ENG1.N, J.&
'(C)*7 n the night of March ,?% 0>?F% a party of si2ty*nine Chinese landed clandestinely on the shores of
Sto. 4omingo% locos S"r% in an attempt to evade o"r immigration laws. Meading them was 4el!n Co% a
yo"ng man% 0G years old% born in Pani'"i% (arlac% of a Chinese father named Co S"t% alias I" ["i% and
#lorentina Sillahermosa his wife. Co S"y died in 3"ly 0>?1% and in #ebr"ary 0>?=% 4el!n left the Philippines
for China on board S<S !ushman as a Chinese repatriate% in company with his relative Co Chi Pe. However%
d"e to !nancial diLc"lties in China% he too& steps to ret"rn: b"t having met a Chinese +Co Soon (iong/%
Page 70 of 98
who informed him of a plan to sm"ggle their compatriots into this co"ntry% he agreed to lead the party to
locos S"r where his mother had relatives who co"ld render val"able assistance. (he voyage was
"nderta&en: b"t "nfort"nately% the immigrants were discovered and apprehended immediately after
arrival% and on the ,Fth day of March% 4el!n Co was e2amined by the Commissioner of mmigration.
#ormal investigation of the case began on April 01% 0>?F. #o"r days later% the corresponding board
recommended that said 4el!n Co be deported to China as a Chinese citizen. (he Commissioner of
mmigration agreed with the board% and acting on this recommendation% rendered a decision ordering the
deportation of 4el!n Co.
t appears that on April ,>% 0>?F% #lorentina Sillahermosa% after &nowing the apprehension of her
son 4el!n% !led in the civil registry of (arlac "nder Commonwealth Act Bo. =; an oath of allegiance for the
p"rpose of res"ming her Philippine citizenship which she had lost "pon her marriage to Co S"y. @n the
strength of s"ch reac'"isition of Philippine citizenship by #lorentina% it was contended before the
immigration a"thorities that 4el!n% being a minor% followed the citizenship of his mother% and was a
national not s"b$ect to deportation. (hese contentions were overr"led. (hey were repeated before the C#
in this habeas corpus proceeding and were li&ewise re$ected. Appellant stresses the same defense.
+**,E7 A@B 4el!n Co is a #ilipino citizen.
R,L+NG7
(here are two reasons why 4el!n Co m"st be ret"rned to China. #irst% he is not now a #ilipino
citizen: and second% granting that he is% at the time he entered this co"ntry from China he was a Chinese
s"b$ect to deportation% and any s"bse'"ent change in his stat"s can not erase the taint of his "nlawf"l%
s"rreptitio"s entry.
Section 0 of Article S of the Constit"tion en"merates those who are citizens of the Philippines% as
follows7
+0/ (hose who are citizens of the Philippine slands at the time of the adoption of the
Constit"tion.
+,/ (hose born in the Philippine slands of foreign parents who% before adoption of this
Constit"tion% had been elected to p"blic oLce in the Philippine slands.
+;/ (hose whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines.
N0O )7ose @7ose ot7ers are c$t$zens o6 t7e P7$l$pp$nes and =pon reac7$n8 t7e
a8e o6 a>or$t<, elect P7$l$pp$ne c$t$zens7$p.
+-/ (hose who are nat"ralized in accordance with law.
4el!n CoNs claim to citizenship can only be predicated% if at all% on paragraph ? of the above
section. E"t% being a minor he has not had the opport"nity to elect Philippine citizenship% and therefore he
is as yet an alien% his father being a Chinese.
Ae have heretofore held that% after the Constit"tion% mere birth in the Philippines of a Chinese
father and #ilipino mother does not ipso facto confer Philippine citizenship and that =us sanguinis instead
o8 =us soli is the predominating factor on '"estions of citizenship% thereby rendering obsolete the decision
in Roa vs. !ollector of !ustoms% ,; Phil.% and C.S. vs. Mim Ein% ;= Phil.% and similar cases on which
petitionerNs co"nsel relies.
Bevertheless% it is contended that #lorentina Sillahermosa being a #ilipina% 4el!n Co% sho"ld li&ewise
be a #ilipino. Commonwealth Act Bo. =; does not provide that "pon repatriation of a #ilipina her children
ac'"ire Philippine citizenship. t wo"ld be illogical to consider 4el!n as repatriated li&e his mother% beca"se
he never was a #ilipino citizen and co"ld not have reac"uired s"ch citizenship.
Page 7# of 98
Ahile his Chinese father lived% 4el!n was not a #ilipino. His mother was not a #ilipina: she was
Chinese. After the death of s"ch father% Sillahermosa contin"ed to be a Chinese% "ntil she reac'"ired her
#ilipino citizenship in April% 0>?F. After that reac'"isition 4el!n co"ld claim that his mother was a #ilipina
within the meaning of paragraph ?% section 0 of Article S of the Constit"tion: b"t% according to that same
@rganic Act% he had to elect Philippine citizenship "pon attaining his ma$ority. Cntil he becomes of age and
ma&es the election% he is the Chinese citizen that he was at the time of his fatherNs demise.
t does not help petitionerNs case to assert that as a mother she has a right to retain c"stody of her
minor son and to &eep him here. Ahere s"ch son has violated the immigration laws and rendered himself
liable to deportation no r"le or principle sho"ld fr"strate the HovernmentNs action by the interposition of
the motherNs right to c"stody. (his consideration becomes stronger where% as in this case% the re*
ass"mption of Philippine citizenship by Sillahermosa has all the earmar&s of an attempt to impede the
banishment of 4el!n Co% who by the way% besides being g"ilty of violating o"r laws% has not shown any
signs of eagerness to adopt o"r ways of life.
(his petition is moreover to be denied on the strength of precedents heretofore established%
beca"se 4el!n was a Chinese when he arrived here: and any posterior change of stat"s can not a8ect the
legality of his detention for p"rposes of deportation.
n 4uan !o vs. Ra3erty% 0? Phil.% ,;-% a Chinaman claimed the right to enter the slands% and being
ref"sed by the c"stoms oLcials% gave bond that he wo"ld present himself for deportation if the claim were
disallowed. Ahile "nder bond% he was adopted as a son by another Chinaman domiciled herein% in legal
form. Held7 he is s"b$ect to deportation% beca"se s"ch adoption had no e8ect "pon his right to enter or
remain in the slands. (his Co"rt said that the stat"s of an immigrant and his right to stay here is to be
determined as of the time of his entry +C.S. vs. 3"*(oy% 0>G C.S.% ,-;% ,=;/ and that he co"ld not do
afterwards anything to render valid what was originally an illegal entry.
A Chinese person% not a merchant at the time he applies to enter the slands% will not be
permitted to remain here "pon the theory that he became a merchant d"ring the time he
was waiting for the decision of the proper a"thorities% +(an H"am Sien vs. Collector of
C"stoms% ;0 Phil.% -=./ +also% C.S. vs. Chan Sam% 0F Phil.% ??G/
(he decision of the lower co"rt denying his petition for habeas corpus is aLrmed. Aith costs.
&aras, &ablo, Briones, and &adilla, 44., conc"r.
H+L(-., J., conc"rring7
will only point o"t that petitioner% by the very p"rpose for which she !led the oath of allegiance
mentioned therein% made herself "nworthy and dis'"ali!ed to be repatriated "nder Commonwealth Act Bo.
=;.
Section ? of said Act provides that repatriation shall be e8ected by merely ta&ing the necessary
oath of allegiance to the Commonwealth of the Philippines +now Rep"blic of the Philippines/ and
registration in the proper civil registry. Allegiance re'"ires the person pledging it% among other things% to
respect and obey the laws of the co"ntry to which the pledge is made. E"t here the person ta&ing the oath
of allegiance did so for the e2press p"rpose of legalizing% so to say% a most serio"s violation of the
immigration laws of the Philippines by her son. An oath of allegiance ta&en for that end is% an a8ront to the
sovereign% besides the criminal responsibilities it entails.
PER'EC)., J., dissenting7
(he ma$ority decision fails to abide by one of the elemental r"les of law% en"nciated by h"man
wisdom.
(hat r"le is stated in article 0G of the Civil Code as follows7
Page 76 of 98
Children% while they remain "nder parental a"thority% have the nationality of their parents.
(hat r"le is reaLrmed by the Bat"ralization Maw% Bo. ,>,F% as amended by Act Bo. ;??G. t
provides that children "nder ,1 years of age and residing in the Philippines shall become citizens "pon
nat"ralization of their parents.
(he r"le is fo"nded on h"man nat"re. Eeca"se minor children depend on their parents for their
s"stenance% s"pport and protection% it stands to reason that they sho"ld follow the nationality of said
parents. (hey have to live "nder the same roof with their parents and as near eno"gh to them to en$oy
parental care and protection. Minor children have to follow their parents wherever the latter% by political%
moral% mental and economic e2igencies% have to establish their abode.
(o accept the ma$orityNs position is to $"stify its inevitable conse'"ences% one of them being the
possibility of a fratricidal battle% sho"ld the nation of one happen to be at war with that of the other. @ne
sh"dders at the mere tho"ght that parents% as soldiers of one belligerent nation% sho"ld !re in m"rdero"s
battle against their own children !ghting in the enemy trenches% while the children aim their g"ns at the
very a"thors of their lives.
(here is "nanimity of opinion that petitioner #lorentino Sillahermosa is a #lipino citizen. (here is no
'"estion that she was born of #ilipino parents in Mapog% locos S"r% in March 0>1-. She is living in Pani'"i%
(arlac% the province of Ambassador Rom"lo. Since her birth she has resided in the Philippines. She never
went to China. She is a widow. She is the mother of 4el!n Co% a minor of 0G years. She is the mother of
another minor named Een$amin Co% who is living with her. (here sho"ld not be any '"estion that "nder
e2press stat"tory provisions% 4el!n Co follows the nationality of his mother. His mother is a #ilipino citizen.
4el!n Co is a #ilipino citizen.
Ahen on 3"ly G% 0>?1% her Chinese h"sband died% #lorentina Sillahermosa m"st have felt that she
regained her #lipino citizenship. She was ignorant of the provisions of Commonwealth Act Bo. =;% so she
failed to !le her oath of allegiance re'"ired by it. Eeca"se her son came into tro"ble% she happened to
learn abo"t the legal re'"irement on March ,-% 0>?F% and too& the oath which was !led on the ,>th of the
same month with the civil registrar of Pani'"i% (arlac.
(hat the p"rpose of the said oath of allegiance is% by her repatriation% to &eep her son at her side
and within the folds of this co"ntry% appears to have provo&ed some indignation% as if petitioner has
committed a crime or% at least% a reprehensible act. (here is absol"tely no gro"nd for ta&ing s"ch an
attit"de. Petitioner had only e2ercised a right e2pressly granted to her by law. (he stat"tory provision does
not deal with motives or p"rposes. t is as impersonal as the constit"tional provisions g"aranteeing
f"ndamental rights witho"t ta&ing into consideration the p"rposes and motives for the e2ercise of said
rights.
(hat the petitioner had e2ercised a right e2pressly granted to her by law for the bene!t of her son
or for the p"rpose of protecting him against an action harmf"l to him% is only logical. (here is nothing
ob$ectionable in her ta&ing advantage of the law to give tangible e2pression to her maternal love% which is%
witho"t any do"bt% "niversally considered the most s"blime feeling nat"re has inf"sed in h"man hearts.
(he feeling is so elemental that it is not "n&nown even to the lowest phila of the animal &ingdom. (hat
even the !ercest wild animals are not devoid of s"ch feeling is a wonder that cannot fail to move he most
indi8erent person. Many perceive in that fact the operation of an in!nite intelligence ta&ing care of all
living things.
(hat petitioner had only obeyed the mandates of nat"re% that she yielded to an "ncon'"erable
feeling% the one most praised my moralists% de!ed by spirit"al and religio"s leaders% the s"b$ect of glowing
e"logi"m in elo'"ent prose and inspired poetry% whenever and wherever literat"re has Po"rished% instead
of ca"sing criticism% sho"ld only merit panegyric and be acclaimed% she having followed the noblest
imp"lses of her nat"re.
Since his birth on May ;0% 0>,G% 4el!n Co has been a resident of the Philippines "ntil #ebr"ary ,%
0>?=% when% probably yielding to the yo"thf"l l"st for advent"re% witho"t the consent or &nowledge of his
Page 77 of 98
mother% he stealthily went to China. Having ret"rned on March ,>% 0>?F% to the Philippines% his place of
residence% it is only nat"ral that he sho"ld want to remain here and that his mother sho"ld e2ert all e8orts
so that he sho"ld not go away again. Ey the repatriation of #lorentino Sillahermosa% 4el!n Co became ipso
facto a #ilipino citizen. As a resident of the Philippines and as a #lipino citizen% he is entitled to stay.
(he "nfort"nate fact that a character by the name of Co Soon (iong was able to pers"ade him to
sm"ggle a b"nch of Chinese into this co"ntry% by landing them in Mapog% locos S"r% in consideration of a
free passage to the Philippines% is no reason to deprive him of the right to remain in the co"ntry of which
he is a resident and a citizen.
(here are indications that he is entitled to more pity than blame% by his fail"re to resist the wiles of
a scheming person% who too& "nd"e advantage of his immat"rity. His an2io"sness to ret"rn to his co"ntry
and be at his mother)s side m"st have been too strong for him to ref"se a free passage% a mere pittance
when% as amply p"blicized% to sec"re entrance of Chinese immigrants% middlemen or proc"rators earn
tho"sands of pesos per person.
4id 4el!n Co commit any crime or o8ense p"nishable by lawO f he did% let him be prosec"ted and
sentenced thro"gh d"e process of law% and if deportation is the p"nishment provided by law by competent
co"rts of $"stice% let the $"dgment be rendered and enforced. E"t it is admitted on all sides that there is no
law p"nishing the act of 4el!n of rendering help to the sm"ggling of a b"nch of Chinese in '"estion. f he
did not commit any crime or o8ense% only a s"bverted sense of $"stice may $"stify p"nishing him with
deportation.
Ae vote% with the revocation of the appealed order of the lower co"rt% to declare n"ll and void the
order of the Commission on mmigration deporting 4el!n Co to Amoy% China.
),(*.N, J., dissenting7
Aith regret am constrained to disagree with the views of the ma$ority. shall briePy state the
reasons for my dissent.
0. Article 0G of the Civil Code is e2plicit in its provision that KChildren% while they remain "nder parental
a"thority% have the nationality of their parents.K 4el!n Co has become% in my opinion% a #ilipino citizen by
reason of his motherNs reac'"isition of Philippine citizenship after her h"sbandNs death. see no di8erence%
and no valid reason for di8erentiating% between a legitimate child of a #ilipino mother by a deceased
foreign father and a #ilipino motherNs illegitimate child. (he latter "nder the r"les of international law as
well as the Civil Code ta&es the citizenship of its mother.
(he intention of the framers of the Constit"tion to withhold Philippine citizenship from the child of a
#ilipino mother and an alien father "ntil the child reaches the age of ma$ority% does not create an e2ception
to the general r"le. t is my h"mble and considered opinion that the deferment of conferring #ilipino
citizenship on s"ch a child e2tends only to those cases in which both parents are alive and retain their
foreign nationality% or where the father having died% the mother has not chosen to regain her original
citizenship.
t is not good law which prevents minor child of a citizen of the co"ntry% a child to whom by law and
by nat"re she owes protection% from $oining its parent. do not believe that the Constit"tional Convention
co"ld ever have contemplated s"ch an inadmissible and irrational sit"ation.
do not share the apprehension of some members of the Co"rt that if a child li&e 4el!n Co sho"ld
follow the citizenship of her mother his citizenship wo"ld be at the mercy of being changed as often as its
mother changes her citizenship by marriage or otherwise. f that sho"ld happen% there is nothing wrong or
ridic"lo"s abo"t it. @n the contrary% thin& it is more in accordance with nat"ral law. (hat is what happens
in the case of an illegitimate child of a #ilipino mother marrying a foreigner or obtaining another
citizenship: and there is in this connection no perceptible di8erence between an illegitimate child and a
legitimate child whose father is dead. f a mother can and wants to change her citizenship daily% certainly it
Page 78 of 98
is nat"ral rather than '"eer that her minor child% which depends "pon her for care and s"pport% sho"ld not
be left stranded.
,. (he decision says7 K(his petition is moreover to be denied on the strength of precedence heretofore
established% beca"se 4el!n was a Chinese when he arrived here: and any posterior change of stat"s can
not a8ect the legality of the detention for the p"rposes of deportation.K do not thin& that this doctrine is
applicable to the present case. (he principle established by the decisions cited on this point is that an
immigrant can not ta&e advantage of his "nlawf"l entry to ac'"ire the conditions imposed by the
immigration laws. n the lang"age of this Co"rt +C.S. vs. Chan Sam% 0F Phil.% ??G*?-=/% Kto say to him
+immigrant/ that if by any means he can gain an "nlawf"l entry in the slands he will be relieved of the
conse'"ences Powing from his "nlawf"l act if at any time after he gains his "nlawf"l entrance he changes
his stat"s and ass"mes the occ"pation of one of the privileged classes% wo"ld be to set a premi"m on the
unlawful b"t successful evasion by Chinese laborers of the laws prohibiting their entrance into the slands.K
And in %an /uan Sien vs. !ollector of !ustoms% ;0 Phil.% -=% the Co"rt had the same idea when it said% K(he
law does not contemplate that Chinese persons may% by one method or another% gain an entrance into the
territory of the Cnited States witho"t the Nsection si2 certi!cateN% and after s"ch entrance become s"ch a
merchant% and then as s"ch% insist "pon his right to remain.K n these two cases% and in the case of 4uan !o
vs. Ra3erty% 0? Phil.% ,;-% in which the immigrant was adopted by a resident while the immigrantNs right to
enter was "nder investigation% the changes in the immigrant stat"s were e8ected by him or with his
intervention and co"ld not have been accomplished in his absence.
n the case at hand the conversion of the immigrant to Philippine citizenship was entirely
independent of his will and of his presence in the Philippines. (he bond that binds the petitioner and her
child e2isted before the latter entered the Philippine territory and not from the date of her repatriation
only. t is the legal and absol"te right of the immigrantNs mother to reclaim her Philippine citizenship
regardless of any mental reservation% her motives or her attit"de toward her co"ntry. (he legality of her
reac'"isition of Philippine citizenship is nowhere challenged. Ass"ming then that 4el!n CoNs nationality
follows that of his mother% as we believe it does% has Co forfeited his right to be with her as a res"lt of his
entering the Philippines "nlawf"llyO &now of no law which sanctions s"ch p"nishment for an immigrantNs
fa"lt. f% on the other hand% the theory is that the immigrant m"st !rst be p"rged of his sin by deportation
after which he may be allowed to come bac& and settle here% the Co"rt wo"ld be adopting an empty
ceremony that wo"ld lead to no "sef"l p"rpose nor enhance the prestige of the administration of law.
'ER+(, J.& conc"r in this dissenting opinion.
Page 79 of 98
Ro!ert C= vs. Rep=!l$c o6 t7e P7$l$pp$nes
G.R. No. L-/:18, %=l< 18, 19#1
)=ason, %.&
'(C)*& Robert C" !led a petition for nat"ralization setting forth facts re'"ired and appropriate for that
p"rpose% b"t at the hearing he said that he was a citizen of the Philippines: and "pon the concl"sion of the
trial% the Co"rt of #irst nstance of Rizal fo"nd him Kto be a #ilipino citizen% both by right of birth and by
right of selection%K and dismissed the petition for nat"ralization% holding impliedly that being already a
Philippine citizen he did not have to be nat"ralized.
+**,E& Ahether or not the trial co"rt)s decision is proper.
HEL-& Bo. (he decision is aLrmed as it dismissed the petition for nat"ralization b"t reversed in so far as
it declared the applicant as citizen of the Philippines witho"t pre$"dice to the !ling of the new petition.
(he concl"sion of the lower co"rt is based on C")s statement d"ring the hearing which says% 5@n
acco"nt of the fact that when was a &id of abo"t !ve months old% my mother died. She was a #ilipina.
(hen my father bro"ght me to China right after that. At the age of !ve% we left China% and was given to
the care of 4oJa Margarita Emanahas +Mangahas/. consider myself a #ilipino citizen on acco"nt of the
fact that my mother is +was/ a #ilipina and was born in the Philippines. My only fa"lt was that failed to
!le my application to elect Philippine citizenship. (hat is why am application to elect Philippine
citizenship. (hat is why am now as&ing this Co"rt to ma&e a $"dgment on that.6 (he government
appealed the decision of the lower co"rt. (here are also statements which ma&e plain that the applicant
was at best "ncertain that his parents were "nmarried to each other% and are "tterly inade'"ate to serve
as basis for declaring the petitioner a Philippine citizen D granting for the sa&e of arg"ment that s"ch
declaration is a"thorized on the application !led and on the iss"es $oined in these proceedings. (he strong
legal pres"mption that the applicant was born in wedloc& D that his parent were lawf"l h"sband and wife
D cannot be destroyed by evidence so slim and sha&y. f the applicantNs parents were legally married%
which is to be pres"med% then he was born a Chinese citizen and contin"ed to be so% "nless "pon the age
of ma$ority he elected Philippine citizenship +Art. Y% Sec. 0% par. ?% Philippine Constit"tion/% which he
confessedly did not do.
Section F of the Revised Bat"ralization Maw +Commonwealth Act Bo. ?F;/ provides that the petition
for citizenship% besides stating the petitionerNs '"ali!cations as en"merated in the Act% Km"st be signed by
the applicant in his own handwriting and be s"pported by the aLdavit of at least two credible persons%
stating that they are citizens of the Philippines and personally &now the petitioner to be a resident of the
Philippines for the period of time re'"ired by this Act and a person of good rep"te and morally
irreproachable% and that said petitioner has in their opinion all the '"ali!cations necessary to become a
citizen of the Philippines and is not in any way dis'"ali!ed "nder the provisions of the Act. (he petition
shall also set forth the names and post oLce addresses of s"ch witnesses as the petitioner may desire to
introd"ce at the hearing of the case.K According to this provision% the witnesses m"st be citizens of the
Philippines and Kpersonally &now the petitioner to be a resident of the Philippines for the period of time
re'"ired by this Act%K which in cases of petitioners born in the Philippines is !ve years +Sec. ;/ and in other
cases ten years +Sec. ,% par. ,/.
Page 8: of 98
Ey their testimony% the two witnesses who made aLdavits and gave evidence in s"pport of the
application were not '"ali!ed for this role. 4r. 3ose [" Ieg [eng admitted that his father was a Chinese
national and his mother a #ilipina: and when as&ed% K4id yo" act"ally elect the Philippine citizenshipO Have
yo" !led any citizenship application by election in writingOK% he answered% K have not in the sense that
did not have any proceedings in it%K (r"e% he said% K am a member of the reserve force of the Philippine
Army. was an R. @. (. C. trainee. trained in the Philippine Army. was called d"ring the war.K And he also
said% in answer to f"rther '"estions% that he had voted in one of the post*liberation elections and that Kat
present am a government employee% and am a member of the fac"lty of the Cniversity of the
Philippines% and also am a resident physician of the Philippine Heneral Hospital.K E"t these circ"mstances
alone made this witness neither a citizen of this co"ntry nor eligible as a vo"ching witness in a proceeding
of this character.
As to the other witnesses% 4r. Pastor Homez% he testi!ed that Khe had &nown Mr. C" since liberation%
abo"t A"g"st% 0>?-.K Eesides% after this answer was given% the co"nsel for the Hovernment ob$ected to the
witnessN testifying any f"rther% and the ob$ection having been s"stained% 4r. Homez was withdrawn.
n Cnited States vs. Martorana% the 4istrict Co"rt of the Cnited States for the Eastern 4istrict of
Pennsylvania held7 KCnder Bat"ralization Act% 3"ne ,>% 0>1=% c. ;->,% Section ?% ;? Stat. ->= +C. S. Comp.
St. S"pp. 0>1F% p. ?,1/% which re'"ires a petition for nat"ralization to be veri!ed by the aLdavits Nof at
least two credible witnesses who are citizens of the Cnited States%N stating certain facts relating to the
applicant% a petition not so veri!ed by at least two persons who are citizen is not merely voidable b"t
void.K (he Co"rt went f"rther and said that s"ch petition co"ld not be amended.
n the case of <n re [ornstain% the co"rt e2pressed the same idea and reasoned7 Kn nat"ralization
petitions% the Co"rts are pec"liarly at the mercy of the witnesses o8ered by the candidate. S"ch candidate
ta&es care to see that only those who are friendly to him% are o8ered as witnesses. (he Co"rts cannot be
e2pected to possess ac'"aintance with the candidates with the presenting themselves for nat"ralization D
in fact% no d"ty rests "pon them in this partic"lar: so that witnesses appearing before them are in a way
ins"res of the character of the candidate concerned% and on their testimony the co"rts are of necessity
compelled to rely. A witness who compelled to rely. A witness who is incompetent renders an application
void. A competent witness cannot be s"bstit"ted for an incompetent one. (he '"estion of a witnessN
'"ali!cations in nat"ralization proceedings is therefore a matter of more than "s"al importance.K
(he above decisions are not binding "pon this Co"rt% b"t it is a rational r"le of stat"tory
constr"ction that a stat"te adopted from another state or co"ntry will be pres"med to be adopted with the
constr"ction placed "pon it by the co"rts of that state or co"ntry before its adoption. S"ch constr"ction is
regarded as of great weight% or at least pers"asive% and will generally be followed if fo"nd reasonable% and
in harmony with $"stice and p"blic policy% and with other laws of the adopting $"risdiction on the s"b$ect.
Ae !nd the Cnited States co"rtsN reasoning to be so"nd and reasonable and we ma&e it o"r own.
t is "nnecessary to consider whether the application co"ld be granted if witnesses% other than the
vo"ching witnesses% who were Philippine citizens and &new the applicant for the time re'"ired by the
stat"te% had testi!ed and established the petitionerNs '"ali!cations for admission to citizenship: as already
indicated% no s"ch witnesses were introd"ced in s"pport of the petition.
Page 81 of 98
G.R. No. L-1"1:# %an=ar< /:, 196:
)E*)()E E*)()E .' C. .. 4.H(N(N, deceased. PH+L+PP+NE )R,*) C.., e2ec"tor*appellee% vs.
M(G-(LEN( C. 4.H(N(N, E-;(R- C. 4.H(N(N, and M(R2 L2-+( 4.H(N(N, oppositors*
appellants.
L(4R(-.R, J.&
'(C)*7 Appeal against an order of the C# of Manila% Hon. Ramon San 3ose% presiding% dismissing the
ob$ections !led by Magdalena C. Eohanan% Mary Eohanan and Edward Eohanan to the pro$ect of partition
s"bmitted by the e2ec"tor and approving the said pro$ect.
@n April ,?% 0>-1% the C# of Manila% Hon. Rafael Amparo% presiding% admitted to probate a last will
and testament of C. @. Eohanan% e2ec"ted by him on April ,;% 0>?? in Manila. n the said order% the co"rt
made the following !ndings7
According to the evidence of the opponents the testator was born in Bebras&a and therefore a
citizen of that state% or at least a citizen of California where some of his properties are located. (his
contention is "ntenable. Botwithstanding the long residence of the decedent in the Philippines% his
stay here was merely temporary% and he contin"ed and remained to be a citizen of the CS and of
the state of his pertinent residence to spend the rest of his days in that state. His permanent
residence or domicile in the CS depended "pon his personal intent or desire% and he selected
Bevada as his domicile and therefore at the time of his death% he was a citizen of that state. Bobody
can choose his domicile or permanent residence for him. (hat is his e2cl"sive personal right.
Aherefore% the co"rt !nds that the testator C. @. Eohanan was at the time of his death a citizen of
the CS and of the State of Bevada and declares that his will and testament is f"lly in accordance
with the laws of the state of Bevada and admits the same to probate. Accordingly% the Philippine
(r"st Company% named as the e2ec"tor of the will% is hereby appointed to s"ch e2ec"tor and "pon
the !ling of a bond in the s"m of P01%111.11% let letters testamentary be iss"ed and after ta&ing the
prescribed oath% it may enter "pon the e2ec"tion and performance of its tr"st.
(he e2ec"tor !led a pro$ect of partition dated 3an"ary ,?% 0>-=% ma&ing% in accordance with the
provisions of the will% the following ad$"dications7 +0/ one*half of the resid"ary estate% to the #armers and
Merchants Bational Ean& of Mos Angeles% California% C.S.A. in tr"st only for the bene!t of testatorNs
Page 8" of 98
grandson Edward Heorge Eohanan% which consists of several mining companies: +,/ the other half of the
resid"ary estate to the testatorNs brother% #.M. Eohanan% and his sister% Mrs. M. E. Halbraith% share and
share ali&e. (his consist in the same amo"nt of cash and of shares of mining stoc& similar to those given to
testatorNs grandson: +;/ legacies of P=%111 each to his +testator/ son% Edward Hilbert Eohana% and his
da"ghter% Mary Mydia Eohanan% to be paid in three yearly installments: +?/ legacies to Clara 4aen% in the
amo"nt of P01%111.11: [atherine Aoodward% P,%111: Ee"lah #o2% P?%111: and Elizabeth Hastings% P,%111:
t will be seen from the above that o"t of the total estate +after ded"cting administration e2penses/
of P,00%=;>.;; in cash% the testator gave his grandson P>1%G0>.=F and one*half of all shares of stoc& of
several mining companies and to his brother and sister the same amo"nt. (o his children he gave a legacy
of only P=%111 each% or a total of P0,%111.
(he wife Magadalena C. Eohanan and her two children '"estion the validity of the testamentary
provisions disposing of the estate in the manner above indicated% claiming that they have been deprived of
the legitimate that the laws of the form concede to them.
+**,E7 A@B C.@. Eohanan was a citizen domiciliary of Bevada.
RCMBH7 (he most important iss"e is the claim of the testatorNs children% Edward and Mary Mydia% who had
received legacies in the amo"nt of P=%111 each only% and% therefore% have not been given their shares in
the estate which% in accordance with the laws of the for"m% sho"ld be two*thirds of the estate left by the
testator. s the fail"re of the testator to give his children two*thirds of the estate left by him at the time of
his death% in accordance with the laws of the for"m validO
(he old Civil Code% which is applicable to this case beca"se the testator died in 0>??% e2pressly
provides that s"ccessional rights to personal property are to be earned by the national law of the person
whose s"ccession is in '"estion. Says the law on this point7
Bevertheless% legal and testamentary s"ccessions% in respect to the order of s"ccession as well as
to the e2tent of the s"ccessional rights and the intrinsic validity of their provisions% shall be
reg"lated by the national law of the person whose s"ccession is in '"estion% whatever may be the
nat"re of the property and the co"ntry in which it is fo"nd. +par. ,% Art. 01% old Civil Code% which is
the same as par. , Art. 0=% new Civil Code./
n the proceedings for the probate of the will% it was fo"nd o"t and it was decided that the testator
was a citizen of the State of Bevada beca"se he had selected this as his domicile and his permanent
residence. So the '"estion at iss"e is whether the testementary dispositions% especially those for the
children which are short of the legitime given them by the Civil Code of the Philippines% are valid. t is not
disp"ted that the laws of Bevada allow a testator to dispose of all his properties by will +Sec. >>1-%
Complied Bevada Maws of 0>,-% supra/. t does not appear that at time of the hearing of the pro$ect of
partition% the above*'"oted provision was introd"ced in evidence% as it was the e2ec"torNs d"ty to do. (he
law of Bevada% being a foreign law can only be proved in o"r co"rts in the form and manner provided for
by o"r R"les% which are as follows7
SEC. ?0. &roof of public or o,cial record. D An oLcial record or an entry therein% when admissible
for any p"rpose% may be evidenced by an oLcial p"blication thereof or by a copy tested by the
oLcer having the legal c"stody of he record% or by his dep"ty% and accompanied% if the record is not
&ept in the Philippines% with a certi!cate that s"ch oLcer has the c"stody. . . . +R"le 0,;/.
Ae have% however% cons"lted the records of the case in the co"rt below and we have fo"nd that
d"ring the hearing on @ctober ?% 0>-? of the motion of Magdalena C. Eohanan for withdrawal of P,1%111
as her share% the foreign law% especially Section >>1-% Compiled Bevada Maws. was introd"ced in evidence
by appellantNs herein co"nsel. Again said laws presented by the co"nsel for the e2ec"tor and admitted by
the Co"rt d"ring the hearing of the case on 3an"ary ,;% 0>-1 before 3"dge Rafael Amparo.
n addition% the other appellants% children of the testator% do not disp"te the above*'"oted provision
of the laws of the State of Bevada. Cnder all the above circ"mstances% we are constrained to hold that the
Page 8/ of 98
pertinent law of Bevada% especially Section >>1- of the Compiled Bevada Maws of 0>,-% can be ta&en
$"dicial notice of by "s% witho"t proof of s"ch law having been o8ered at the hearing of the pro$ect of
partition.
As in accordance with Article 01 of the old Civil Code% the validity of testamentary dispositions are
to be governed by the national law of the testator% and as it has been decided and it is not disp"ted that
the national law of the testator is that of the State of Bevada% already indicated above% which allows a
testator to dispose of all his property according to his will% as in the case at bar% the order of the co"rt
approving the pro$ect of partition made in accordance with the testamentary provisions% m"st be% as it is
hereby aLrmed% with costs against appellants.
Bote7 @n the '"estion referring to the share that the wife of the testator% Magdalena C. Eohanan% sho"ld be entitled to
received. (he will has not given her any share in the estate left by the testator. t is arg"ed that it was error for the trial
co"rt to have recognized the Reno divorce sec"red by the testator from his #ilipino wife Magdalena C. Eohanan% and
that said divorce sho"ld be declared a n"llity in this $"risdiction% citing the case of U"er"bin vs. U"er"bin% GF Phil. 0,?%
Co"sins Hi2 vs. #l"emer% -- Phil. G-,% Ramirez vs. Hm"r% ?, Phil. G-- and Horayeb vs. Hashim% -1 Phil. ,,. (he co"rt
below ref"sed to recognize the claim of the widow on the gro"nd that the laws of Bevada% of which the deceased was a
citizen% allow him to dispose of all of his properties witho"t re'"iring him to leave any portion of his estate to his wife.
Section >>1- of Bevada Compiled Maws of 0>,- provides7 Every person over the age of eighteen years%
of so"nd mind% may% by last will% dispose of all his or her estate% real and personal% the same being chargeable with the
payment of the testatorNs debts.
Eesides% the right of the former wife of the testator% Magdalena C. Eohanan% to a share in the testatorNs estate
had already been passed "pon adversely against her in an order dated 3"ne 0>% 0>--% which had become !nal% as
Magdalena C. Eohanan does not appear to have appealed therefrom to '"estion its validity. @n 4ecember 0=% 0>-;%
the said former wife !led a motion to withdraw the s"m of P,1%111 from the f"nds of the estate% chargeable against
her share in the con$"gal property% and the co"rt in its said error fo"nd that there e2ists no comm"nity property owned
by the decedent and his former wife at the time the decree of divorce was iss"ed. As already and Magdalena C.
Eohanan may no longer '"estion the fact contained therein% i.e. that there was no comm"nity property ac'"ired by the
testator and Magdalena C. Eohanan d"ring their convert"re.
Moreover% the co"rt below had fo"nd that the testator and Magdalena C. Eohanan were married on 3an"ary ;1%
0>1>% and that divorce was granted to him on May ,1% 0>,,: that sometime in 0>,-% Magdalena C. Eohanan married
Carl Aaron and this marriage was s"bsisting at the time of the death of the testator. Since no right to share in the
inheritance in favor of a divorced wife e2ists in the State of Bevada and since the co"rt below had already fo"nd that
there was no con$"gal property between the testator and Magdalena C. Eohanan% the latter can now have no longer
claim to pay portion of the estate left by the testator.
Lao C7a< vs. Hon. E$l$o L. Galan8
G.R. No. L-19977, .cto!er /:, 1960
Re8ala, %.&
'(C)*& Bg Si" M"an and her three children% who are all of minor age% came to the Philippines on 3an"ary
0>% 0>=1 as temporary visitors% having been allowed to stay in this co"ntry "ntil 3an"ary ,=% 0>=0. nstead
of departing on that date% however% Bg Si" M"an et al. as&ed the E"rea" of mmigration for the cancellation
of their alien certi!cates of registration as well as those of their children on the basis of Mao ChayNs
admission to Philippine citizenship on 4ecember 0,% 0>=1. @n 3an"ary ,1% 0>=0% appellant Commissioner
of mmigration granted the petition as far as Mao Chay and the three children were concerned% b"t denied
the same with respect to Bg Si" M"an on the gro"nd that Kshe is not '"ali!ed to ac'"ire Philippine
citizenship of her h"sband "nder the provision of paragraph 0% Section 0- of Commonwealth Act Bo. ?F;%
as she lac&s the re'"irements provided for "nder paragraph , of the same Act.K He therefore as&ed her to
leave the co"ntry on 3an"ary ,=% 0>=0. (he mmigration Commissioner denied a s"bse'"ent motion for
reconsideration% altho"gh he gave Bg Si" M"an a !ve*day e2tension within which to arrange for her
depart"re. (o stop the threatened deportation of Bg Si" M"an% she and her children !led a petition for
mandam"s and prohibition in the Co"rt of #irst nstance of Manila and sec"red from it a writ of preliminary
in$"nction. After trial% the co"rt granted the petition% and held that the law does not re'"ire that an alien
wife sho"ld have the same '"ali!cations as those re'"ired of applicants for nat"ralization% it being eno"gh
that she is not otherwise dis'"ali!ed. (he Commissioner appealed.
Page 80 of 98
+**,E& Ahether or not alien wife is re'"ired to possess the same '"ali!cations for nat"ralization.
HEL-& Ies. Section 0- of the Revised Bat"ralization Maw +Commonwealth Act Bo. ?F; as amended/
provides% 5*3ect of the naturali(ation on wife and any woman who is now or may here$after be married to
a citi(en of the &hilippines, and who might herself be lawfully naturali(ed, shall be deemed a citi(en of the
&hilippines.6 t is now settled that "nder this provision% an alien woman% who is married to a citizen of the
Philippines ac'"ires the citizenship of her h"sband only if he has all the '"ali!cations prescribed in Section
, and none of the dis'"ali!cations provided in Section ? of the law. Since Bg Si" M"an admittedly does not
possess the '"ali!cations for nat"ralization% her marriage to Mao Chay be deemed as a"tomatically vesting
in her #ilipino citizenship. Anent M"an et al.)s claim that a di8erence in the citizenship of h"sband and wife
is s"bversive of family solidarity% this Co"rt has already said that the d"ty of consorts +spo"ses/ to live
together is irrelevant to the iss"e which concerns only the right of a sovereign state to determine what
aliens can re*main within its territory and "nder what conditions they can stay therein.
G.R. No. L-"0"#" %=ne 1#, 197/
+N RE PE)+)+.N ). -ECL(RE 1+)( NG. ). P.**E** (LL P,(L+'+C()+.N* (N- N.NE .' )HE
-+*P,(L+'+C()+.N* '.R N(),R(L+1()+.N ,N-ER C.MM.N;E(L)H (C) 07/ '.R )HE
P,RP.*E .' C(NCELL+NG HER (L+EN REG+*)R2 ;+)H )HE 4,RE(, .' +MM+GR()+.N. 1+)( NG.
4,RC(, petitioner*appellee% vs.
REP,4L+C .' )HE PH+L+PP+NE*, oppositor*appellant.
(N).N+., J.:
@n @ctober ?% 0>F0% however% before petitionerNs motion co"ld be resolved% this Co"rt rendered
decision in the case of Moy Ia Mim Iao% etc.% et al. vs. Commissioner of mmigration% H.R. Bo. M*,0,G>%
which% e8ect% passed on all the iss"es raised in said motion favorably to petitionerNs position. Accordingly%
and there being s"Lcient n"mber of members of the Co"rt in favor of maintaining the r"ling in the Moy Ia
Mim Iao case% the decision in this case sho"ld be modi!ed.
'(C)*7 @n April ,?% 0>=?% petitioner !led with the C# of Meyte a petition alleging that she is married to
#ilipino citizen and possesses all the '"ali!cations and none the dis'"ali!cations for nat"ralization "nder
Page 8# of 98
Commonwealth Act ?F; and praying that a declaration to s"ch e8ect be made by the Co"rt for the
p"rpose of laying the basis for the cancellation by the E"rea" of mmigration of her alien certi!cate of
registration. @n April 0F% 0>=?% the co"rt set the petition for hearing on Bovember ,1% 0>=? and ordered
noti!ed thereof to be given to the Solicitor Heneral. n the same order it was re'"ired that said notice of
hearing be p"blished in the @Lcial Hazette once a month for three consec"tive months a once a wee& for
three consec"tive wee&s in the Morning (imes% a newspaper edited in the City of @rmoc% where petition
resides% and posted in a p"blic and conspic"o"s place in the @Lce of the Cler& of Co"rt. @n Bovember 0;%
0>=?% the Solicitor Heneral !led an K@pposition and Motion to 4ismissK on gro"nds that7
+0/ (he petition is fatally defective for fail"re to contain or mention the essential allegations
re'"ired "nder Section F of the Revised Bat"ralization Maw% as amended. Even in the Botice of Hearing%
there is fail"re to mention the names of witnesses whom she proposes to introd"ce in s"pport of the
petition% as re'"ired "nder Section > of Commonwealth Act Bo. ?F;% as amended.
+,/ As a separate proceedings to declare the petitioner a citizen being allegedly the wife of a #ilipino
citizen% and to direct the cancellation of her alien Registry% it is well settled in this $"risdiction that there is
no proceeding established by law% or the r"les for the $"dicial declaration of the citizenship of an individ"al
+Palaran vs. Rep"blic: Channie (an vs. Rep"blic: (an I" Chin vs. Rep"blic: 4el"men vs. Rep"blic: in re
Hospicion @biles/% and that citizenship is not the proper s"b$ect for declaratory $"dgment +#eliseta (an vs.
Rep"blic: Santiago vs. Commissioner of mmigration: E@C% et al. vs. Hon. #eli2 R. 4omingo% etc.% et al./.
After the necessary p"blications of the notice of hearing this case was called for trial with the
Honorable Solicitor Heneral opposing the petition as aforesaid.
t appears from the evidence presented that petitioner is a native born Bationalist Chinese Citizen
who was born at Higa'"it S"rigao on March ;1% 0>;;. n 0>?=% she transferred to S"rigao% S"rigao "ntil her
marriage to #lorencio E"rca a native born #ilipino Citizen on May 0?% 0>=0 when she transferred to @rmoc
City to live with her h"sband. Petitioner st"died at S"rigao% S"rigao from !rst grade to fo"rth year where
she grad"ated. (hereafter she too& home economics special co"rse at the Cniversity of San Carlos% Ceb"
City. Petitioner &nows how to read and write the Ceb"ano*Sisayan dialect% and the English lang"age.
She has not left the Philippines since birth "p to the present time. She is a holder of ACR Bo. A*
0?G1- and Bative Eorn Certi!cate of Residence Bo. ?=;;;.
Petitioner has no criminal record and that she has no pending case% civil or criminal or
administrative% and that she has never been convicted of any crime.
She is engaged in farming and in b"siness and had a net income with her h"sband in the s"m of
P0=%1;?.G? for which they paid an ncome (a2 of P0%--=.11 per @.R. C*1-1;-F dated at @rmoc City on April
0?% 0>=?.
She is a person of good moral character and believes in the principles "nderlying the Philippine
Constit"tion% and has cond"cted herself in a proper and irreproachable manner d"ring the entire period of
her residence in the Philippines in her relation with the constit"ted government as well as with the
comm"nity in which she is living.
She is s"pporting a two*year old legitimate child.
She is not opposed to organized government or aLliated with any association or gro"p of persons
who "phold and teach doctrines opposing all organized governments.
She is not defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence% personal assa"lt% or
assassination for the s"ccess and predominance of their ideas.
She is not a polygamist or a believer in the practice of polygamy.
Page 86 of 98
She has mingled socially with the #ilipinos% and has evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace
the c"stoms% traditions and ideals of the #ilipinos. She is a Catholic and was $oined in wedloc& by a Catholic
priest.
Bo evidence was presented by the oppositor and City #iscal Ramon de Seyra% representing the
Solicitor Heneral limited himself to the cross e2amination of the petitioner.
(he co"rt dismissed the opposition% and declared that W(A BH@ ECRCA petitioner% has all the
'"ali!cations and none of the dis'"ali!cations to become a #ilipino Citizen and that she being married to a
#ilipino Citizen% is hereby declared a citizen of the Philippines% after ta&ing the necessary oath of allegiance%
as soon as this decision becomes !nal and e2ec"tory. (he Solicitor Heneral appealed in d"e time.
+**,E*7
. A@B (HE R(C HAS 3CRS4C(@B @SER (HE PR@CEE4BHS #@R (HE 4ECMARA(@B @# PE((@BER AS A
#MPB@ C(WEB EI REAS@B @# HER MARRAHE (@ A #MPB@.
. A@B (HE PE((@BER HAS AMM (HE UCAM#CA(@BS AB4 B@BE @# (HE 4SUCAM#CA(@BS (@
EEC@ME A #MPB@ C(WEB.
R,L+NG7
. n the decision of this Co"rt in this case% the position of the Solicitor Heneral was "pheld the above
$"dgment of the trial co"rt was reversed% the Co"rt holding +0/ that the only means by which the alien wife
#ilipino citizen may have herself declared as having become a #ilipino citizen by reason of her marriage is
thro"gh compliance with the proced"re for nat"ralization contained in the Bat"ralization Maw%
Commonwealth Act ?F;% and +,/ in said proceeding aside from the showing that she is laboring "nder any
of the dis'"ali!cations en"merate Section ?% thereof% she m"st prove that she possesses all '"ali!cations
"nder Section , of the same stat"te. More speci!cally the alien wife of a #ilipino citizen% in order to ac'"ire
the citizenship of her h"sband is re'"ired to !le corresponding petition for nat"ralization in co"rt% allege
prove all the re'"isite re'"irements s"ch as contin"o"s residence for a period of at least ten years%
l"crative income and the li&e. n other words% she was re'"ired to follow proced"re for the $"dicial
nat"ralization of aliens% th"s rendering for na"ght the !rst paragraph of Section 0- of Revised
Bat"ralization Maw. Cnder s"ch doctrine the alien wife of a #ilipino was placed in some cases in a
disadvantageo"s position than an ordinary alien.
(his Co"rt in the Moy Ia Mim Iao case% held thr" Mr. 3"stice Earredo7
Aith all these considerations in mind% Ae are pers"aded that it is in the best interest of all
concerned that Section 0- of the Bat"ralization Maw be given e8ect in the same way as it
was "nderstood and constr"ed when the phrase Nwho may be lawf"lly nat"ralizedN% fo"nd in
the American stat"te from which it was borrowed and copied verbatim% was applied by the
American co"rts and administrative a"thorities. (here is merit% of co"rse% in the view that
Philippine stat"tes sho"ld be constr"ed in the light of Philippine circ"mstances% and with
partic"lar reference to o"r nat"ralization laws% Ae sho"ld realize the disparity in the
circ"mstances between the Cnited States% as the so*called Nmelting potN of peoples from all
over the world% and the Philippines as a developing co"ntry whose Constit"tion is
nationalistic almost in the e2treme. Certainly% the writer of this opinion cannot be the last in
rather passionately insisting that o"r $"rispr"dence sho"ld spea& o"r own concepts and
resort to American a"thorities% to be s"re% entitled to admiration and respect% sho"ld not be
regarded as so"rce of pride and indisp"table a"thority. Still% Ae cannot close o"r eyes to the
"ndeniable fact that the provision of law now "nder scr"tiny has no local origin and
orientation: it is p"rely American% fact"ally ta&en bodily from American law when the
Philippines was "nder the dominating inP"ence of stat"tes of the CS Congress. t is indeed a
sad commentary on the wor& of o"r own legislat"re of the late 0>,1Ns and 0>;1Ns that given
the opport"nity to brea& away from the old American pattern% it too& no step in that
direction. ndeed% even after America made it patently clear in the Act of Congress of
Page 87 of 98
September ,,% 0>,, that alien women marrying Americans cannot be citizens of the CS
witho"t "ndergoing nat"ralization proceedings% o"r legislators still chose to adopt the
previo"s American law of A"g"st 01% 0G-- as embodied later in Section 0>>? of the Revised
Stat"tes of 0GF?% which% it is worth reiterating% was consistently and "niformly "nderstood as
conferring American citizenship to alien women marrying Americans ipso facto % witho"t
having to s"bmit to any nat"ralization proceeding and witho"t having to prove that they
possess the special '"ali!cations of residence% moral character% adherence to American
ideals and American constit"tion% provided they co"ld show they did not s"8er from any of
the dis'"ali!cations en"merated in the American Bat"ralization Maw. Accordingly% ;e no@
7old, all prev$o=s dec$s$ons o6 t7$s Co=rt $nd$cat$n8 ot7er@$se not@$t7stand$n8,
t7at =nder *ect$on 1# o6 Coon@ealt7 (ct 07/, an al$en @oan arr<$n8 a
'$l$p$no, nat$ve-!orn or nat=ral$zed, !ecoes $pso 6acto a '$l$p$na prov$ded s7e $s
not d$sC=al$Aed to !e a c$t$zen o6 P7$l$pp$nes =nder *ect$on 0 o6 t7e sae la@.
L$9e@$se, an al$en @oan arr$ed to an al$en @7o $s s=!seC=entl< nat=ral$zed
7ere 6ollo@s t7e P7$l$pp$ne c$t$zens7$p o6 7er 7=s!and t7e oent ta9es 7$s oat7
as '$l$p$no c$t$zen, prov$ded t7at s7e does not s=Ber 6ro an< o6 t7e
d$sC=al$Acat$ons =nder sa$d *ect$on 0. +?0 SC ,>,% ;-1*;-0./
Aithal% the Co"rt also held that it is not necessary for alien wife of a #ilipino citizen to resort to the
proced"re nat"ralization cases before she can be declared a citizen reason of her marriage. Ae f"rther
added7
(he '"estion that &eeps bo"ncing bac& as a conse'"ence of the foregoing views is% what
s"bstit"te is there for nat"ralization proceedings 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 "pon to prove it everytime she has to perform an act or enter into a
transaction or b"siness or e2ercise right reserved only to #ilipinosO (he ready answer to s"ch
'"estion is that as the laws of o"r co"ntry% both s"bstantive and proced"ral stand today%
there is no s"ch proced"re% b"t s"ch pa"city is no proof that the citizenship "nder disc"ssion
is not vested as of the date marriage or the h"sbandNs ac'"isition of citizenship% as the case
may be% for the tr"th is that the same sit"ation obtains even as to native born #ilipinos.
Everytime the citizenship of a person is material or indispensable in a $"dicial or
administrative case% whatever the corresponding co"rt or administrative a"thority decides
therein as to s"ch citizenship is generally not considered as res ad=udicata % hence it has to
be threshed o"t again and again as the occasion may demand. (his% as we view it% is the
sense in which 3"stice 4izon referred to Kappropriate proceedingK in Brito v. !ommissioner%
supra. ndeed% only the good sense and $"dgment of those s"bse'"ently in'"iring into the
matter may ma&e the e8ort easier or simpler for the persons concerned by relying somehow
on the antecedent oLcial !ndings% even if these are not really binding.
t may not be amiss to s"ggest% however% that in order to have good starting point and so
that the most immediate relevant p"blic records may be &ept in order% the following
observations in @pinion Bo. ;G% series of 0>-G% of then Acting Secretary of 3"stice 3es"s H.
Earrera% may be considered as the most appropriate initial step by the interested parties7
NRegarding the steps that sho"ld be ta&en by an alien woman married to a
#ilipino citizen in order to ac'"ire Philippine citizenship% the proced"re
followed in the E"rea" of mmigration is as follows7 (he alien woman m"st !le
a petition for the cancellation of her alien certi!cate of registration alleging%
among other things% that she is married to a #ilipino citizen and that she is not
dis'"ali!ed from ac'"iring her h"sbandNs citizenship p"rs"ant to section ? of
Commonwealth Act Bo. ?F;% as amended. Cpon the !ling of said petition%
which sho"ld be accompanied or s"pported by the $oint aLdavit of the
petitioner and her #ilipino h"sband to the e8ect that the petitioner does not
belong to any of the gro"ps dis'"ali!ed by the cited section from becoming
nat"ralized #ilipino citizen% the E"rea" of mmigration cond"cts an
investigation and thereafter prom"lgates its order or decision granting or
denying the petition.N
Page 88 of 98
@nce the Commissioner of mmigration cancels the s"b$ectNs registration as an alien% there
will probably be less diLc"lty in establishing her #ilipino citizenship in any other proceeding%
depending nat"rally on the s"bstance and vigor of the opposition.K
As already stated% it is the view of the ma$ority of the Co"rt that insofar as the decision in the case
at bar conPicts with the above r"lings laid down in Moy Ia Mim Iao% it sho"ld be reconsidered and modi!ed.
(r"th to tell% Ae can hardly do otherwise. As may be gathered from the opinion written for the Co"rt by
3"stice Earredo in that case% the Co"rt not only made reference to b"t act"ally s"stained many of the
arg"ments advanced in the motion for reconsideration of herein appellee as well as in the memorand"m
s"bmitted by the amici curiae in this case.
(he foregoing disc"ssion notwithstanding% Ae cannot grant petitioner*appelleeNs prayer for the
aLrmance of the trial co"rtNs $"dgment declaring her a #ilipino citizen. t m"st be noted that the sole and
only p"rpose of the petition is to have petitioner declared a #ilipino citizen. Cnder o"r laws there can be no
$"dicial action or proceeding for the declaration of the citizenship of an individ"al. t is as an incident only
of the ad$"dication of the rights of the parties to a controversy% that the co"rts may pass "pon% and ma&e a
prono"ncement relative to% their stat"s. n Moy Ia Mim Iao% Ae adverted to administrative proced"re
heretofore followed in the E"rea" mmigration regarding the steps to be ta&en by an alien woman married
to a #ilipino for the cancellation of her alien certi!cate of registration% and th"s sec"re recognition of her
stat"s #ilipino citizen. S"ch a proced"re co"ld be availed of Petitioner. 3"dicial reco"rse wo"ld be avoidable
to Petitioner in case of an adverse action by the mmigration Commissioner.
At the same time% it may not be amiss to clarify a matter related to the point involved in this case%
which has given to a certain degree of conf"sion and "nnecessary diLc"lties on the part of all concerned.
Ae deem it wise to deal with it here in order to precl"de "nnecessary litigations% not to spea& of legal
complications that may ens"e as a conse'"ence of the lac& of !nality of $"dicial or administrative
determinations on personNs citizenship in certain cases.
Heretofore "p to Moy Ia Mim Iao% it has been the constant doctrine of this Co"rt% that a !nal and
e2ec"tory decision the '"estion of citizenship% by a co"rt other than in nat"ralization proceedings% or by an
administrative body% generally not considered binding in other cases and for other p"rpose than that
speci!cally involved in the case where s"ch decision is rendered. (h"s for instance% in a case involving the
determination of the citizenship of a party as a prere'"isite to the e2ercise of a license% franchise or
privilege% s"ch as operation of a p"blic "tility% and where the administration agency concerned shall have
fo"nd as an established fact to the applicant is a #ilipino citizen% even if s"ch !nding% may have been
aLrmed by this Co"rt on appeal% the same will be considered as concl"sive on the '"estion of s"ch
citizenship. Hence if s"ch party sho"ld apply for a license to engage in retail trade or for the lease or
p"rchase of any disposable lands of the p"blic domain% the '"estion of his citizenship may litigated again.
Cnderstandably s"ch a res"lt is "nfair to the party concerned. nstead of according !nality and
stability $"dicial or administrative decisions% it engenders conf"sion and m"ltiplicity of s"its.
Certainly if the decision of the administrative agency on the matter of citizenship% as an important
iss"e involved in the case% is aLrmed by this Co"rt% Ae !nd no cogent reason why s"ch decision on the
matter can not be given precl"sive e8ect. Ae have conceded the a"thority of certain administrative
agencies to ascertain the citizenship of the parties involved in the cases therein% as a matter inherent in or
essential to the eLcient e2ercise of their powers. Recognizing the basic premise% that there m"st be an
end to litigations% some a"thorities recognize that administrative r"lings or decisions sho"ld have res
=udicata or precl"sive e8ect. n disc"ssing this point% Professor Allan 4. Sestal of the Cniversity of owa%
holds the view that7 Precl"sive e8ect may or may not be given to an administrative r"ling depending on a
n"mber of factors. f the decision is a fact"al matter and if it has been rendered by an agency with fact*
!nding proced"res which appro2imate those of a co"rt% then precl"sion sho"ld obtain.K +Sestal
Precl"sion<Res 3"dicata Sariables7 Ad$"dicating Eodies% -? Heorgetown Maw 3o"rnal% G-F% GF?./ @bvio"sly% if
the decision of an administrative agency on the '"estion of citizenship% is aLrmed by this Co"rt on the
gro"nd that the same is s"pported by s"bstantial evidence on the whole record% there appears to be no
valid reason why s"ch !nding sho"ld have no concl"sive e8ect in other cases% where the same iss"e is
involved. (he same observation holds tr"e with respect to a decision of a co"rt on the matter of citizenship
as a material matter in iss"e in the case before it% which is aLrmed by this Co"rt. #or the Ke8ective
Page 89 of 98
operation of co"rts in the social and economic scheme re'"ires that their decision have the respect of and
be observed by the parties% the general p"blic and the co"rts themselves. According ins"Lcient weight to
prior decisions enco"rages disrespect and disregard of co"rts and their decisions and invites litigationK
+Clear% Res 3"dicata Ree2amined% -F Iale Maw 3o"rnal% ;?-/.
t m"st be stressed however that in the p"blic interest% in s"ch cases% the Solicitor Heneral or his
a"thorized representative sho"ld be allowed to intervene on behalf of the Rep"blic of the Philippines% and
to ta&e appropriate steps the premises. #or only in that manner can there be ass"rance that the claim to
#ilipino citizenship was thoro"ghly threshed o"t before the corresponding co"rt or administration agency.
Accordingly% in response to the vigoro"s and able plea of amici curiae% Ae declare it to be a so"nd
r"le% that @7ere c$t$zens7$p o6 a part< $n a case $s deAn$tel< resolved !< a co=rt or !< an
ad$n$strat$ve a8enc<, as a ater$al $ss=e $n controvers<, a6ter a 6=ll-!lo@n 7ear$n8, @$t7 t7e
act part$c$pat$on o6 t7e *ol$c$tor General or 7$s a=t7or$t< representat$ve, and t7$s And$n8 on
t7e C$t$zens7$p o6 t7e part< $s aFred !< t7$s Co=rt, t7e dec$s$on on t7e atter s7o@s
const$t=te concl=s$ve proo6 o6 s=c7 person?s c$t$zens7$p, $n anot7er case or proceed$n8. E"t it is
made clear that in instance will a decision on the '"estion of citizenship in s"ch cases be considered
concl"sive or binding in any other case proceeding% "nless obtained in accordance with the proced"re
herein stated.
n res"me% therefore% since @"r opinion in the decision 3an"ary ;1% 0>=F% re'"iring an alien woman
married to #ilipino who desires to be a citizen of this Co"ntry% to s"bmit a $"dicial proceeding in all respects
similar to a nat"ralization case% wherein in addition% she has to prove not only that she not laboring "nder
any of the dis'"ali!cations "nder section b"t also possesses all the '"ali!cations set forth in section , of
the Revised Bat"ralization Maw% conPicts with @"r r"ling Moy Ia Mim Iao% the decision has to that e2tent be
consider modi!ed. Ae cannot% however% aLrm petitionerNs claim #ilipino citizenship in these proceedings.
(hat is a matter which in accordance with @"r s"ggestion in Moy Ia Mim Iao the appropriate governmental
agency% s"ch as the Commissioner on mmigration% shall have to pass "pon.
B SEA AHERE@#% and consistently with the foregoing opinion% the decision is hereby modi!ed: the
reversal of the decision of the trial co"rt and the dismissal of the petition% are however aLrmed% witho"t
pre$"dice to petitionerNs availing of the proced"re indicated above. Bo costs.
Page 9: of 98
G.R. No. 1#9#:7 (pr$l 19, "::6
(N+CE). G. *(L,-., %R., Petitioner% vs.
(MER+C(N EQPRE** +N)ERN()+.N(L, +NC., andRor +(N ). '+*H and -.M+N+C M(*CR+N(*,
Respondents.
C(LLE%., *R., J.:
'(C)*& Aniceto H. Sal"do% 3r. !led a complaint for damages against the American E2press nternational%
nc. +AMEY/ and<or its oLcers an (. #ish% Sice*President and Co"ntry Manager% and 4ominic Mascrinas%
Head of @perations% with the R(C of Maasin City% So"thern Meyte. (he case was raZed to Eranch ,- of the
said co"rt.
Sal"do Kis a #ilipino citizen% of legal age% and a member of the Ho"se of Representatives and a
resident of chon% Macrohon% So"thern Meyte% Philippines.K @n the other hand% defendant +herein
respondent AMEY% nc./ Kis a corporation doing b"siness in the Philippines and engaged in providing credit
and other credit facilities and allied services with oLce address at ?th Poor% ACE E"ilding% Rada Street%
Megaspi Sillage% Ma&ati City.K (he other defendants +herein respondents #ish and Mascrinas/ are oLcers of
respondent AMEY% and may be served with s"mmons and other co"rt processes at their oLce address.
(he complaint alleged the wrongf"l dishonor of petitioner Sal"doNs AMEY credit card and the
s"pplementary card iss"ed to his da"ghter. (he !rst dishonor happened when petitioner Sal"doNs da"ghter
"sed her s"pplementary credit card to pay her p"rchases in the Cnited States some time in April ,111. (he
second dishonor occ"rred when petitioner Sal"do "sed his principal credit card to pay his acco"nt at the
Hotel @&awa in (o&yo% 3apan while he was there with other delegates from the Philippines to attend the
Congressional Recognition in honor of Mr. Hiroshi (ana&a.
(he dishonor of these AMEY credit cards were allegedly "n$"sti!ed as they res"lted from
respondentsN "nilateral act of s"spending petitioner Sal"doNs acco"nt for his fail"re to pay its balance
covering the period of March ,111. Petitioner Sal"do denied having received the corresponding statement
of acco"nt. #"rther% he was allegedly wrongf"lly charged for late payment in 3"ne ,111. S"bse'"ently% his
credit card and its s"pplementary cards were canceled by respondents on 3"ly ,1% ,111.
Petitioner Sal"do claimed that he s"8ered great inconvenience% wo"nded feelings% mental ang"ish%
embarrassment% h"miliation and besmirched political and professional standing as a res"lt of respondentsN
acts which were committed in gross and evident bad faith% and in wanton% rec&less and oppressive manner.
He th"s prayed that respondents be ad$"dged to pay him% $ointly and severally% act"al% moral and
e2emplary damages% and attorneyNs fees.
n their answer% respondents speci!cally denied the allegations in the complaint. #"rther% they
raised the aLrmative defenses of lac& of ca"se of action and improper ven"e. @n the latter% respondents
averred that the complaint sho"ld be dismissed on the gro"nd that ven"e was improperly laid beca"se
none of the parties was a resident of Meyte. (hey alleged that respondents were not residents of So"thern
Meyte. Moreover% notwithstanding the claim in his complaint% petitioner Sal"do was not allegedly a resident
thereof as evidenced by the fact that his comm"nity ta2 certi!cate% which was presented when he
e2ec"ted the complaintNs veri!cation and certi!cation of non*for"m shopping% was iss"ed at Pasay City. (o
b"ttress their contention% respondents pointed o"t that petitioner Sal"doNs complaint was prepared in
Page 91 of 98
Pasay City and signed by a lawyer of the said city. Respondents prayed for the dismissal of the complaint a
'"o.
(hereafter% respondents !led an @pposition to E2*Parte Motion +to Set Case for Pre*(rial/ and Motion
for Preliminary Hearing +on ALrmative 4efense of mproper Sen"e/ to which petitioner Sal"do !led his
Comments and<or @b$ections to the ALrmative 4efense of mproper Sen"e. He asserted that any
allegation ref"ting his residency in So"thern Meyte was baseless and "nfo"nded considering that he was
the congressman of the lone district thereof at the time of the !ling of his complaint. He "rged the co"rt a
'"o to ta&e $"dicial notice of this partic"lar fact. As a member of Congress% he possessed all the
'"ali!cations prescribed by the Constit"tion incl"ding that of being a resident of his district. He was also a
member of the ntegrated Ear of the Philippines*So"thern Meyte Chapter% and has been s"ch ever since his
admission to the Ear. His comm"nity ta2 certi!cate was iss"ed at Pasay City only beca"se he has an oLce
thereat and the oLce messenger obtained the same in the said city. n any event% the comm"nity ta2
certi!cate is not determinative of oneNs residence.
R)CSs R=l$n87
(he co"rt a '"o denied the aLrmative defenses interposed by respondents. t fo"nd the allegations
of the complaint s"Lcient to constit"te a ca"se of action against respondents. t li&ewise denied
respondentsN aLrmative defense that ven"e was improperly laid. t reasoned% th"s7
2 2 2 Q(Rhe fact alone that the plainti8 at the time he !led the complaint was and still is% the
inc"mbent Congressman of the Mone 4istrict of So"thern Meyte with residence at chon% Macrohon%
So"thern Meyte% is eno"gh to dispell any and all do"bts abo"t his act"al residence. As a high*ran&ing
government oLcial of the province% his residence there can be ta&en $"dicial notice of. As s"ch his
personal% act"al and physical habitation or his act"al residence or place of abode can never be in some
other place b"t in chon% Macrohon% So"thern Meyte. t is correctly stated by the plainti8% citing the case of
Core v. Core% 011 Phil. ;,0 that% Kresidence% for p"rposes of !2ing ven"e of an action% is synonymo"s with
domicile. (his is de!ned as the permanent home% the place to which% whenever absent for b"siness or
pleas"re% one intends to ret"rn% and depends on the facts and circ"mstances% in the sense that they
disclose intent. A person can have b"t one domicile at a time. A man can have b"t one domicile for one
and the same p"rpose at any time% b"t he may have n"mero"s places of residence. Sen"e co"ld be at
place of his residence. +Masa v. Mison% ,11 SCRA F0- Q0>>0R/
C( R=l$n8&
Respondents so"ght the reconsideration thereof b"t the co"rt a '"o denied the same. (hey then
!led with the appellate co"rt a petition for certiorari and prohibition alleging grave ab"se of discretion on
the part of the presiding $"dge. Cpon respondentsN posting of a bond% the appellate co"rt iss"ed a (R@
which en$oined the presiding $"dge from cond"cting f"rther proceedings.
(he appellate co"rt rendered the assailed decision granting respondentsN petition for certiorari as it
fo"nd that ven"e was improperly laid. t directed the co"rt a '"o to vacate and set aside its orders and
en$oined the presiding $"dge thereof from f"rther proceeding in the case% e2cept to dismiss the complaint.
t reasoned that the action !led by petitioner Sal"do against respondents is governed by Section ,% R"le ?
of the R"les of Co"rt. (he said r"le on ven"e of personal actions basically provides that personal actions
may be commenced and tried where plainti8 or any of the principal plainti8s resides% or where defendant
or any of the principal defendants resides% at the election of plainti8.
Sen"e was improperly laid in the co"rt a '"o% according to the appellate co"rt% beca"se not one of
the parties was a resident of So"thern Meyte. Speci!cally% it declared that petitioner Sal"do was not a
resident thereof. (he appellate co"rt prono"nced that% for p"rposes of ven"e% the residence of a person is
Page 9" of 98
his personal% act"al or physical habitation% or his act"al residence or place of abode% which may not
necessarily be his legal residence or domicile provided he resides therein with contin"ity and consistency.
(he appellate co"rt '"oted [oh v. CA where the Co"rt disting"ished the terms KresidenceK and
KdomicileK in this wise7
2 2 2 Q(Rhe term domicile is not e2actly synonymo"s in legal contemplation with the term residence%
for it is QanR established principle in ConPict of Maws that domicile refers to the relatively more permanent
abode of a person while residence applies to a temporary stay of a person in a given place. n fact% this
distinction is very well emphasized in those cases where the 4omiciliary (heory m"st necessarily s"pplant
the Bationality (heory in cases involving stateless persons.
K(here is a di8erence between domicile and residence. Residence is "sed to indicate a place of
abode% whether permanent or temporary: domicile denotes a !2ed permanent residence to which when
absent% one has the intention of ret"rning. A man may have a residence in one place and a domicile in
another. Residence is not domicile% b"t domicile is residence co"pled with intention to remain for an
"nlimited time. A man can have b"t one domicile for one and the same p"rpose at any time% b"t he may
have n"mero"s places of residence. His place of residence generally is his place of domicile% b"t is not by
any means% necessarily so since no length of residence witho"t intention of remaining will constit"te
domicile.K
n holding that petitioner Sal"do is not a resident of Maasin City% So"thern Meyte% the appellate
co"rt referred to his comm"nity ta2 certi!cate% as indicated in his complaintNs veri!cation and certi!cation
of non*for"m shopping% which was iss"ed at Pasay City. Similarly% it referred to the same comm"nity ta2
certi!cate% as indicated in his complaint for deportation !led against respondents #ish and Mascrinas.
Cnder R.A. Bo. F0=1% the comm"nity ta2 certi!cate shall be paid in the place of residence of the individ"al%
or in the place where the principal oLce of the $"ridical entity is located. t also pointed o"t that petitioner
Sal"doNs law oLce% which was also representing him in the present case% is in Pasay City. (he foregoing
circ"mstances were considered by the appellate co"rt as $"dicial admissions of petitioner Sal"do which are
concl"sive "pon him and no longer re'"ired proof.
(he appellate co"rt chided the co"rt a '"o for stating that as inc"mbent congressman of the lone
district of So"thern Meyte% $"dicial notice co"ld be ta&en of the fact of petitioner Sal"doNs residence thereat.
Bo evidence had yet been add"ced that petitioner Sal"do was then the congressman of So"thern Meyte
and act"al resident of chon% Macrohon of the said province.
(he appellate co"rt held that% based on his complaint% petitioner Sal"do was act"ally residing in
Pasay City. t fa"lted him for !ling his complaint with the co"rt a '"o when the said ven"e is inconvenient
to the parties to the case. t opined that "nder the r"les% the possible choices of ven"e are Pasay City or
Ma&ati City% or any place in the Bational Capital 3"dicial Region% at the option of petitioner Sal"do.
t stressed that while the choice of ven"e is given to plainti8% said choice is not left to his caprice
and cannot deprive a defendant of the rights conferred "pon him by the R"les of Co"rt. #"rther%
f"ndamental in the law governing ven"e of actions that the sit"s for bringing real and personal civil actions
is !2ed by the r"les to attain the greatest possible convenience to the party litigants by ta&ing into
consideration the ma2im"m accessibility to them * i.e.% to both plainti8 and defendant% not only to one or
the other * of the co"rts of $"stice.
(he appellate co"rt concl"ded that the co"rt a '"o sho"ld have given d"e co"rse to respondentsN
aLrmative defense of improper ven"e in order to avoid any s"spicion that petitioner Sal"doNs motive in
!ling his complaint with the co"rt a '"o was only to ve2 and "nd"ly inconvenience respondents or even to
wield inP"ence in the o"tcome of the case% petitioner Sal"do being a powerf"l and inP"ential !g"re in the
said province. (he latter circ"mstance co"ld be regarded as a Kspecie of for"m shoppingK a&in to that in
nvestors #inance Corp. v. Ebarle where the Co"rt mentioned that the !ling of the civil action before the
co"rt in Pagadian City Kwas a specie of for"m shoppingK considering that plainti8 therein was an inP"ential
person in the locality.
Page 9/ of 98
Petitioner Sal"do so"ght the reconsideration of the said decision b"t the appellate co"rt denied his
motion for reconsideration.
+**,E7 Ahether the CA committed reversible error in holding that ven"e was improperly laid beca"se not
one of the parties% incl"ding petitioner Sal"do% as plainti8 therein% was a resident of So"thern Meyte at the
time of !ling of the complaint.
R,L+NG7 (he petition is meritorio"s.
Petitioner Sal"doNs complaint for damages against respondents before the co"rt a '"o is a personal
action. As s"ch% it is governed by Section ,% R"le ? of the R"les of Co"rts which reads7
SEC. ,. Sen"e of personal actions. * All other actions may be commenced and tried where the
plainti8 or any of the principal plainti8s resides% or where the defendant or any of the principal defendants
resides% or in the case of a non*resident defendant where he may be fo"nd% at the election of the plainti8.
(he choice of ven"e for personal actions cognizable by the R(C is given to plainti8 b"t not to
plainti8Ns caprice beca"se the matter is reg"lated by the R"les of Co"rt. (he r"le on ven"e% li&e other
proced"ral r"les% is designed to ins"re a $"st and orderly administration of $"stice% or the impartial and
evenhanded determination of every action and proceeding. (he option of plainti8 in personal actions
cognizable by the R(C is either the place where defendant resides or may be fo"nd% or the place where
plainti8 resides. f plainti8 opts for the latter% he is limited to that place.
#ollowing this r"le% petitioner Sal"do% as plainti8% had opted to !le his complaint with the co"rt in
Maasin City% So"thern Meyte. He alleged in his complaint that he was a member of the Ho"se of
Representatives and a resident of chon% Macrohon% So"thern Meyte to comply with the residency
re'"irement of the r"le.
However% the appellate co"rt% adopting respondentsN theory% made the !nding that petitioner
Sal"do was not a resident of So"thern Meyte at the time of the !ling of his complaint. t hinged the said
!nding mainly on the fact that petitioner Sal"doNs comm"nity ta2 certi!cate% indicated in his complaintNs
veri!cation and certi!cation of non*for"m shopping% was iss"ed at Pasay City. (hat his law oLce is in Pasay
City was also ta&en by the appellate co"rt as negating petitioner Sal"doNs claim of residence in So"thern
Meyte.
(he appellate co"rt committed reversible error in !nding that petitioner Sal"do was not a resident
of So"thern Meyte at the time of the !ling of his complaint% and conse'"ently holding that ven"e was
improperly laid in the co"rt a '"o. n 4angwa (ransportation Co.% nc. v. Sarmiento% the Co"rt had the
occasion to e2plain at length the meaning of the term KresidesK for p"rposes of ven"e% th"s7
n [oh v. Co"rt of Appeals% we e2plained that the term KresidesK as employed in the r"le on ven"e
on personal actions !led with the C#s means the place of abode% whether permanent or temporary% of the
plainti8 or the defendant% as disting"ished from KdomicileK which denotes a !2ed permanent residence to
which% when absent% one has the intention of ret"rning.
Kt is f"ndamental in the law governing ven"e of actions +R"le ? of the R"les of Co"rt/ that the sit"s
for bringing real and personal civil actions are !2ed by the r"les to attain the greatest convenience
possible to the parties*litigants by ta&ing into consideration the ma2im"m accessibility to them of the
co"rts of $"stice. t is% li&ewise% "ndeniable that t7e ter do$c$le $s not eGactl< s<non<o=s $n le8al
conteplat$on @$t7 t7e ter res$dence, 6or $t $s an esta!l$s7ed pr$nc$ple $n ConI$ct o6 La@s
t7at do$c$le re6ers to t7e relat$vel< ore peranent a!ode o6 a person @7$le res$dence
appl$es to a teporar< sta< o6 a person $n a 8$ven place. +n 6act, t7$s d$st$nct$on $s ver< @ell
ep7as$zed $n t7ose cases @7ere t7e -o$c$l$ar< )7eor< =st necessar$l< s=pplant t7e
Nat$onal$t< )7eor< $n cases $nvolv$n8 stateless persons.
K(his Co"rt held in the case of Cytengs" v. Rep"blic% -1 @.H. ?FG0% @ctober% 0>-?% reversing its
previo"s stand in Marena v. #errer% =0 Phil. ;=% and B"val v. H"ray% -, Phil. =?-% that *
Page 90 of 98
N(here is a di8erence between domicile and residence. Residence is "sed to indicate a place of
abode% whether permanent or temporary: domicile denotes a !2ed permanent residence to which when
absent% one has the intention of ret"rning. A man may have a residence in one place and a domicile in
another. Residence is not domicile% b"t domicile is residence co"pled with the intention to remain for an
"nlimited time. A man can have b"t one domicile for one and the same p"rpose at any time% b"t he may
have n"mero"s places of residence. His place of residence generally is his place of domicile% b"t is not by
any means% necessarily so since no length of residence witho"t intention of remaining will constit"te
domicile.N
KAe note that the law on ven"e in C# +Section ,% of R"le ?% R"les of Co"rt/ in referring to the
parties "tilizes the words Nresides or may be fo"nd%N and not Nis domiciled%N.
(he same constr"ction of the word KresidesK as "sed in Section 0% R"le F;% of the Revised R"les of
Co"rt% was en"nciated in #"le v. Co"rt of Appeals% et al. +H.R. Bo. M*?1-1,/ and #"le v. Hon. Ernani C. PaJo%
et al. +H.R. Bo. M*?,=F1/% decided on Bovember ,>% 0>F=. (h"s% this Co"rt% in the aforecited cases% stated7
K,. E"t% the far*ranging '"estion is this7 Ahat does the term NresidesN meanO 4oes it refer to the
act"al residence or domicile of the decedent at the time of his deathO Ae lay down the doctrinal r"le that
the term NresidesN connotes e2 vi termini Nact"al residenceN as disting"ished from Nlegal residence or
domicile.N (his term Nresides%N li&e the terms NresidingN and NresidenceN is elastic and sho"ld be interpreted in
the light of the ob$ect or p"rposes of the stat"te or r"le in which it is employed. n the application of ven"e
stat"tes and r"les * Section 0% R"le F; of the Revised R"les of Co"rt is of s"ch nat"re * residence rather
than domicile is the signi!cant factor. Even where the stat"te "ses the word NdomicileN still it is constr"ed
as meaning residence and not domicile in the technical sense. Some cases ma&e a distinction between the
terms NresidenceN and NdomicileN b"t as generally "sed in stat"tes !2ing ven"e% the terms are synonymo"s%
and convey the same meaning as the term Ninhabitant.N n other words% NresidesN sho"ld be viewed or
"nderstood in its pop"lar sense% meaning% the personal% act"al or physical habitation of a person% act"al
residence or place of abode. t signi!es physical presence in a place and act"al stay thereat. n this pop"lar
sense% the term means merely residence% that is% personal residence% not legal residence or domicile.
Residence simply re'"ires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place% while domicile re'"ires bodily
presence in that place and also an intention to ma&e it oneNs domicile. Bo partic"lar length of time of
residence is re'"ired tho"gh: however% the residence m"st be more than temporary.K
As a member of the Ho"se of Representatives% petitioner Sal"do was correctly deemed by the co"rt
a '"o as possessing the re'"irements for the said position% incl"ding that he was then a resident of the
district which he was representing% i.e.% So"thern Meyte. Signi!cantly% for p"rposes of election law% the term
KresidenceK is synonymo"s with Kdomicile%K th"s7
2 2 2 Q(Rhe Co"rt held that KdomicileK and KresidenceK are synonymo"s. (he term Kresidence%K as "sed in
the election law% imports not only an intention to reside in a !2ed place b"t also personal presence in that
place% co"pled with cond"ct indicative of s"ch intention. K4omicileK denotes a !2ed permanent residence
to which when absent for b"siness or pleas"re% or for li&e reasons% one intends to ret"rn. 2 2 2
t can be readily gleaned that the de!nition of KresidenceK for p"rposes of election law is more
stringent in that it is e'"ated with the term Kdomicile.K Hence% for the said p"rpose% the term KresidenceK
imports Knot only an intention to reside in a !2ed place b"t also personal presence in that place% co"pled
with cond"ct indicative of s"ch intention.K Ahen parsed% therefore% the term Kres$denceD reC=$res t@o
eleents& N1O $ntent$on to res$de $n t7e part$c=lar placeH and N"O personal or p7<s$cal presence
$n t7at place, co=pled @$t7 cond=ct $nd$cat$ve o6 s=c7 $ntent$on. As the Co"rt el"cidated% Kthe place
where a party act"ally or constr"ctively has a permanent home% where he% no matter where he may be
fo"nd at any given time% event"ally intends to ret"rn and remain% i.e.% his domicile% is that to which the
Constit"tion refers when it spea&s of residence for the p"rposes of election law.K
@n the other hand% 6or p=rposes o6 ven=e, t7e less tec7n$cal deAn$t$on o6 Dres$denceD $s
adopted . (h"s% it is "nderstood to mean as Kthe personal% act"al or physical habitation of a person% act"al
residence or place of abode. t signi!es physical presence in a place and act"al stay thereat. n this pop"lar
sense% the term means merely residence% that is% personal residence% not legal residence or domicile.
Page 9# of 98
Residence simply re'"ires bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place% while domicile re'"ires bodily
presence in that place and also an intention to ma&e it oneNs domicile.K
Since petitioner Sal"do% as congressman or the lone representative of the district of So"thern Meyte%
had his residence +or domicile/ therein as the term is constr"ed in relation to election laws% necessarily% he
is also deemed to have had his residence therein for p"rposes of ven"e for !ling personal actions. P"t in
another manner% So"thern Meyte% as the domicile of petitioner Sal"do% was also his residence% as the term
is "nderstood in its pop"lar sense. (his is beca"se Kres$dence $s not do$c$le, !=t do$c$le $s
res$dence co=pled @$t7 t7e $ntent$on to rea$n 6or an =nl$$ted t$e.K
Reliance by the appellate co"rt on [oh v. Co"rt of Appeals is misplaced. (he facts of the present
case are not similar to the facts therein. n [oh% the complaint was !led with the C# in San Bicolas% locos
Borte by plainti8 who admitted that he was a resident of [amias% UC. Save for the fact that he grew "p in
San Bicolas% locos Borte and that he manifested the intent to ret"rn there after retirement% plainti8 therein
had not established that he was act"ally a resident therein at the time of the !ling of his complaint.
Beither did he establish that he had his domicile therein beca"se altho"gh he manifested the intent to go
bac& there after retirement% the element of personal presence in that place was lac&ing. (o reiterate%
domicile or residence% as the terms are ta&en as synonyms% imports Knot only an intention to reside in a
!2ed place b"t also personal presence in that place% co"pled with cond"ct indicative of s"ch intention.K
n contrast% petitioner Sal"do was the congressman or representative of So"thern Meyte at the time
of !ling of his complaint with the co"rt a '"o. Absent any evidence to the contrary% he is deemed to
possess the '"ali!cations for the said position% incl"ding that he was a resident therein. And following the
de!nition of the term KresidenceK for p"rposes of election law% petitioner Sal"do not only had the intention
to reside in So"thern Meyte% b"t he also had personal presence therein% co"pled with cond"ct indicative of
s"ch intention. (he latter element% or his bodily presence as an inhabitant in So"thern Meyte% was s"Lcient
for petitioner Sal"do to be considered a resident therein for p"rposes of ven"e.
(he following ratiocination of the co"rt a '"o is apt7
Residence in civil law is a material fact% referring to the physical presence of a person in a place. A
person can have two or more residences% s"ch as a co"ntry residence and a city residence. +U"et"lio v.
R"iz% S.C. @8. Haz. 0-=% Commentaries and 3"rispr"dence in Civil Maw% Sol. 0% page ,00% (olentino/.
Residence is ac'"ired by living in a place: on the other hand% domicile can e2ist witho"t act"ally living in
the place. (he important thing for domicile is that% once residence has been established in one place% there
be an intention to stay there permanently% even if residence is also established in some other place.
(h"s% if a person lives with his family habit"ally in U"ezon City% he wo"ld have his domicile in
U"ezon City. f he also has a ho"se for vacation p"rposes in the City of Eag"io% and another ho"se in
connection with his b"siness in the City of Manila% he wo"ld have residence in all three places +(olentino%
Commentaries and 3"rispr"dence on Civil Maw% Sol. 0% Page ,0,% 0>>1 Edition/ so that oneNs legal residence
or domicile can also be his act"al% personal or physical residence or habitation or place of abode if he stays
there with intention to stay there permanently.
n the instant case% since plainti8 has a ho"se in Ma&ati City for the p"rpose of e2ercising his
profession or doing b"siness and also a ho"se in chon% Macrohon% So"thern Meyte% for doing b"siness
and<or for election or political p"rposes where he also lives or stays physically% personally and act"ally
then he can have residences in these two places. Eeca"se it wo"ld then be prepostero"s to ac&nowledge
and recognize plainti8 Aniceto H. Sal"do% 3r. as congressman of So"thern Meyte witho"t also recognizing
him as act"ally% personally and physically residing thereat% when s"ch residence is re'"ired by law.
(he fact then that petitioner Sal"doNs comm"nity ta2 certi!cate was iss"ed at Pasay City is of no
moment beca"se granting arg"endo that he co"ld be considered a resident therein% the same does not
precl"de his having a residence in So"thern Meyte for p"rposes of ven"e. A man can have b"t one domicile
for one and the same p"rpose at any time% b"t he may have n"mero"s places of residence.
Page 96 of 98
Bote7 @n $"dicial notice. (hat petitioner Sal"do was the congressman or representative of the lone district
of So"thern Meyte at the time of the !ling of his complaint was admitted as a fact by the co"rt a '"o. n
this connection% it conse'"ently held that% as s"ch% petitioner Sal"doNs residence in So"thern Meyte% the
district he was the representing% co"ld be ta&en $"dicial notice of. (he co"rt a '"o cannot be fa"lted for
doing so beca"se co"rts are allowed Kto ta&e $"dicial notice of matters which are of p"blic &nowledge% or
are capable of "n'"estionable demonstration% or o"ght to be &nown to $"dges beca"se of their $"dicial
f"nctions.K Co"rts are li&ewise bo"nd to ta&e $"dicial notice% witho"t the introd"ction of evidence% of the
law in force in the Philippines% incl"ding its Constit"tion.
(he concept of Kfacts of common &nowledgeK in the conte2t of $"dicial notice has been e2plained as
those facts that are Kso commonly &nown in the comm"nity as to ma&e it "npro!table to re'"ire proof% and
so certainly &nown to as to ma&e it indisp"table among reasonable men.K Moreover% Ktho"gh "s"ally facts
of Ncommon &nowledgeN will be generally &nown thro"gho"t the co"ntry% it is s"Lcient as a basis for
$"dicial notice that they be &nown in the local comm"nity where the trial co"rt sits.K Certainly% the fact of
petitioner Sal"do being the d"ly elected representative of So"thern Meyte at the time co"ld be properly
ta&en $"dicial notice of by the co"rt% the same being a matter of common &nowledge in the comm"nity
where it sits.
#"rther% petitioner Sal"doNs residence in So"thern Meyte co"ld li&ewise be properly ta&en $"dicial
notice of by the co"rt a '"o. t is bo"nd to &now that% "nder the Constit"tion% one of the '"ali!cations of a
congressman or representative to the Ho"se of Representatives is having a residence in the district in
which he shall be elected.
n !ne% petitioner Sal"doNs act of !ling his complaint with the co"rt a '"o cannot be characterized
as a Kspecie of for"m*shoppingK or capricio"s on his part beca"se% "nder the r"les% as plainti8% he is
precisely given this option.
Bote7 @n the iss"e that the petition for review was not properly veri!ed. RespondentsN claim deserves
scant consideration.
Section ?% R"le F of the R"les of Co"rt reads7
Sec. ?. Seri!cation. * E2cept when otherwise speci!cally re'"ired by law or r"le% pleadings need not
be "nder oath% veri!ed or accompanied by aLdavit.
A pleading is veri!ed by an aLdavit that the aLant has read the pleading and that the allegations
therein are tr"e and correct of his personal &nowledge or based on a"thentic records.
A pleading re'"ired to be veri!ed which contains a veri!cation based on Kinformation and belief%K or
"pon K&nowledge% information and belief%K or lac&s proper veri!cation% shall be treated as an "nsigned
pleading.
Petitioner Sal"doNs veri!cation and certi!cation of non*for"m shopping states that he has Kread the
contents thereof and the same are tr"e and correct of my own personal &nowledge and belief and on the
basis of the records at hand.K (he same clearly constit"tes s"bstantial compliance with the above
re'"irements of the R"les of Co"rt.
AHERE#@RE% premises considered% the petition is HRAB(E4. (he 4ecision and Resol"tion of the CA are
RESERSE4 and SE( AS4E. (he @rders of the R(C of Maasin City% So"thern Meyte% Eranch ,-%are
REBS(A(E4.
M.2 2( L+M 2(. 5*. C.MM+**+.NER .' +MM+GR()+.N
H.R. Bo. M*,0,G>% ? october 0>F0
Page 97 of 98
'acts& @n 0; March 0>=0% Ma" I"en Ie"ng% a Chinese residing at [owloon% Hong&ong% was permitted to
come into the Philippines for a period of one month "ntil 0; April 0>=0 thro"gh a non*immigrant visa. @n
the date of her arrival% Asher I. Cheng !led a bond in the amo"nt of P0%111.11 to "nderta&e% among others%
that said Ma" I"en Ie"ng wo"ld act"ally depart from the Philippines on or before the e2piration of her
a"thorized period of stay in this co"ntry or within the period as in his discretion the Commissioner of
mmigration or his a"thorized representative might properly allow. After repeated e2tensions% Ma" I"en
Ie"ng was allowed to stay in the Philippines "p to 0; #ebr"ary 0>=,.
@n ,- 3an"ary 0>=,% she contracted marriage with Moy Ia Mim Iao alias Edilberto Ag"inaldo Mim an alleged
#ilipino citizen. Eeca"se of the contemplated action of the Commissioner of mmigration to con!scate her
bond and order her arrest and immediate deportation% after the e2piration of her a"thorized stay% she
bro"ght an action for in$"nction with preliminary in$"nction. At the hearing which too& place one and a half
years after her arrival% it was admitted that Ma" I"en Ie"ng co"ld not write either English or (agalog.
E2cept for a few words% she co"ld not spea& either English or (agalog. She co"ld not name any #ilipino
neighbor% with a #ilipino name e2cept one% Rosa. She did not &now the names of her brothers*in*law% or
sisters*in*law. (he Co"rt of #irst nstance of Manila denied the prayer for preliminary in$"nction. Moya Mim
Iao and Ma" I"en Ie"ng appealed.
+ss=e& Ahether Ma" I"en Ie"ng ipso facto became a #ilipino citizen "pon her marriage to a #ilipino citizen.
Held& Cnder Section 0- of Commonwealth Act ?F;% an alien woman marrying a #ilipino% native born or
nat"ralized% becomes ipso facto a #ilipina provided she is not dis'"ali!ed to be a citizen of the Philippines
"nder Section ? of the same law. Mi&ewise% an alien woman married to an alien who is s"bse'"ently
nat"ralized here follows the Philippine citizenship of her h"sband the moment he ta&es his oath as #ilipino
citizen% provided that she does not s"8er from any of the dis'"ali!cations "nder said Section ?. Ahether
the alien woman re'"ires to "ndergo the nat"ralization proceedings% Section 0- is a parallel provision to
Section 0=. (h"s% if the widow of an applicant for nat"ralization as #ilipino% who dies d"ring the
proceedings% is not re'"ired to go thro"gh a nat"ralization proceedings% in order to be considered as a
#ilipino citizen hereof% it sho"ld follow that the wife of a living #ilipino cannot be denied the same privilege.
(his is plain common sense and there is absol"tely no evidence that the Megislat"re intended to
treat them di8erently. As the laws of o"r co"ntry% both s"bstantive and proced"ral% stand today% there is no
s"ch proced"re +a s"bstit"te for nat"ralization 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 "pon
to prove it every time she has to perform an act or enter into a transaction or b"siness or e2ercise a right
reserved only to #ilipinos/% b"t s"ch is no proof that the citizenship is not vested as of the date of marriage
or the h"sbandNs ac'"isition of citizenship% as the case may be% for the tr"th is that the sit"ation obtains
even as to native*born #ilipinos. Every time the citizenship of a person is material or indispensible in a
Page 98 of 98
$"dicial or administrative case% whatever the corresponding co"rt or administrative a"thority decides
therein as to s"ch citizenship is generally not considered as res ad$"dicata% hence it has to be threshed o"t
again and again as the occasion may demand. Ma" I"en Ie"ng% was declared to have become a #ilipino
citizen from and by virt"e of her marriage to Moy Ia Mim Iao al as Edilberto Ag"inaldo Mim% a #ilipino citizen
of ,- 3an"ary 0>=,.